Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

Correct, I quoted you to explain that none of what you had to say on the matter (which you and I do not disagree about at all, again) bears on the question I was exploring of the composite character, and which one, if any, is the real jesus - assuming, ofc, that there was one.

[Bucky Ball]

Correct, I quoted you to explain that none of what you had to say on the matter (which you and I do not disagree about at all, again) bears on the question I was exploring of the composite character, and which one, if any, is the real jesus - assuming, ofc, that there was one.

What I said absolutely bears on the composite question. I said there was no Pauline composite, and I explained why.
Then you said :

"None of that bears on the question. I'm asking about whatever hypothetical actual man the story of christ as told by paul is supposed to contain... buried somewhere. ... What man, if any, in pauls life or that paul was aware of in factual detail, might he have based whatever human detail might be gleaned from pauls account? That would be one of the -actual- people in the composite character of christ."

We absolutely disagree, and you clearly said and meant that Paul "composite" (which is non-existent) was based on human detail.
There are no personal details in Paul of a Christ. Unless you agree to accept that the answer is "none" to your question, we absolutely disagree.
If you agree the answer is "none" why the fuck did you not just agree in the first place.

[Minimalist]

hypothetical actual man

Wouldn't hypothetical actual man be an actual oxymoron?

[Rhythmcs]

Correct, I quoted you to explain that none of what you had to say on the matter (which you and I do not disagree about at all, again) bears on the question I was exploring of the composite character, and which one, if any, is the real jesus - assuming, ofc, that there was one.

What I said absolutely bears on the composite question. I said there was no Pauline composite, and I explained why.
Then you said :

"None of that bears on the question.  I'm asking about whatever hypothetical actual man the story of christ as told by paul is supposed to contain... buried somewhere.  ...  What man, if any, in pauls life or that paul was aware of in factual detail, might he have based whatever human detail might be gleaned from pauls account?  That would be one of the -actual- people in the composite character of christ."

We absolutely disagree, and you clearly said and meant that Paul "composite" (which is non-existent) was based on human detail.
There are no personal details in Paul of a Christ. Unless you agree to accept that the answer is "none" to your question, we absolutely disagree.
If you agree the answer is "none" why the fuck did you not just agree in the first place.

The pauline character is included in the composite, as you asked me to "prove"....even though you and I wouldn't include it. Under the assumption of a real boy, however, even paul..and even Paul the Mythicist.... had someone in mind when he wrote about his christ.

-I don't have to believe in a thing to understand it and discuss it. As I told you from the beginning, you misunderstand.

[Free]

Paul, the guy who never met the man, and only knows about a christ?  

I think you're misunderstanding the question, Free.  Which of the many people who the many characters of christ may have been modeled after, that express themselves as the composite character in the myths or legends we call gospels, is that man?

Did paul, for example, base the character of his christ off someone who actually was in his life?  Ditto for every other author, or whomever wrote the contents we attribute to them?

It doesn't matter in the slightest if he ever met Jesus. That doesn't take away anything in regards to him being a contemporary.

Recently in this discussion we had an argument of silence in regards to Philo, a contemporary, not saying anything about Jesus... from 600 miles away, and some here thinks that's some kind of a valid argument.

But here we have an argument for Paul, a contemporary who lived in the same place of Jesus, met the people who followed Jesus, persecuted some of them until he was converted, met the brother of Jesus, and you don't think that's a good argument?

It trump's the Philo argument by leaps and bounds.

[Minimalist]

It trump's the Philo argument by leaps and bounds.

Gee, Free.  You left out the part about needing to accept the bullshit spewed out by the later xhristards who concocted this ridiculous story!

[Rhythmcs]

But here we have an argument for Paul, a contemporary who lived in the same place of Jesus, met the people who followed Jesus, persecuted some of them until he was converted, met the brother of Jesus, and you don't think that's a good argument?

Well, other than that being complete and utter horseshit, sure, great argument.  


-hey, go ahead and google "search for the historical paul" since you defer to wiki articles and tell me to look them up.  I'll wait.

spoiler - paul was not a contemporary of jesus, did not live in the same place as jesus, did not persecute any christians, was never converted, and never met any jesus' brother.

[Free]

But here we have an argument for Paul, a contemporary who lived in the same place of Jesus, met the people who followed Jesus, persecuted some of them until he was converted, met the brother of Jesus, and you don't think that's a good argument?

Well, other than that being complete and utter horseshit, sure, great argument.  


-hey, go ahead and google "search for the historical paul" since you defer to wiki articles and tell me to look them up.  I'll wait.

Sorry dude, but you claiming it to be horseshit in no way whatsoever qualifies it as horseshit.

There is no serious position against the historicity of Paul in academia. None.

[Rhythmcs]

OFC it doesn't, the "consensus of scholars" is what does that. Womp womp?

Even assuming there was a christ, and even assuming there was a paul, the consensus of scholars is that paul, himself, was a less than honest mythicist, lol. Not an issue to or for me, all I have to do is read the text to know that, but you...apparently, have some problem with it?

[Free]

OFC it doesn't, the "consensus of scholars" is what does that.  Womp womp?

Even assuming there was a christ, the consensus of scholars is that paul, himself, was a less than honest mythicist, lol.

The consensus of scholars for history is respected in the same way and measure as the consensus of scholars for anything else in the academic world. If you think for one minute that your little voice crying out in the wilderness of the internet will ever be heard or considered by them then, my dear boy, your hubris has crossed the boundary of mere lunacy and entered into hilarious absurdity.

[Rhythmcs]

I tend to concern myself with the people I'm directly interacting with. Besides, I don't have to change their minds on this, that's -their- take.

Do you take issue? That would be....interesting?

[Free]

I tend to concern myself with the people I'm directly interacting with.  Besides, I don't have to change their minds on this, that's -their- take.

Do you take issue?  That would be....interesting?

My obvious and clear point being that if anything you say adverse to the historical position will have no effect against the known consensus, then what hope do you think you'll have with me who supports the consensus? 

After all, you really haven't said anything worth considering yet, and how long have you been here? When are you going to put up an argument that has any legs on it? Today? Tomorrow?

I'll tell you what. You have your people contact my people and we'll try to pencil you in for... say... a week from next Thursday? Would that work for you? Awesome dude!

Cheers!

[Rhythmcs]

What point against the consensus? This is my rare moment of agreement with the consensus? I'm starting to think that this word, "consensus", for you, is more a magic spell than an actual thing.

[Minimalist]

Free is overly impressed by the consensus of a bunch of theologians who simply MUST have some semblance of their godboy to continue their little club.  We know there were various groups scattered across the Eastern portion of the empire by the second century who professed some belief in this christos figure ( or perhaps chrestus ) but xtianity no more needs an actual christos than Zoroastrianism requires an actual Ahura Mazda.  People are quite capable of following totally made up shit.  Just look at today's republiKKKunts!

[Free]

Free is overly impressed by the consensus of a bunch of theologians who simply MUST have some semblance of their godboy to continue their little club.  We know there were various groups scattered across the Eastern portion of the empire by the second century who professed some belief in this christos figure ( or perhaps chrestus ) but xtianity no more needs an actual christos than Zoroastrianism requires an actual Ahura Mazda.  People are quite capable of following totally made up shit.  Just look at today's republiKKKunts!

All theology aside, the fact is that they have all arrived at the same basic conclusion that there was a Jesus called Christ who was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33 by using the exact same methods non-Christian historians used. 

All I have ever seen you do here is attack their theology, and make mere assertions against the academically agreed upon evidence. But the one thing you have never done is debunk anything.

So after years and years... nothing has changed.

[Bucky Ball]

Under the assumption of a real boy, however, even paul..and even Paul the Mythicist.... had someone in mind when he wrote about his christ.

Prove it. Because you say so with no references and no support ? LMAO

So .... now you, out of your own mouth, say we *do* disagree.
Interesting.

And just who would that be ?
It's just so wonderful for the forum that you can read the minds of dead people.
Did you study under Madame Zelda ?
Did she give you a crystal ball ?

[Minimalist]

All I have ever seen you do here is attack their theology, and make mere assertions against the academically agreed upon evidence. But the one thing you have never done is debunk anything.

That's because there is no evidence outside of those silly-assed gospels which are little more than fairy tales of the supposed godboy.  I have yet to see you explain how you can dismiss all of the horseshit contained therein but somehow insist on the truthfulness of those particular claims.

[TinyDave]

Have I told you about the teapot orbiting Mars?

If you cant debunk it, it must be true...

[Minimalist]

This doesn't even rise to that level, Dave.

This is like taking Goldilocks and the Three Bears and saying "The whole story is obviously bullshit" ( which Free has done with the gospels on numerous occasions ) but then saying "that it is possible to find three bowls of soup on a table in the forest so that part MUST BE TRUE!"  Why?  What is so special about that?

[Free]

All I have ever seen you do here is attack their theology, and make mere assertions against the academically agreed upon evidence. But the one thing you have never done is debunk anything.

That's because there is no evidence outside of those silly-assed gospels which are little more than fairy tales of the supposed godboy.  I have yet to see you explain how you can dismiss all of the horseshit contained therein but somehow insist on the truthfulness of those particular claims.

Sorry but your personal opinion about what is or what isn't evidence doesn't change anything. It doesn't dispute the methods used by the professionals to determine what they have consensually agreed upon as evidence. The fact that so many of them are Christians with perceived biases still doesn't dispute the methods they employed to arrive at their conclusions.

Sure, you can have many of those Christian scholars making positive claims of certainty in regards to the existence of Christ, and that held position can be rightfully challenged on the basis of un-falsifiability alone since it's actually just an opinion they cannot prove. However, it does nothing to challenge what they have all agreed upon as evidence, and the only arguments I have seen from you and others against that evidence are assertions or invalid arguments from silence.

Therefore, the argument for historicity remains as the best argument to explain the evidence that you have failed to dispute.

[Minimalist]

Once again you fail to address the question of why you, and those exegetes you idolize, pick those particular items out of one book and insist that those are the real deal while simultaneously denouncing the rest of the book as fucking horseshit.

You know, there is one very significant difference between your precious gospels and Goldilocks.  We know who wrote Goldilocks, where and when.  You cannot say the same.

"Historicity" requires historical evidence.  You have nothing of the sort.

[Cavebear]

Well, I certainly agree that "Historicity" requires historical evidence". But for example, who did write "Goldilocks" or any? Most folk stories always seem to have older origins. The Grimm Brothers copied stories from all around Europe, but they didn't originate them. And many are repeats from far-flung areas, so they have to be much older in origin.

I have read some discussions that such stories are similar from ancient China to India to Europe. That suggests old repeated ideas. Hansel&Gretal were not the first children to be abandoned in a forest in times of starvation. The Grimms found a common theme of accused witches being forced into a barrel with large nails driven into it and then rolled down a hillside into a river to drown after great pain.

Now, how does this apply to your post? The Bible (and all such religious texts) are about the same in both similarity and uncertain accuracy of writing dates. Most religions have a god birthed by a virgin (at the Winter Solstice) and a bad death. I get the "virgin birth" as suggesting purity. I get The Winter Solstice as being a time of longer days and a promise of Spring to follow. I don't "exactly" get the need for a demon opposing the deity (the deity could just eliminate it, right?) but I suppose everyone needs an enemy to organize against for societal cohesiveness.

[Minimalist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks...hree_Bears

The story was first recorded in narrative form by English writer and poet Robert Southey, and first published anonymously as "The Story of the Three Bears" in 1837 in a volume of his writings called The Doctor.[2][3] The same year Southey's tale was published, the story was versified by editor George Nicol, who acknowledged the anonymous author of The Doctor as "the great, original concocter" of the tale.[4][5] Southey was delighted with Nicol's effort to bring more exposure to the tale, concerned children might overlook it in The Doctor.[6] Nicol's version was illustrated with engravings by B. Hart (after "C.J."), and was reissued in 1848 with Southey identified as the story's author.[

Those fucking gospels were written by someone, somewhere, at some time, for some reason.

[Free]

"Historicity" requires historical evidence.  You have nothing of the sort.

Your opinion does nothing against the professional consensus that what they have determined to be evidence is factually evidence.

It's inconsequential.

[Minimalist]

And you still won't answer the question.

What is so special about those particular pieces of bullshit in the story ( which you otherwise dismiss as fiction ) which makes them so special?


I've got all fucking day to keep asking.