Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Bunyip]

Peter, John, Thomas, Paul, James, Mary.

You have no such accounts. None of those people left written testimonies.

Did Peter, John, Thomas, James, and Mary also have hallucinations/visions?

Who knows? How is that relevant? You do not have their accounts.

 

[LuisDantas]

But to Paul and everyone he knew, this was an actual man who died.


Rhetoric just expands and promotes what Paul projected, that how we know Paul so well, he never shut up. Paul talked a lot and he talked about himself.


Its not about the vision. Its about Paul hunting down sect members and then having a change of heart and finding value in the mythology surrounding the martyrdom, and then Paul arguing with different houses in the Diaspora.

Going by the Christian Bible, he talked a lot about a man who was supposed to be dead or ascended and that he met only in visions, and created a whole doctrine based on that (going so far as to, among other liberties, decreeing that it is supposed to be followed by Gentiles as well as by Jewish People).

I can see interpreting that as dishonesty, or as sincere disciplehood, or as delusion. Only the third scenario leads me to believe that he would likely believe that there was a literal Jesus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why would I need to?

To take your own advice. And to, for example, analyze kinship identifier constructions, oral history/tradition terminology, etc.

Any historian will tell you that Paul's interactions occured after the death of Jesus.

With the exception of perhaps 2-3 historians of the thousands who have published on this topic, they'd all tell me we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost all names that come down to us from antiquity and certainly enough to determine that he was historical.

Call it whatever you like, but it is not direct testimony.

I call it "historical evidence". I evaluate it as historians do. I don't arbitrarily choose when to trust certain medieval manuscripts such as e.g., those supposedly written by Caesar (rather than those we know aren't despite purporting to be so) or other authors whose "histories" contain myth, magic, and legend in order to support the consensus of historians who actually use historical methods and apply these to our evidence. Whether Pythagoras, Caesar, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc., I rely on historical methods and historical research. You don't.

I never claimed that there were ni contemporary records of Jesus brother. Did you think that I had?

No. Simply that you fail to understand what "contemporary" means or the relevance of our evidence of James, the brother of Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

To take your own advice. And to, for example, analyze kinship identifier constructions, oral history/tradition terminology, etc.


With the exception of perhaps 2-3 historians of the thousands who have published on this topic, they'd all tell me we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost all names that come down to us from antiquity and certainly enough to determine that he was historical.

Bet you can not supply a single example oh great scholar - go on! Back yourself up here, identify just one of these thousands of historians who believes that Paul met Jesus prior to the crucifixion.

Or did you not read what I said and imagined I was talking about the historicity of Paul?

I call it "historical evidence". I evaluate it as historians do. I don't arbitrarily choose when to trust certain medieval manuscripts such as e.g., those supposedly written by Caesar (rather than those we know aren't despite purporting to be so) or other authors whose "histories" contain myth, magic, and legend in order to support the consensus of historians who actually use historical methods and apply these to our evidence. Whether Pythagoras, Caesar, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc., I rely on historical methods and historical research. You don't.

]
Tell you what you provide that example of a historian who believes Paul met Jesus prior to the crucifixion, and THEN you can crap on about how bad my research and knowledge is ok?

No. Simply that you fail to understand what "contemporary" means or the relevance of our evidence of James, the brother of Jesus.

 

[Prophet]

Bet you can not supply a single example oh great scholar - go on! Back yourself up here, identify just one of these thousands of historians who believes that Paul met Jesus prior to the crucifixion.

You are pretending as if supplying you with a historian will do something for you. You've spent this thread issuing bold challenges. Invariably, when these challenges are met they become irrelevant.

If opponents have good reason to believe the challenges you are issuing are not genuine, but rather that you'll "move the goalposts" the moment challenge is met, your opponents also gain good reason to ignore your challenges and spit on your goalposts.

 

[Bunyip]

You are pretending as if supplying you with a historian will do something for you. You've spent this thread issuing bold challenges. Invariably, when these challenges are met they become irrelevant.

At least be smart enough to read the conversation BEFORE making a stupid comment.

COTW was asking me which historians tell us that Paul did not meet the living Jesus. I said that pretty much amy historian would confirm that.

So do you disagree? Are you claiming that I am wrong and that Paul met the living Jesus? Or are you just posting a general whinge and personal attack for no apparet reason beacause you have not even followed the conversation?
As to your claim that my challenges have been met - you Sir have only ever attacked claims that you imagine I made, not any of thise that I actually made, so spare me the dishonesty.

If opponents have good reason to believe the challenges you are issuing are not genuine, but rather that you'll "move the goalposts" the moment challenge is met, your opponents also gain good reason to ignore your challenges and spit on your goalposts.

Please cut the shameless dishonesty - my position has been consistent. You however are so tragically dishonest that you attack me for claims that I have only made in your imagination.

So heres a fair challenge for you my little fraudster - see if you can find a challenge I did actually raise - and show me where it has been met. Both you and I know that you are lying and can not do so. If all you can think to do here is lie, go elsewhere. Let those wishing to discuss the OP do so without people like you popping up to fling mud.

I'll help you out, THIS is the claim I was making;

That most historians will tell you that Paul did not meet the living Jesus.

Do you disagree?

 

[Prophet]

At least be smart enough to read the conversation BEFORE making a stupid comment.

COTW was asking me which historians tell us that Paul did not meet the living Jesus. I said that pretty much amy historian would confirm that.

So do you disagree? Are you claiming that I am wrong and that Paul met the living Jesus? Or are you just posting a general whinge and personal attack for no apparet reason beacause you have not even followed the conversation?
As to your claim that my challenges have been met - you Sir have only ever attacked claims that you imagine I made, not any of thise that I actually made, so spare me the dishonesty.


Please cut the shameless dishonesty - my position has been consistent. You however are so tragically dishonest that you attack me for claims that I have only made in your imagination.

So heres a fair challenge for you my little fraudster - see if you can find a challenge I did actually raise - and show me where it has been met. Both you and I know that you are lying and can not do so. If all you can think to do here is lie, go elsewhere. Let those wishing to discuss the OP do so without people like you popping up to fling mud.

I'll help you out, THIS is the claim I was making;

That most historians will tell you that Paul did not meet the living Jesus.

Do you disagree?

You were responding to LegionOnomaMoi who, in no way, implied that Paul directly met the living Jesus as his evidence through Paul of Jesus' existence. He did, however, imply that Paul identified Jesus as a real human being who existed by proxy through meeting his human brother.

Judging by your demonstrated reading comprehension thus far, we should fully expect you to respond to this proudly exclaiming to me, "SO YOU ADMIT THAT PAUL NEVER MET JESUS?!" Yes, I admit that and also that you are an imbecile.

 

[Bunyip]

You were responding to LegionOnomaMoi who, in no way, implied that Paul directly met the living Jesus as his evidence through Paul of Jesus' existence. He did, however, imply that Paul identified Jesus as a real human being who existed by proxy through meeting his human brother.

Nope. I was responding to COTW? Sadly both you and Legion chimed in with off topic ad hominem attacks and neither of you bothered to read the relevant exchange.
COTW was asking which historians said that Paul did not meet Jesus during his lifetime.

Judging by your demonstrated reading comprehension thus far, we should fully expect you to respond to this proudly exclaiming to me, "SO YOU ADMIT THAT PAUL NEVER MET JESUS?!" Yes, I admit that and also that you are an imbecile.

Uh huh - you are posting off topic attacks and have not even the faintest idea what I was commenting on, but I'm the imbecile right? You insult my reading comprehension - and yet clearly did not read the exchange you are responding to so rudely.

Maybe just grow up?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bet you can not supply a single example oh great scholar - go on!

I don't believe they did. "Did you think that I had"? I just think your utterly baseless definition for "contemporary" is completely distinct from anything real historians who don't pretend to be some sort of experts online yet are incapable of citing scholarship is utter nonsense.

Or did you not read what I said and imagined I was talking about the historicity of Paul?

I've read everything you've written. You can't cite historians, you make ridiculous claims concerning your expertise in historical studies, and you can't even substantiate your views with reference to historical scholarship (but you do write it off).

 

[Bunyip]

I don't believe they did. "Did you think that I had"? I just think your utterly baseless definition for "contemporary" is completely distinct from anything real historians who don't pretend to be some sort of experts online yet are incapable of citing scholarship is utter nonsense.

Do grow up. I used the term 'contemporary' as it is commonly defined - and what has that got to do with the response I gave to COTW?

I've read everything you've written. You can't cite historians, you make ridiculous claims concerning your expertise in historical studies, and you can't even substantiate your views with reference to historical scholarship (but you do write it off).

For heaven's sake, stop posting these infantile whinges. If you have something intelligent to say, get on with it.

For all of your insults, it is hard to find any comment from you that is on topic or anything more than a whine.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do grow up. I used the term 'contemporary' as it is commonly defined

You don't. Contemporary means living more or less within the same period. Also, even as a pretend historian you should know that technical terms within a field aren't defined according to common usage.

and what has that got to do with the response I gave to COTW?

That you don't understand what contemporary means to historians or why Paul is a contemporary source for historians because you can't cite historical Jesus research (or, apparently, any historical research from antiquity- still less historical methods).

For heaven's sake, stop posting these infantile whinges.

As soon as you post something intelligible.

 

[Bunyip]

You don't. Contemporary means living more or less within the same period. Also, even as a pretend historian you should know that technical terms within a field aren't defined according to common usage.

Yes I know what contemporary means and used the term appropriately - your false accusations are as empty as they pointless. Try to comment on topic instead of all of the whinging about semantics.

That you don't understand what contemporary means to historians or why Paul is a contemporary source for historians because you can't cite historical Jesus research (or, apparently, any historical research from antiquity- still less historical methods).

As soon as you post something intelligible.

 

[oldbadger]

Can somebody show evidence of Paul 'giving evidence' of the existence of Jesus?
I do support the premise that Jesus lived.
But where does Paul write evidence that he knew anything about Jesus's life?
Thankyou.........

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes I know what contemporary means

If you do, you don't demonstrate it. As long as you wish to fake being any kind of historian, would you like me to quote historical scholarship on what contemporaneous sources mean, even to historians like Carrier who are as close to experts in relevant fields as one can get while believing amateur bunk you spout?

your false accusations are as empty

As you demonstrate with your complete and utter inability to substantiate anything you've said other than write off my citations of scholarship with inane nonsense you substantiate with...nothing. "The rest is silence".

all of the whinging about semantics.

I don't whine or "whinge" about semantics, but about historical methods, scholarship, and academic sources. You spout nonsense, pretend to be an expert, write off expertise, and in general demonstrate a disdain for honest scholarship and historical study.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can somebody show evidence of Paul 'giving evidence' of the existence of Jesus?

Knowing his brother.

 

[fantome profane]

Do grow up. I used the term 'contemporary' as it is commonly defined

No, actually you don't.

You and I are both contemporaries of Robin Williams. And if either you or I decide to write something about him it will be written by one of his contemporaries. The fact that it is written after Robin's death doesn't change that.

 

[Bunyip]

If you do, you don't demonstrate it. As long as you wish to fake being any kind of historian, would you like me to quote historical scholarship on what contemporaneous sources mean, even to historians like Carrier who are as close to experts in relevant fields as one can get while believing amateur bunk you spout?


As you demonstrate with your complete and utter inability to substantiate anything you've said other than write off my citations of scholarship with inane nonsense you substantiate with...nothing. "The rest is silence".

I don't whine or "whinge" about semantics, but about historical methods, scholarship, and academic sources. You spout nonsense, pretend to be an expert, write off expertise, and in general demonstrate a disdain for honest scholarship and historical study.

Yet another content free whinge..

 

[Bunyip]

No, actually you don't.

You and I are both contemporaries of Robin Williams. And if either you or I decide to write something about him it will be written by one of his contemporaries. The fact that it is written after Robin's death doesn't change that.

So what? Where have I said otherwise? In fact I specifically stated that I accepted that definition.

 

[fantome profane]

So what? Where have I said otherwise? In fact I specifically stated that I accepted that definition.

Sorry, my mistake. So you acknowledge that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus?

 

[Bunyip]

No, actually you don't.

You and I are both contemporaries of Robin Williams. And if either you or I decide to write something about him it will be written by one of his contemporaries. The fact that it is written after Robin's death doesn't change that.

I used the term correctly. I never claimed that Paul was not contemporary with Jesus, as you Legion and Prophet seem to imagine.

What have your, Prophet or Legions comments on my use of the word 'contemporary' have to do with the response I gave to COTW that spawned them?