• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Historical Jesus

blastula said:
Atheos said:
Getting back to "incentive" though, my theory (and I understand it's just a theory, but it fits the evidence quite well) is that Paul was very much like J.Z. Knight. It started with a fabricated mystical relationship he claimed to have with this "Jesus" figure, who spoke to him in visions. It is possible that the character was borrowed from someone who had lived in recent history, but it's also possible that the character was made up from whole cloth or inspired by several different figures Paul had known during his life. Doesn't really matter, because all Paul ever talked about was the sacrifice this character had made for the benefit of all people and that you have to believe in him and listen to what he tells you through Paul if you want to be saved. And of course you have to give money. That's pretty much a given.

Paul never mentions anything about any earthly life for this character. None of the places he lived, none of the things he said, nothing about Mary or Joseph, not even any of the parables or sermons he preached. Not one of the fantastic miracles that evidenced he was something special, such as raising people from the dead, walking on water, healing blind people, feeding thousands with morsels. Nothing but the sacrifice.

Like J.Z. Knight, Paul was good at convincing people about this delusion. Didn't have to convince everyone, just needed to convince enough to make it profitable. He went from town to town convincing people, setting up franchises and getting his "cut" when he showed back up. In I Cor 16 1-2 this is a very evident component of the formula, as he tells them to do the same thing he had ordered all the churches throughout Galatia to do, give a little to the collection plate every Sunday so that "there be no gatherings when I come."

As time went by people wanted to know more about this character Paul was channeling, so stories were fabricated to fill this void. Many of these stories were clearly adaptations of earlier myths. Others were fabricated for their symbolic significance (e.g., the transfiguration). Eventually the "sacrifice" part coalesced into a symbolic Passover story that coincided well with the Jewish holiday.

This theory works well because it accounts for the dearth of information about Jesus contained in Paul's earlier writings and the progression of this character from a nebulous voice talking only to Paul to an actual person who had lived a fantastic event filled life in recent history. Paul popularized the character; others began filling in the vacuum with anecdotes. The good ones were keepers, the not-so-good didn't make the cut. The editors of GMark put together the first version that we still have available for perusal today, but it's likely that there may have been other earlier ones that were trumped by GMark.
Click to expand...

Paul didn't invent Christianity or Jesus, the movement had already started before he was preaching about it.
Click to expand...
Juicy but no substance
 
I think there were multiple Christianities (is that a word).

That there was a single kerygma is the result of a subsequent harmonization. When the cosmic Christ and crucified Jesus were merged(and perhaps others such as John the Baptist), they did a Ministry of Truth number on it.
 
So yeah, what is Christianity?
But I don't want to derail
So yeah what is the evidence for historical Jesus?
 
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
blastula said:
You believe what is a myth? All of it, Paul included?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ (historical/biblical) and Paul, myth
Click to expand...

OK, but if you're going to assert those are myths, you have just as much of a burden to prove it.

Personally, I am agnostic on Jesus, but do believe Paul existed. That Paul was invented is less believable than that a real person wrote those letters, an early evangelist talking to various communities of early believers. Why would anybody invent Paul? Christianity did develop. There had to be people like Paul spreading it. So why must those letters be fakes? Is your position Christianity spread by magic? What's your evidence?
 
blastula said:
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
Jesus Christ (historical/biblical) and Paul, myth
Click to expand...

OK, but if you're going to assert those are myths, you have just as much of a burden to prove it.

Personally, I am agnostic on Jesus, but do believe Paul existed. That Paul was invented is less believable than that a real person wrote those letters, an early evangelist talking to various communities of early believers. Why would anybody invent Paul? Christianity did develop. There had to be people like Paul spreading it. So why must those letters be fakes? Is your position Christianity spread by magic? What's your evidence?
Click to expand...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/myth
Myth
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature
Click to expand...
Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ (biblical/historical) meet the criteria for myth

I'm not doubting a real person or persons wrote the letters but it seems that any reference to Pual/Saul is embedded in religious propaganda

The Pauline letters could be the manifestation of several persons wanting religious and/or political change

Religious propaganda is not necessarily written entirely by a single person and any given element could be the spawn of a single or multiple persons

I'm not interested in proving a negative, but both Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical Jesus ) are found in religious propaganda and nowhere else with any reliability

If you want to lament on Paul go ahead but I would like some evidence AND if you want to lament about historical Jesus please bring evidence
I guess you think Paul spread the notion of Jesus Christ around and derive that from religious propaganda
That is not convincing to me

And for shits and giggles:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rumor
Rumor
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
blastula said:
Atheos said:
Getting back to "incentive" though, my theory (and I understand it's just a theory, but it fits the evidence quite well) is that Paul was very much like J.Z. Knight. It started with a fabricated mystical relationship he claimed to have with this "Jesus" figure, who spoke to him in visions. It is possible that the character was borrowed from someone who had lived in recent history, but it's also possible that the character was made up from whole cloth or inspired by several different figures Paul had known during his life. Doesn't really matter, because all Paul ever talked about was the sacrifice this character had made for the benefit of all people and that you have to believe in him and listen to what he tells you through Paul if you want to be saved. And of course you have to give money. That's pretty much a given.

Paul never mentions anything about any earthly life for this character. None of the places he lived, none of the things he said, nothing about Mary or Joseph, not even any of the parables or sermons he preached. Not one of the fantastic miracles that evidenced he was something special, such as raising people from the dead, walking on water, healing blind people, feeding thousands with morsels. Nothing but the sacrifice.

Like J.Z. Knight, Paul was good at convincing people about this delusion. Didn't have to convince everyone, just needed to convince enough to make it profitable. He went from town to town convincing people, setting up franchises and getting his "cut" when he showed back up. In I Cor 16 1-2 this is a very evident component of the formula, as he tells them to do the same thing he had ordered all the churches throughout Galatia to do, give a little to the collection plate every Sunday so that "there be no gatherings when I come."

As time went by people wanted to know more about this character Paul was channeling, so stories were fabricated to fill this void. Many of these stories were clearly adaptations of earlier myths. Others were fabricated for their symbolic significance (e.g., the transfiguration). Eventually the "sacrifice" part coalesced into a symbolic Passover story that coincided well with the Jewish holiday.

This theory works well because it accounts for the dearth of information about Jesus contained in Paul's earlier writings and the progression of this character from a nebulous voice talking only to Paul to an actual person who had lived a fantastic event filled life in recent history. Paul popularized the character; others began filling in the vacuum with anecdotes. The good ones were keepers, the not-so-good didn't make the cut. The editors of GMark put together the first version that we still have available for perusal today, but it's likely that there may have been other earlier ones that were trumped by GMark.
Click to expand...

Paul didn't invent Christianity or Jesus, the movement had already started before he was preaching about it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in what I wrote to deny that. But I do believe that Paul's authentic letters are the earliest evidence we have in the historical record about the existence of Christianity, so it seems like a logical place to start when you're trying to formulate a working theory as to what did happen.
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
blastula said:
OK, but if you're going to assert those are myths, you have just as much of a burden to prove it.

Personally, I am agnostic on Jesus, but do believe Paul existed. That Paul was invented is less believable than that a real person wrote those letters, an early evangelist talking to various communities of early believers. Why would anybody invent Paul? Christianity did develop. There had to be people like Paul spreading it. So why must those letters be fakes? Is your position Christianity spread by magic? What's your evidence?
Click to expand...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/myth
Myth
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature
Click to expand...
Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ (biblical/historical) meet the criteria for myth

I'm not doubting a real person or persons wrote the letters but it seems that any reference to Pual/Saul is embedded in religious propaganda

The Pauline letters could be the manifestation of several persons wanting religious and/or political change

Religious propaganda is not necessarily written entirely by a single person and any given element could be the spawn of a single or multiple persons
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what this means. Are you saying there was a real person named Paul who wrote those letters or not? "Jesus Mythicism" is the position that Jesus never existed, not that a Jesus existed who was mythologized.

I'm not interested in proving a negative,
Click to expand...

Negatives can be proved, but I didn't ask you to prove a negative here. Mythicism is a positive assertion.

but both Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical Jesus ) are found in religious propaganda and nowhere else with any reliability

If you want to lament on Paul go ahead but I would like some evidence AND if you want to lament about historical Jesus please bring evidence
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by 'lament' here. But the evidence for Paul is the letters. They may be propaganda by Paul about Jesus, but the letters aren't propaganda about Paul's existence.

I haven't seen any evidence from you that either Jesus or Paul are myths. Just saying the gospels are propaganda is not convincing. Secular history has propaganda. So what? Propaganda can include facts. Why isn't Jesus a fact?

I guess you think Paul spread the notion of Jesus Christ around and derive that from religious propaganda
That is not convincing to me
Click to expand...

Paul was one person who spread the word about Jesus, but I don't know what you mean by "derive that from religious propaganda."

And for shits and giggles:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rumor
Rumor
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

History about figuring out what is likely or not. What do you consider good evidence for the historicity of a person, and why?
 
I'm not interested in play fucked up word games with you
Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical ) meet the criteria of myth
I provided the definition of myth for you
If you have evidence that historical Jesus isn't myth bring it
 
Atheos said:
blastula said:
Paul didn't invent Christianity or Jesus, the movement had already started before he was preaching about it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in what I wrote to deny that.
Click to expand...

You did deny it here, "but it's also possible that the character was made up from whole cloth."

But I do believe that Paul's authentic letters are the earliest evidence we have in the historical record about the existence of Christianity, so it seems like a logical place to start when you're trying to formulate a working theory as to what did happen.
Click to expand...

Paul refers to a movement that had already begun without him.
 
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
I'm not interested in play fucked up word games with you
Paul/Saul and Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical ) meet the criteria of myth
I provided the definition of myth for you
If you have evidence that historical Jesus isn't myth bring it
Click to expand...

I asked you to clarify your meaning. If you refuse to, then you're playing a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom