Zwaarddijk

Aren't you getting a bit inconsistent here: isn't it the Pauline letters that are famed among mythicists for *not* being historicising, and for entirely never talking of a flesh-and-blood Jesus?

maryhelena

That is a general perception of what "mythtics" theory is:

aa5874

I am not Doherty.

You seem not to understand that many characters which are claimed to have Flesh and Blood are Mythological.

In Roman/Greek Mythology Romulus born of a woman was the Myth founder of Rome and ascended to heaven.

In Jewish Mythology, ADAM, the first mythological man was made in the image of God with human Flesh and blood WITHOUT a human father.

The second Adam, called Jesus Christ, was MADE a Spirit and was God Incarnate like Myth Adan in Genesis.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV The Jesus character was pure Myth just like Romulus and Adam.

Now, you seem not to understand what I meant when I wrote that the Pauline letters were composed to "historicise" the Resurrection.

Well, first of all the Resurrection of Jesus was NOT an historical event--Paul must have lied or propagated false information when he claimed he over 500 persons saw the Resurrected Jesus.

In fact, in the Pauline writings it is admitted that the Pauline writer would be a false witness if there was no resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV 1. The Pauline writings are a Pack of lies if Jesus did NOT Resurrect.

2. The Pauline writings are a Pack of Lies when it was claimed Jesus Resurrected.

Essentially, the Pauline letters must be a Pack of Lies when Paul attempted to Historicise the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV It is clear to me that there were No Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem before the death of Nero and that Pauline letters are either a PACK of Lies or a Pack of Mythology.

EarlDoherty

Good grief, Shesh. I talk about the religious convictions of Paul and others like him, in believing that they are in receipt of communications from a heavenly Christ, as THEIR religious convictions. I am not talking about my own!!! You sure haven’t read much of me or about me not to know that I am as much an atheist as I presume you are.

And you have done nothing to answer my arguments relating to the Last Supper scene in Luke vis-à-vis Paul. If you choose to ignore longstanding scholarship in regard to Luke, there’s not much I can do, I guess. But your whole case then, is on very shaky ground. And I don’t know why you say “you lost me.” The manuscript situation with Luke and an almost universal conclusion by mainstream scholarship that the bulk of his 22:17-20 is a later addition is pretty straightforward. Why do you find it difficult to understand?

I am in complete agreement with that last part. Mark was the first to tie a crucified God/Messiah on earth with the imagined Q founder/preacher, and he did it toward the very end of the century. But Matthew and Luke coming not long afterward present us with their use of another common source in the Q document which almost certainly existed prior to Mark, since he reflects the same general traditions even if he did not possess the document himself. The content of Q shows us that certain stories relating to the ministry and apocalyptic prophecy DID exist and were known to people in the 1st century, though it may be difficult to pin down the specific time in that century.

Like I said before, accepting Q gives us a window onto the pre-Gospel phase of some aspects (relating to the sect’s teachings and activities) of what became a composite Christianity embodied in the Synoptics beginning at the end of the first century. Since Q says nothing about a death and rising for its founder, let alone gives any soteriological significance to him, we see Q as reflecting a pre-Markan phase. Since a parallel situation on the other side of the coin exists in the epistles, why not do the same for Paul and the other epistle writers? IOW, they reflect a non-earthly, non-preaching, heavenly Son who does have soteriological significance, so it makes sense that they also reflect a pre-Markan phase and a separate one from Q. Mark brought them together. THOSE are the sources of your Markan “manuscript”. To place the epistles post-Mark as though building on him when they reflect nothing of the earthly Q dimension present in Mark, and even exclude it, makes no sense.
Talk about “vague and undelineated”! What are you basing this on? Why go this route when you have two types of pre-Markan literature staring you in the face easily explaining the sources of the Markan composite picture?

But I guess here is the basic source of your problem, Shesh:

I’m afraid this is exactly what earliest cultic Christianity, as in Paul, taught. It's as plain as the nose on the epistolary face. That teaching, of course, changed when the earthly Jesus was subsequently invented. (And you are confusing the cultic heavenly Christ of Paul with Q. Q did not place its founder figure in heaven. They are two separate movements until Mark brought them together.)

So people never believed in gods or demi-gods who resided in heaven and were never on earth in human form? Are you completely ignorant of ancient theology? Did Philo’s Logos incarnate to earth? Did Jewish personified Wisdom? Did the Jews acknowledge their faith in God was a fantasy since he only lived in heaven? When philosophers like Plutarch and Julian locate Osiris and Attis in a heavenly setting, descending no further than the orbit of the moon, or when the Gnostic redeemer figures also inhabit an entirely mythical setting in the heavens, or when Jewish sectarian writers present their pictures of entirely heavenly figures like the Similitudes’ Messiah or the Odes’ Beloved, are they too “Nuts!”? (Well, of course they were, but they did believe these things, even if we don’t.)

You are also completely ignorant of my entire case as presented in my books and website about a heavenly Christ who had not yet been to earth, and how that picture is presented in spades in the whole body of NT epistles, and how it fits a great deal of the religious and philosophical expression of the age. But then, if you don’t know the first thing about Luke’s Last Supper scene, then I guess that sort of ignorance is not surprising.

You need to take a step back, and do some self-education. A few others here need to, too.

Earl Doherty

jdboy

Hi Earl,

Are you Truthsurge at youtube? When i googled your name the picture looks to be a picture of Truthsurge. But Truthsurge seems to have a different take than yours.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthSurge

Sheshbazzar

I have heard you 'case' sufficiently for years Earl. But by what I can read within the NT texts, your 'case' simply does not hold water.

WHERE Earl, did your 'celestial Lord 'Jesus'; "take bread, give thanks, and break that bread" ?

On that 'same night in which he was betrayed'? Was it 'night' in heaven ?

WHO was 'Jesus' talking to when he did these physical actions -in heaven- 'that (past tense) night' ?

WHO was -present- with 'Jesus' -'that night' -in heaven ?

WHO was it that "betrayed" him -in heaven- "that (past tense) night" ?

When he said; "said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

WHOM -in heaven- was he talking to ('that night') ?

WHOM was it that was with him -in heaven-, that he was expecting to eat the bread that he broke? and drink from his cup? ...'that night'?

HOW did 'Jesus' get crucified, die, get buried, and rise from the dead the third day (1 Cor 15:4) -in heaven ???

WHO was present -in heaven- to do the crucifying? or to bury Jesus -in heaven?

Does 'heaven' even have dirt or rocks to dig graves for dead gods in?

You gotta lot of explaining to do.


I do not buy your 'celestial' theory Earl.

It is more than just 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 that indicates that the writer(s) called 'Paul', knew the gospel of a man called 'Jesus',
a flesh and blood descendant of King David, who lived, ate, and drank with his human disciples, taught them the Eucharistic ceremony,
was crucified, died, was buried, and resurrected from the dead ON EARTH.

The writers called 'Paul' knew the written gospel, and incorporated 'earthly' human information about 'Jesus' from those written gospels into the composition of the fraudulent 'Pauline epistles'.

'Paul' of the 'Christian epistles' is a fake and a liar.



.

Zwaarddijk

You seem to be in complete want of the ability to understand what others are saying. Good luck with that. Learn some reading comprehension and stop this incessant driveling ranting of yours. It's sad, really - you so often misread others' points!

Certainly any number of characters claimed to have flesh and blood have no real historical basis. However, this is quite a distinct topic from whether the Pauline epistles were written to prop up a fake historic Jesus or not. Establishing the latter claim requires more than just showing that he's mythical.

aa5874

Your response to Sheshbazzar is most amusing. You yourself have rejected "longstanding scholarship" with regard to Paul and Jesus. You yourself have ignored the "almost universal conclusion of mainstream scholarship"

You seem to have lost us.

Your assertions are mere presumptions or highly speculative. There is no real evidence from antiquity that "Q" predated gMark.

If gMatthew and gLuke were composed AFTER gMark then the common material between gMatthew and gLuke called "Q" is the product of LATE writings.

The fact that NO "Q" document has been found and has not been acknowledged by even Apologetic writers then "Q" cannot be presumed to be earlier than gMark.

In other words, the criteria to argue for early "Q" cannot be found.

It is most amazing that you fail to understand that it is the COMMON material in the short gMark, long gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke that most likely PREDATED the common material in the Later gMatthew and gLuke.

It is simply not logical that Later Common material predated Earlier Common material.
No, No, No!! It is not the common material between the LATE gMatthew and gLuke that give a window of the early Jesus cult but the common material of the EARLIEST gMark with gMathew and gLuke.

Again, your response to Sheshbazzar is very strange. You must have forgotten that even Scholars who claim to be familiar with your books do not agree with you that Jesus was not known to be on earth and was crucified in the "heavens".

Perhaps, it is you who need to take a step back. You have lost us.

This thread is not really about your books, it is about the OP.

There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to support a Jesus cult of Christians of Jews in Jerusalem at any time up to at least the 3rd century.

We have no known Apologetic Jewish writers and the Common material in the Earliest gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are not found in the Pauline letters.

We know where to look for the Common material in the Pauline Corpus.

Just look in the Latest Gospel--gJohn.

John 3:16 KJVJohn 15:13 KJV Now examine the Pauline letters.

1. Romans 5:8 KJV2. Galatians 2:20 KJV 3. Ephesians 5:2 KJVThe claim that God loved the world by Sacrificing Jesus is UNKNOWN in the Synoptics.

The Pauline letters do NOT represent the early Jesus cult of Christians.

The Pauline letters are even later than gJohn.

MrMacSon

Not necessarily - they could be co-opted stories about/from a concurrent similar belief system.


It seems there is increasing consideration to the 'Pauline documents' being additional to the canonical gospels (the 3 synoptics & John) rather than having priority.

aa5874

There are 2 fundamental arguments.

1. The Pauline letters are early and represent an early Jesus cult in Jerusalem--pre c 70 CE

2. The Pauline letters are NOT early and do not represent an early Jesus cult-- pre 70 CE.

There is no real evidence to support the supposition the Pauline letters were co-opted.

Who do you imagine co-opted the Pauline letters?

It is already known that the Jesus story MUST have been known to those whom Paul Persecuted.