To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[Jayhawker Soule]

The non sequitur assertion that

Paul's silence regarding any details of Jesus' physical life [indicates that] such a man couldn't have existed in first-century Judea.​

is simply idiotic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For myself, I find it curious that a mere mention of knowing Jesus' brother would trump all of the other silence from Paul.

And you no doubt claim that all the discussion by Paul and Luke about the Jerusalem sect is a bald face lie, i.e., the talk is a lie and the silence proves the lie. Brilliant.

 

[fallingblood]

If you believe it, then you believe it.

For myself, I find it curious that a mere mention of knowing Jesus' brother would trump all of the other silence from Paul. But people think differently about things, I guess.

I guess if one hasn't read Paul, then of course you're going to think Paul is silent on the matter.

 

[outhouse]

Yet Paul never really mentions any such details. So I conclude that he didn't know them. Which means that he didn't hear about them from the desciples. Which means that Jesus' ministry didn't happen around 30 CE.

FALSE

of coarse paul didnt know him, paul was a roman and hellenized a jewish movement within judaism.

Paul heard what was going on from oral tradition and made the hellenized mythical biblical jesus based on what he heard.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess if one hasn't read Paul, then of course you're going to think Paul is silent on the matter.

That's funny. If I disagree with you, it must mean that I have never read the Bible.

Oh well. I guess I'll never get the hang of Biblical scholasticism. I'd rather actually argue against the other guy's opinion than assume that he would agree with me if only he had read the Bible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

FALSE

of coarse paul didnt know him, paul was a roman and hellenized a jewish movement within judaism.

So you disagree that Paul met with the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem? I thought that was a generally accepted fact.

 

[fallingblood]

That's funny. If I disagree with you, it must mean that I have never read the Bible.

Oh well. I guess I'll never get the hang of Biblical scholasticism. I'd rather actually argue against the other guy's opinion than assume that he would agree with me if only he had read the Bible.

It's not that you disagree with me. It is that Paul actually does speak about Jesus and issues surrounding Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The non sequitur assertion that

Paul's silence regarding any details of Jesus' physical life [indicates that] such a man couldn't have existed in first-century Judea.
​

is simply idiotic.

OMG.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And you no doubt claim that all the discussion by Paul and Luke about the Jerusalem sect is a bald face lie, i.e., the talk is a lie and the silence proves the lie. Brilliant.

Huh? What are you talking about? Why would those discussions be a lie?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's not that you disagree with me. It is that Paul actually does speak about Jesus and issues surrounding Jesus.

And Paul quotes Jesus and alludes to what Jesus taught in his epistles

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's not that you disagree with me. It is that Paul actually does speak about Jesus and issues surrounding Jesus.

That's a fine opinion. Maybe you would be willing to argue for it, in some detail?

Keep in mind that I accept the idea of a proto-Jesus, vaguely centered around the GodMyths of that region. So Paul claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin and/or born of a woman doesn't fit my criteria for "discussing the earthly life of Jesus."

I'm looking for any real-life detail which Paul heard from the disciples and mentioned in his letters.

Maybe they exist and I've just never heard of them. Please list any that you think I've missed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And Paul quotes Jesus and alludes to what Jesus taught in his epistles

I suspect that Paul was quoting the proto-gospels, the oral stories about the Godman already circulating at that time.

Do you believe in Q? Either orally or written? If so, what date would you give the earliest elements of it?

 

[1137]

I should call you conspiracy theorist because that;s what you are, your little theory that Jesus never existed is just that...a conspiracy theory ungrounded in reality just like those who deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Your theory has no scholarship, no science and no backing to it whatsoever, yet you persist like people who deny that the earth is round to perpetuate your nonsense.

Zeitgeist I would like to inform you was only a movie and a rather bad movie filled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. So I would like you to put up or shut up. Show us your scholarship please.

And what other conspiracy theories do you guys believe in? Do you think that 9/11 actually was organised by aliens from the planet Nibiru on the orders of the reptilian Queen Elizabeth and her pet Bigfoot?

Ah, one of societies biggest accomplishments, and weapons, is convincing people that conspiracy theories are nonsense by definition. I hate seeing society win :/

 

[fallingblood]

That's a fine opinion. Maybe you would be willing to argue for it, in some detail?

Keep in mind that I accept the idea of a proto-Jesus, vaguely centered around the GodMyths of that region. So Paul claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin and/or born of a woman doesn't fit my criteria for "discussing the earthly life of Jesus."

I'm looking for any real-life detail which Paul heard from the disciples and mentioned in his letters.

Maybe they exist and I've just never heard of them. Please list any that you think I've missed.

Here is my full argument: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107542-paul-jesus.html

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I suspect that Paul was quoting the proto-gospels, the oral stories about the Godman already circulating at that time.

Do you believe in Q? Either orally or written? If so, what date would you give the earliest elements of it?

Q is a sayings gospel. Nothing in it depicts Jesus as a mythic demi-god and neither does Paul.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Q is a sayings gospel. Nothing in it depicts Jesus as a mythic demi-god and neither does Paul.

You've got that precisely backwards, at least as a starting point.

As a baseline, Paul only knew Jesus as a mythic demi-god, but there are some kernels of historicity it his descriptions.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You've got that precisely backwards, at least as a starting point.

As a baseline, Paul only knew Jesus as a mythic demi-god, but there are some kernels of historicity it his descriptions.

Here is where me and you depart. Paul was a good Jew the idea of a demi-god would be perverse to him.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here is my full argument: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107542-paul-jesus.html

OK, here are your points from that message about what Paul knew of Jesus:

1) Jesus was crucified.
2) Jesus was Jewish.
3) Jesus was a man, born in Judea.
4) Jesus was descended from David.

My responses:

1) All godmen were crucified. This strengthens my view of Jesus as myth.
2) What else would the Messiah be other than Jewish?
3) Ditto #3.
4) Fulfillment of the prophecies. Evidence of Jesus-as-myth.

Really, Blood, I'm kinda startled that this is all you have. Paul doesn't relate a single incident from the life of Jesus... and you still accept that he knew all about the life of Jesus? I mean, if Jesus had actually been crucified in 33 CE, and Paul had heard all about it, you wouldn't expect him to mention any details of that crucifixion?

Anyway, you'll agree, I hope, that none of your four points precludes a proto-Jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Q is a sayings gospel. Nothing in it depicts Jesus as a mythic demi-god and neither does Paul.

Angellous is my daddy. I'm going to agree with him that you have it entirely wrong.

You really don't think that the whole virgin-birth, savior, resurrected-after-three-days stuff depicts a mythic demi-god?

We seem to be on completely different pages.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

OK, here are your points from that message about what Paul knew of Jesus:

1) Jesus was crucified.
2) Jesus was Jewish.
3) Jesus was a man, born in Judea.
4) Jesus was descended from David.

My responses:

1) All godmen were crucified. This strengthens my view of Jesus as myth.
2) What else would the Messiah be other than Jewish?
3) Ditto #3.
4) Fulfillment of the prophecies. Evidence of Jesus-as-myth.

1. No they weren't
2. The Samaritan Taheb or a Levite like Moses
3. Again there were different concepts of the Messiah
4. He may in fact just have been a descendant of David, many of the Luria family are just that. David got around.