Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

So you're alleging that Paul founded Christianity. I wonder what the heck were the pillars then...?

Originally Posted by spin

You tell me. Paul's notably unhelpful.

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

He makes it pretty clear that they were there first, and by implication, that they received their knowledge of the gospel through human contact.

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't think that is true. Much of the NT scholarship (theologically oriented) at the break of the 20th century was quite resigned to the finding that most of Jesus, if not all of him, was mythical. Bultmann had an antidote to abandonment of Christianity with finding it was just another myth: look at Jesus existentially.

The idea that someone who died some two thousand year ago for your or my flawed nature seems preposterous to a modern mind. But it isn't once you admit that our nature is flawed, that we are corruptible. All of us. Then look at Paul again and try to clean him of the pile of pious drivel heaped on him later. What do you get ? A self-admitted fool who held that the world and life were a brutal joke unless one finds a God that had love. Paul's God did not send his Son to the world to be killed. He sent him "for sin", to deal with our flawed nature. God sent his Son in the likeness of a foolish blasphemer who thought he could forgive sins and create God's kingdom on earth (actually in Israel, but the cosmopolitan Paul took a more general view). And the powers of this earth killed him for it. They killed him but could not kill the idea of universal brotherhood that God told Paul the fool represented. They could not kill the spirit. This original Christ of Paul can withstand any historical revision.

Jiri

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

He makes it pretty clear that they were there first, and by implication, that they received their knowledge of the gospel through human contact.

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

In other words, your theory is built upon the faithful assumption that this religion, Christianity, had to have a founder, who, in your opinion, was some messianist who thought he "missed the messiah's coming", but there's no textual support for him, no archaeological evidence for him, and no outside corroborating evidence from secular historians.

Odd, huh?

Originally Posted by Gregg

Once again someone demonstrates they don't understand the mythicist case.

The mythicist case does not propose any single founder for Christianity. It proposes that it emerged in many places from various religious and philosophical trends of the day, including mystical Judaism, neo-Platonism, and a revival of interest in the ancient mysteries.

Paul never states he gives special status to the Jerusalem apostles because they knew Jesus personally, and he has no qualms whatsoever about smacking them down when he deems it necessary. In Galatians he accuses James of lying and misrepresenting the gospel by denying it is for gentiles as well as Jews.

Paul could have accorded the Jerusalem group special status for a couple of reasons:

1. Despite his differences with them, he agreed with them on many other points of doctrine, and they received their revelation before he did.

2. They were based in Jerusalem, the holiest city of the Jews. Having a Christian group in Jerusalem would certainly seem desirable, and being in such a location would surely confer an extra degree of authority on Christian leaders there.

Originally Posted by SLD

Well not to derail us further but . . .

Spin, what do you (and other MJ'ers) think of the author of Luke-Acts? Here is an example of a follower of Paul, whether Luke himself or a later author, who undoubtedly believes in a historical christ figure.

Luke I realize is a late gospel - possibly even after John. But is it not odd that you've got a Pauline type Christian writing in the late first century who believes in a historical human founder, Jesus. I would think that if Paul did not accept a historical version of Jesus that his followers would not suddenly abandon that tradition.

Admittedly though it's a difficult problem. The most obvious being that between the time Paul wrote and the Gospels were written terrible things had happened. The Neronian persecution followed by a very apocalyptic war - a war which many felt was the event of the return of the messiah and later people thought heralded the return of the messiah.

What happened in those years obviously had a profound effect on the theological outlook of early Christians.

SLD

Originally Posted by Gregg

Once again someone demonstrates they don't understand the mythicist case.