gurugeorge

Yeah, some people found it convincing because the evidence was there: Caligula had been struck down just as he was on the point of setting up the "abomination of desolation". Pace outhouse, there's no evidence of any substantial Christian movement at that time, but in the Paul letters we have a picture of some kind of small community of believers in Jerusalem. Given the orthodox datings (Paul being supposedly around 30-50CE), and given the sense of a "victory won" (a possible connotation of "evangelion", deriving from runners sent to give news of military victories in ancient greece, and crowned with laurels) in some of the Paul writings, and given the business about it being a "secret only now revealed" and given that Josephus tells us (somewhere, can't remember the reference) that Caligula's death was a cause of celebration for the Jews at that time, I think my reconstruction has some plausibility.

My main concern is to get across how easily the idea that a Messiah figure had already been and done his work could be a mutation of the extant Messiah concept - just a temporal shift, from "waiting for" to "already been and done his stuff". It's basically a revision of the original concept, with revalued values (not victor, humble, etc.). But that placing in obscurity in the recent-ish past is what gave hostages to fortune for storytellers "filling in" pseudo-historical detail.

Again, one of the central points in GMark is the "coming in obscurity", and that tallies very well with some of Paul.

Also, if it's the case (as I've seen it mooted) that the Apocalypse is based on an earlier Jewish apocalypse, that would imply the possibility that the references in that apocalypse pertained to the Caligula events. If that is so, then why would Christians be interested in the document? There's something very fishy about the Apocalypse, insofar as, IIRC there is some evidence to show that it was one of the earliest documents that Christians revered, which would be even more strange if it were true and the orthodox understanding of the cult's history were also true (i.e. if the movement were based on a preacher who actually lived and preached, yet this strange document was more revered than the words of the founder).

Clivedurdle

If there were a historical Jesus, what effect did he have on starting xianity?

Grog

Yes, I do entertain doubts that any of the letters attributed to Paul originated with a first century "Christian" missionary. Added to your list of facts regarding these works, I have never been able to imagine that these far flung writings could have been saved and collected However, I don't want to commit the fallacy of argument from ignorance. The collection exists.

Did Marcion sail from port to port visiting congregations and asking for copies of Paul's letters which had been faithfully preserved and copied over the years? Why would they be preserved in the first place? In some cases, Paul admonishes congregations for falling away from his teaching...why would those congregations save Paul's letters? If it were customary for Christian missionaries to write letters, why don't we find letters from other missionaries preserved? Where are the letter from Apollos?

Or...

Did Paul upon creating his letters make a copy to keep for his files? How could this itinerant preacher afford such an endeavor?

There are problems with any theory of Christian origins. There are problems all around due to the nature of the source material. We do the best we can to carve out the most plausible fit to the data and acknowledge the weaknesses. This is a weakness I acknowledge. However, I continue to argue from this standpoint due to the widespread acceptance of Paul's writings as being first century and the earliest clear examples of Christian thought. This body of material is the linchpin connecting any later work to an actual Jesus and it is the weakest point in the HJ case (though it is a strong race for the title).

I acknowledge the case you make. I haven't been able to fit it in actually with how I read Paul, though.

Grog

I think what you mean here is that you will take your own interpretation of what gurugeorge wrote over outhouse's interpretation of what gurugeorge wrote.

Duvduv

Grog, for those who believe the myths about Marcion and Paul these questions are uncomfortable!
The fact is there is no evidence that the epistles existed in any form other than as a set all together. And of course there is no evidence they were even actually written to the recipient communities in the first or any other century. Nor is there evidence that any Christians existed in those places.
They were merely a set put together for the 4th century canon.
And those who believe that Justin wrote in Rome at the time Marcion supposedly lived there cannot explain why Justin never mentions Pauline texts or anyother writings in the hands of Marcion.

aa5874

You are constantly contradicting yourself. You showed no indication of doubt in your previous post when you are actually aware that the Pauline Corpus has been deduced to have been manipulated and a product of multiple authors and that NO Pauline writings have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

You are actively engaged in the fallacious argument from ignorance. Examine your own fallacy.

Please, you very well know that no-one here is arguing that the Pauline Corpus does not exist but that the presumption that it is early or represent early Christianity is hopelessly flawed and without a shred of corroboration.

It is already known that even Acts of the Apostles mentions many activities of the supposed Saul/Paul "all over" the Roman Empire and did NOT mention a single Pauline letter up to at least 59-62 CE.

Again, your blatant contradiction continues. You promote the weakest argument while openly admit they are weak.

The lynchpin is that the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed in the 1st century and that the Pauline writer does not represent the early Jesus cult. The strongest argument that immediately destroys HJ is that the Entire Canon is a product of the 2nd century or later which is completely compatible with the recovered and dated NT manuscripts.

Your admitted weak fallacious arguments only help to prolong the absurdity of the quest for an HJ.

Again, you contradict yourself. You have already admitted that you yourself have problems with dating the Pauline writings early.

The abundance of evidence suggest the Pauline Corpus were composed no earlier than the late 2nd century and that the Pauline character was unknown as a member of the Jesus cult by so-called Christian writers.

Even in the Pauline Corpus it is claimed over 500 witnesses had the same hallucinations/visions/ revelations of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

In the very Pauline Corpus it is claimed Paul was a Persecutor of the Jesus cult.

There is no physical evidence for a Jesus cult until the 2nd century.

The Pauline writers could NOT have started the cult they persecuted.

outhouse

By his actions at Passover, he was viewed as a martyr that generated legends of these actions and laid the foundations of mythology and theology that was found important, and grew in another culture not his own. Hellenist expanded on this theology finding the core of Judaism and one deity appealing.

aa5874

Your fabricated story is hopeless and without a shred of evidence from antiquity.

The authors of the Jesus stories SPECIFICALLY presented a fictitious character who could NOT have existed.

There is no evidence from antiquity whatsoever that Jesus a Messianic ruler existed in Nazareth in the 1st century and that he was worshiped as a God by Jews or people of the Roman Empire before c 110 CE.

Grog

You might notice I said, "In fact, if we accept that Paul is writing at a stage..."

aa5874

You might have forgotten what you said here.

You seem unable to accept the present available evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus were LAST.

Do you NOT hear what it is claimed that Paul said?

Paul claimed he persecuted the Churches in Christ and that he was the LAST after over 500 persons to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Paul claimed there were already scriptures which stated Jesus died for our sins, was buried and was resurrected on the third day.

It is a presumptive fallacy and hopelessly flawed that the Pauline Corpus represents the early Jesus cult.

The Pauline Corpus represents the Late fraudulent "history" of the Church----No one was ever seen of the resurrected Jesus.

No one was told Jesus was resurrected according to gMark up to at least c 110 CE and this is compatible with non-apologetics like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.