ApostateAbe

It does not have so much to do with the historical Jesus, but the claims and implications relating to the historical Jesus are much larger than the character of Jesus alone. For example, if you are going to claim that the Pauline epistles were actually written in the second century, in order to explain evidence that may imply a historical Jesus, then I think it pays to have that be a part of a consistent detailed model of early Christianity, or else it seems like just an unlikely position disconnected from reality, accepted for the sake of skepticism alone.
OK, before I study that article, I need to know if you or anyone else takes the ideas contained in it very seriously (it was written in 1912, not that it is irrelevant for sure, but it may be outdated and pushed to the side).

Toto

Reality? What does this have to do with reality?

There are some who see the Pauline epistles as written in the 2nd century, others who think they were interpolated with anti-Marcionite catch phrases in the 2nd century. Both of these positions can be justified on textual evidence.

You seem to be pushing the burden of proof onto anyone who claims that at least some of the Pauline epistles are not genuine. Do you reall think that these church documents are entitled to such respect? I would consider this position to be naive and "disconnected from reality," given the massive amout of forgery and rewriting from this period. This doesn't mean that any merely inconvenient phrase can be waived away, but it does mean that charges of interpolation cannot be dismissed out of hand, and it also means that any position based on these documents needs to be qualified and tentative.

The article is fairly short, and it outlines different theories for reconciling Acts and the Pauline epistles. You don't have to accept its conclusions to get something out of it. Certainly the editors of the Journal of Higher Criticism thought it was worth translating and republishing.

ApostateAbe

The way I see it, there is no burden of proof. It is all about accepting the most probable explanations. If you make a claim that contradicts what seems to be the best and most consistent models of early Christianity, then you will need your own model of early Christianity to replace them. Otherwise, you seem to be just pulling the claim out of the air with no concern for anything related to the claim, merely for the sake of skepticism. It is kind of like pushing the possible age of the reptile-bird transition backward 100 million years, just because the radiometric evidence alone allows it and you need to push it back to satisfy your own pet theory, but you have no regard for screwing up the entire evolutionary model. You certainly can, but it is best to rebuild the evolutionary model. Preferably with evidence.
OK, I just need to be sure that it is relevant.

Toto

I do not know of a model of early Christianity that is consistent or based on evidence. It is a point of some contention whereever you look. There is no agreement on who Jesus was, or how the early church grew. What you call "models" all seem to be based on a naive reading of the gospels and Acts.

aa5874

But, you must be able to demonstrate or prove that your explanations are most probable.

On what basis can people just accept what you say is most probable?

Are you the one who unilaterally determines the best and most consistent models of Christianity?

There is VERY little known credible source for the history of Jesus believers. The Canon of the Church is filled with bogus information. The Church have destroyed or manipulated their own history and have virtually left what appears to be " a pile of garbage" to sift through.

And in addition, the ambiguous use of the name Christian in antiquity makes it even more difficult to trace the history of Jesus believers or to reconstruct models of those who believed in Jesus of Nazareth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.