Since we've already been over all of this, Blood, I'm going to be quick with my replies. Let me know if you want to expand any of them.
I think everyone wants you to expand. That's is why everyone is asking you too.
That is not an argument. If you want to convince people, make an argument.
And it's all you've got. To a rational mind, the supposed mention of Jesus' brother is the only real evidence on your side. I don't know how to explain it, although I've proposed an interpolation, a mistranslation, a metaphorical brother, etc.
But those aren't important. What's important is that you have only one little bit of actual compelling evidence upon which to build your theory of an historical Jesus, while there's a mountain of evidence against the historical Jesus. Why cling to the one little bit? That's my question.
That isn't all I have. I wrote quite a bit on what we have. You just happened to, dishonestly I may add, take a statement out of context. To a rational mind, they would see that as being dishonest, and simply a ridiculous argument.
Also, you haven't provided a mountain. So basically, I have to come to the conclusion that you are simply lying. I base this on the fact that you took what I said out of context, and claimed it was all I had (even though I provided a series of other arguments) and you haven't produced this mountain of evidence.
Yeah. Learning all sort of physical detail about Jesus which he never mentions to anyone else so far as we know. It's the foundation of my theory -- that Paul knew Jesus' disciples. Without that, his silence would not be such compelling evidence of the non-historical Jesus.
You are ignoring the fact that Paul was writing letters. He wasn't writing a biography. He was answering questions.
We have no idea what Paul spoke about when he set up those churches that he wrote to.
What can I say. If you find that somehow convincing, then you find it convincing.
Not an argument.
All fit perfectly with a proto-Jesus except the last one. Can you give me detail on that one?
Again, not an argument. Also, we are told that Jesus lived around the time of Paul because we are told Jesus had a brother, and close family that was living then. Crucifixion also places Jesus around the time of Paul. Basically, if you read Paul, you will see that Paul put Jesus around his time.
First, they knew about the proto-Jesus, not the historical one, at least according to my view. Second, what better way to "answer questions and address problems" than to offer teaching moments from the actual, physical life of Jesus? I mean, do you really and truly believe that Paul would not have used the life of Jesus to address these issues? If so, you and I simply see things differently.
Your view doesn't matter unless you can support it. You haven't supported it, so it really is a useless claim, and not an argument.
Second, I am assuming you have never read the letters of Paul. Because if you did, you would see that there is no reason to give a biography lesson there. Also, Paul does use Jesus to address certain points. He directly quotes Jesus in regards to divorce. He also seems to reference Jesus indirectly in other cases.
I believe the gospels -- except John -- were probably written as fiction. But even if not, why would you accept Jesus' placement in the first century but reject various other claims in the gospels?
I honestly don't care what you believe unless you can provide evidence for your claim.
As for why I would accept Jesus' placement in the first century, but reject other claims, it is because I understand the genre of ancient biographies. Most, if not all, historical figures that were written about during that time have the same sort of mythical ideas attached to them. It was part of the genre. So, what I do, is examine other works in the same genre, and learn how to critique them properly.
If they were written as fiction, why would anyone object? Do you object that Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real guy?
The works containing Sherlock Holmes fit into the genre of fiction. Why? Because they were written as such. The Gospels do not fit into the genre of ancient fiction. We know this because we can compare the Gospels to other genres from that time. When done so, they appear like other ancient biographies.
All one needs is a little information about how to discern genres.
Sure. All the way back to the proto-Jesus.
By the way, if you believe in this oral tradition, why didn't Paul offer us even more sayings of Jesus (besides the divorce thing)?
First, you have not supplied any evidence for a proto-Jesus besides that you believe in such an idea. That is not an argument. That is faith.
As for why Paul doesn't directly quote Jesus more often? There was no reason to. Paul was dealing with a lot of things that Jesus never had to. Thus, there were no sayings of Jesus regarding much of what Paul was saying.
More so, Paul does seem to indirectly quote Jesus from time to time.
Answered above. Why object to a fictional character?
Because they are written as a fictional character, they are put into a fictional work, and they are intended to be fiction.
Jesus was not any of those. How can we know this? Because we can compare the genres of the Gospels and other ancient genres, and see that they fit most closely to ancient biographies.
Really? Which works exactly?
And how do you explain the synoptics... the language tracking? As I say, I've never seen that kind of thing except in fiction rewrites.
Which works? Look at the various ancient biographies of the Roman emperors (such as Augustus), Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc.
As for how do I explain the synoptics. That is quite easy. Matthew and Luke used other sources in order to compile a better document. We see this in nearly all historical writings. Luke is even upfront about this. He states exactly what he is doing.
And I believe that you have only seen this in fiction, and I assume that is because you have never read any ancient works. Or probably not a single historical work at all. Because yes, nearly all historical works rely on older sources.
Sure. And I have no problem with the idea of a proto-Jesus. People usually need some kind of seed to inspire them when creating heroes.
Yet you have no evidence. All you have shown is blind faith. Even here, you didn't argue against what I said. All you have done is stated your beliefs.
There was every reason to create a messiah whose real life could not be examined for flaws. It was the genius of making Jesus, I think.
Why create a messiah who fails? A messiah claimant who dies is automatically ruled out. There really is no logical reason for creating such a character. Especially if you understand the culture and the expectations for the messiah.
Yeah. I was just getting bored, is all.
Well maybe next time, you would want to provide some actual argument, instead of stating what you blindly believe.
