James The Least

You have more faith in the integrity of the bible writers than I do. With all of the image management, pseudo-historicity, mock-authenticity, and off-stage noises going on all the time in the theater of the NT, it is more than possible than the writer was attempting to portray a picture of the Jerusalem Church intended to draw now-obscure analogies to Scripture, and he didn't necessarily need a historical Paul (or a historical Jerusalem church) to inspire him, anymore than he needed a historical Jesus. All that was needed were credulous people who would believe anything a presbyter would tell them.

Here's a few relevant quotes to ponder on drawing historical certainties from supposedly "authentic" Pauline epistles:

"The need to think twice in assessing the [Pauline] epistles is particularly well-ilustrated in Paul's autobiographical passages. These texts first appear thoroughly spontaneous and realistic, springing directly from his own personal experience, prime material for reconstructing history. But comparison with other ancient authors shows that Pauline autobiography is part of a larger literary practice and that the epistles deliberately use material which appears autobiographical for pedagogical purposes." - Thomas L. Brodie, "The Birthing of the New Testament" (2006)

"The account of Paul's confrontation with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14) is a further example of an apparently spontaneous text which turns out to be 'saturated with scriptural echoes, allusions, and concepts' (Ciampa 1998) ... the basic conclusion concerning Galatians is essentially the same as Romans: while engaging a specific audience, Paul is also engaging specific writings. It often appears difficult or even impossible to distinguish what is historical from what is scriptural...the overall impression, from Romans to Jude, is that as a whole the NT epistles involve deliberate reworkings of the older Scriptures. They are not just occasional documents. In a basic, constitutive way, their nature is scriptural -- literary, in the most serious sense." -- ibid.


"Since we have only Paul's autobiographical remarks and not his opponents' accusations, which the consensus assumes provoked them, it is necessary to exercise restraint in asserting too confidently that specific charges actually existed, much less what they may have been. Even the existence of 'opponents' in the usual sense of the word is far from certain...what he says is determined by his rhetorical approach and not his opponents' reproaches. Proper recognition of the rhetorical elements in Paul's autobiographical remarks provides a further challenge to existing approaches, which characteristically reach historical conclusions before the question of literary function has been adequately addressed."

G. Lyons, "Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding" (1985).

These writers aren't saying Paul didn't exist. They are saying that we have excellent reasons to doubt the autobiographical, historical, and supposedly spontaneous content of the Pauline epistles. The epistles, even the supposedly "authentic" ones, are deeply engaged in deceptively clever rhetorical games designed to trick the reader into thinking they are something they are not. And, as with the historic Jesus, the distance from theological deception to outright myth is not nearly as far as orthodoxy pretends it to be.

James The Least

No, that part's dicey as well. Historically there could have been such a figure, but, as you have noted, there would be no reason for Jews to deify such a figure, much less Romans. And there's no evidence that Jews did deify such a figure. So either way you look at it, the picture of "the historical Jesus" is that of a dog chasing it's own tail.

Sheshbazzar

Seems you are looking in the mirror.
Yep, and he will provide for all of your needs. You won't want for a dime.

I very seriously doubt that he did.
But as the TEXTS do not ever say these things, it is obvious where it is you are pulling these particular ass-insertions out of.
Pulled from the same source as the previous two.

And you have these original TEXTS where it was allegedly in? Obviously from the same source.

Your own weird hobby-horse that you are riding to nowhere.
One that few others would care to mount.

You can debate it until hell freezes over. But you don't get to put into the TEXTS any words or situations or shit that you make up, that are not already explicitly written there.

Says the TEXTS. The final authority on their content.


Says you. But not at all persuasively.
Excuse moi? NO majority of reputable scholars follow your version of Jebus as a 'tax revolutionary' hobby-horse theory.

But if you insist, ...out of all the thousands of Biblical scholars whose writings are on record and accessible,.. can you list say even 20, who have made being a 'tax revolutionary' their primary claim for Jebus's popularity?
Ought to be a snap for you, IF this is the version that "the majority of scholars do follow".

outhouse

Sorry I dont see that at all.

we see a clear evolution of said deity based on oral tradition resulting from a mortal man.

We see the hellenization of a jewish teacher and jewish roman authors trying to write the man is as a deity .

We see historically correct figures and places and events for the time period.


we do not see 100% mythology, we see a evolution of mythology exactly as you would had a real teacher/healer been jacked up on a roman cross

outhouse

Atleast your fun to denate LOL >< and keep in good spirit. babies suck in other forums lol


my hybrid tax zealot has the historicity though, through cultural anthropology all jews hated the over taxation from roman oppession.

he was said to have been put to death for perverting the nation, that is preaching to tax collectors to quit raping the people, he even got ole Zacc to give back much of his takings. ANDran around with atax collector as a buddy.

And tax evasion according to GLuke, as well as claiming to be king which he states is not of this world.

ALL right after being questioned about tax evasion a few days before his temple/bank incident where he calls them thieves

Sheshbazzar

Your chosen spin on the texts, but they never explicitly state or even suggest that taxation was his prime motivation.

His number one theme, from beginning to the ending was The Coming of The Kingdom of Gawd, and everyones need to REPENT! to be delivered from that wrath to come, not tax revolt.

This is what the majority of Biblical scholars do agree upon, and concede was his primary message to the entire world.
It still is, and for as long as this world endures, will be, The Message.

James The Least

I disagree. What we see clear evolution of is people reading what they want to into the Greek OT, then the Messiah-As-Universal-Salvific-Figure emerging among Alexandrians, Romans, and Ephesians (not Galileans) ... perhaps ex-Judean converts ... Christos-Messiah initially heavenly and mystical, like Enoch, in phase 2 he then became docetic, and then (according to one sect) "historical."

This may appear to be 100% mythology to our modern eyes, but not to ancients. They convinced themselves it was all real because it was a secret code in the Scriptures they had decoded.

aa5874

Your statement is erroneous. We have NO Jewish Roman writer deifying a man called Jesus. We have Apologetic sources, supposedly Christians, who argued Jesus was God Incarnate but Non-APOLOGETIC did NOT Deify Jesus.

They HUMANIZED the character instead. Celsus in "Against Celsus" attempted to humanize Jesus but he was called a LIAR by Origen who claimed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Again, your claim is erroneous. You have very little knowledge of how false prophets were treated in antiquity by the Romans--there would be NO trial--Jesus and his follwers would be Massacred.

Based on Josephus if Jesus was deemed to be a false teacher or prophet he and his followers would have been attacked by Roman soldies and killed WITHOUT a trial. A magician called Theudas got his HEAD CUT-OFF and many of his followers killed in his attempt to perform miracles at the river Jordan.

And also Four hundred followers of the Egyptian prophet were killed but the prophet escaped but was NEVER seen again.

See Antiquities of the Jews 20.5The Jesus story is non-historical. If Jesus was deemed a False prophet it is most likely that he would have been KILLED without a trial like Theudas or the Egyptian False prophet.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.8 The trial and crucifixion of Jesus is a BIG Joke--Total Fiction--Not even one of his supposed followers were arrested with him.

Solo

Earl, this is a second time in the last two weeks you have manipulated the text of my post to make it say something else that it did. Here you have switched my comment to 1 Cr 2:2 for a comment to 2 Cr 5:16. The comments are from post #49 and read as follows:

So, obviously I am not going to respond to your artless collage except by pointing out your mischief.
I was quoting Paul's text and referenced it. Is the text you are using as a counter-argument a quotation from somewhere, and if so, would you be so good and point us to it ?

Because, if there isn't and you just made it up hoping it proves Paul made up the crucifixion too, then you are in worse shape mentally than I would have suspected.

First off again, you have quoted me selectively without referencing the text, so I have restored the full paragraph just to make it work for both of us.

Second, like a number of times before you are talking past my point. I would be much obliged to you if you pointed out to me a single known instance from antiquity where anyone was persecuted "by the establishment" (whatever that means in the Greco-Roman world) for simply prefering one variation of a myth which everyone (according to you) knew did not happen on earth.

Really ? Tell me about it. Again you are making an assertion on which you will not be able to deliver. What does the Latin word 'superstitio' mean to you ? How, if you are correct in your extravagant generalizations, can something like 'old women's tales (mythoi)' (1 Ti 4:7) even occur as a cognitive structure in antiquity ?

Obviously, the ancients were much more discerning, and their myths were not freely intermingling with their sense of reality, except of course in situations which seemed inexplicable to them, in times of natural disasters, during illnesses and while experiencing stress-induced psychic phenomena.

If Paul said that the judaizers were trying to hide the truth about the cross to avoid persecution, and he expected to be credible among his followers, then the reference had to be demonstrable. If the Jerusalem missions lied or were evasive about their apostle being a publicly humiliated and executed criminal then Paul's rhetoric would be effective. If it was some mythoid talk, who would care ? How would that affect materially people's attitudes ? Paul's audience - Ehrman scored a big point on you in that - were not philosophers and Paul did not have any philosophical training. These were street-level teachings from a guy who most likely was self-taught. The narrative that Paul brought had to have some ground-level relevance for the people to follow Paul.

There is also another important thing about assessing the historicity of a violent death of the Nazarene martyr. If it was a myth, and the Petrines knew it was a myth why do we have two distinctly different attitudes to the crucifixion in the texts: Paul does not accuse the powers who crucified Jesus of a lawless act. Quite opposite, they fulfil the law. They just did not have the wisdom (that Paul believed he had) to understand what they were doing. They were players in God's final act for his creation. God himself sacrificed his son. Well, that is very different from saying, "the Jews killed the Lord and the prophets". Or even as Peter sys in Acts 2:23 "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified by the hands of lawless men."

How would this dual view arise if only one party's myth had a cross in it ?

Show us the money, Earl ! Just show us where during the time of Paul or before people would be persecuted simply because of a variant reading of a myth, nota bene one which taught, as Paul did, to be obedient to one's earthly masters.


What difference would it make to make distinctions between the hero's pre-crucifixion existence and his post-crucifixion existence, if the death of Jesus was entirely mythical ? It does not make any sense. It is like saying, I will hear nothing of Prometheus before Hercules slays the eagle and frees him.

I am tired; I am going to bed. Hope your liver feels better. Or was it kidneys ?

Best,
Jiri

outhouse

I dont think it was his "prime" motivation. Its something all the jews lived being on the brink of starvation while overworked with genocide looming overhead. thats your coming kingdom of god. The end was always near with romans over your head. they new they were on the brink of war daily.

His message? how much of his message really made it through the redactions?? a handful of parables and thats it that were let through the roman seal.