spin

No ancient had a HJ. They may have believed that Jesus existed in this world, which is functionally the mainstream orthodox christian view, but without the woo. Still, to have a notion like HJ you have to have a modern historiography.

You've basically got the idea I stated:
1. Paul had no direct knowledge of Jesus and claimed his knowledge came through revelation. (He may well have believed Jesus was real, perhaps a logical necessity.)
2. Christianity, as we know it, can only be traced back as far as Paul, ie we can get no closer to Jesus than Paul.
3. We have no way of knowing whether Jesus existed or not, for we have no way of knowing if the notion of Jesus existed prior to Paul.
4. Because of the epistemological quandary, it is irrelevant whether Jesus existed or not. (Ontologies without functional epistemologies to support them are of no value outside the individual's head.)

Perhaps someone may come along with new information and get us out of the quandary, but I'd say the information we have is all in at this stage and nothing new is likely. We'd need the discovery of helpful new texts, but we don't hold our breaths for such events.

Chili

One must be careful with -isms here and call ideas 'real things' because things are never real but only the 'thinginess' of the thing is that which is real. That is the Idealist position with no -ism about it, and for this the Ideal must be iconic as opposite to fantastic as phantasm in the mind of the materialist who looks at substance to find likeness to validate and confirm the stranger he really is outside his own self.

Knowledge is and was prior to us. It is like a commodity that can be traded but needs us as a trader to give life to the living who in turn must find meaning in life to know who they are.

Beyond that, 'as trader to give life to the living' equals radiance only wherein love is greater than life itself as the very source of life, and that is where we encounter what is known as Christ, with Jesus being the sacrifice made to expose Christ as the light of our life.

Chili

'Jesus as function' was older than Paul and older that the entire NT and OT put together simply because he represents the transition stage of life that takes us back to Eden again and there fully know who we are now as Lord God our self, to further the kingdom of God inside their own civilization to note. I.e. What came to be known as Jesus was the fiery revolving sword already in Gen. 3:24.

I think maybe that about 'then' it was time for someone, the mythmaker here fully in charge of his own life, saw fit to claim Life for a new civilization as if to place a flag on earth and called it the NT in the fullness of OT time.

The fullness of time here heralds the worth of Judaism as a religion on the move as first mover to them, as indeed the greatest of all.

Be mindful here that these are all word stories with reality behind them that we must see to understand. And I do not claim to know but if goodness is God a civilization on the rise equals God-with-us to boot.

Cesc

I absolutely disagree with your interpretation of the historical witness we have in the Pauline letters. Tbh, I have no idea how anyone can ever come to such conclusions.
Obviously Paul seems to be working within a religious milieu of Jesus-believers with whom he agrees more or less on various theological, organisational and soteriological matters.

I can perhaps understand if someone argues that the Pauline corpus is inauthentic in its entirety, but if you consider for instance Gal. to be an authentic letter, how could you possibly come to a conclusion such as "we have no way of knowing if the notion of Jesus existed prior to Paul"?

I don't understand it, but it's an interesting BC&H issue we can maybe discuss in another thread.

Come on, man... you know what I mean, and you know I understand there are distinctions.

spin

Try to demonstrate this. You'll find that it certainly isn't transparent. He makes it clear that no-one in Jerusalem understands his Jesus gospel, that they are interested in performing torah praxis contrary to his understanding of the gospel, and he doesn't attribute knowledge of Jesus to any of them. The best we can get is that Paul came into contact with messianists. He says he persecuted the churchesassemblies in christ without reference to Jesus. We already know that there were messianists, but we didn't need to know about christianity to learn that fact. So try to demonstrate that there were Jesus believers before Paul. You'll find that Paul contrasts his Jesus religion with that of those who practice torah observance.

Reading Paul without the retrojection of later doctrinal interpretation.

Cesc

Thanks for the glimpse into your argumentation. I've many things to say to this and would also like to persue your line of thought. But for now I have an exam to concentrate on.

Sheshbazzar

Allowing for the moment that 'Paul' was a 1st century 'apostle'. As has been pointed out there were Torah observant messianists in Jerusalem (and scattered throughout the Diaspora) that either did not know of any 'Pauline gospel',
or knowing of it, continued to reject its claims, and continued to follow the Torah long after 'Paul',
clear up till they were exterminated or submerged under the onslaught of 'Paulinist Christianity' and its murderous purge of all 'Judaizers' and 'heretics'.

These Torah observant messianists were every bit, if not far more 'Christian' than the murderous mob that aligned themselves with Paulinisim.
The 'Popes' and their 'Paul' speak charming words to make men forsake and forget keeping The Commandments of God, and the words of 'Jesus'.
And to follow the teachings of murderous men, with their man made and enforced pagan demon worship derived 'holy days' which Torah, the Prophets, nor 'Jesus' never commended nor commanded.

No man can serve two masters. To serve 'Jesus' is to reject 'Paul', and those that invented 'Paul'.
And serve 'Paul' is to reject The Commandments of the God of the Hebrews, and the words of 'Jesus'.

The two testimonies are at odds. There were two distinct groups of 'Christians', the Torah observant COMMANDMENT KEEPING original believers, and the lawless murderers that rose up and campaigned under the teachings of the Popes 'Paul'.
It is a fact that even the unbeliever, the honest atheist needs to recognize and to acknowledge

mountainman

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit
of having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

The use of non sequitur is one of the staples for your trade.

mountainman

Fair enough. But there may be no logic at all with "believers".

Is the power of belief without any logic an emotional power?




Julian seems to see it like this:

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia