Raf

Most learned people believe there was some historical figure at the core of the founding of Christianity. I am inclined to believe they are incorrect, but I do not have their qualifications. Seeing as my vote really doesn't matter, and changing my mind would not change my [lack of] religious beliefs, I am entertained by the debate. No more, no less. I should say that IF Acts is correct about Paul and the apostles, it makes sense that they would accept his testimony because God told them to. On what you would call a "flesh" level, that explanation is not even remotely plausible to me. They would have eaten Paul for breakfast, acting like he was an authority on the legacy of a man he never met but they did.

Don't let me forget to get back to Tacitus.

Huge can of worms here. I find this debate riddled with people who falsely claim to have no vested interest in "who's ultimately right." Carrier acts as if it doesn't matter to him one way or another. Methinks he doth protest too much. Ehrman says it makes no difference to him either. That's almost certainly a lie. Mythicists are ostracized in his field. To come out as one would be attempted career suicide. The majority of Bible scholars are practicing Christians [duh], so they have a religious interest in maintaining historicity as the default view. I would like to think I'm not biased here because whether I believe is unaffected by whether there was a historical figure at the outset of Christianity. But my interest in the subject betrays at least some bias. But bias has many meanings, only few of which lead to the conclusion that a person holding the bias cannot be trusted. I trust you guys to be honest and hope I've earned your trust in that regard as well, even if we disagree about... everything.

We had all been saying that was the scholarly consensus. Myself included.

Imagine someone claiming to have had such an experience and then bragging that he never confirmed his doctrine with the people who knew Jesus best. A reminder that in this particular subforum, the testimony of the scripture is not authoritative. The claim of a Damascus conversion is a claim, not a documented fact. Long way of saying I'm atheist. Scripture is a claim, not proof.

Ah of course. This was Michael Dick, who saw Moby Dick. Just kidding. It was Michael Bounty who saw Mutiny on the Bounty. No? Wrong Mutiny? Fine. Michael Caine.

I've always been partial to tea leaves, although this one time, at Delphi...

I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, Rocky. I cited my broad sources in my opening post [Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist , and Richard Carrier: On tge Historicity of Jesus] and I made it clear I would not treat this thread as a doctoral dissertation service. Honestly for the sake of a casual conversation I'm satisfied with the Wikipedia entry on the TF which neatly summarizes the various viewpoints without really taking sides.

He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.

Was it the head clue?

Thank you for pointing out that the author of the epistles to Timothy, who was pretending to be Paul, identified himself as Paul in the letter he wrote pretending to be Paul. I was starting to question his competence.

actually, I said that wrong. My comment on the scholarly consensus is limited to the authorship of the Pauline epistles.

Oh they are not mine. They are the scholarly consensus.

Luke did not write the gospel or the book of Acts. Authorship of the gospel was attributed to him decades after it was written. And the history invented in the book of Acts is refuted by Paul. One can be true or the other, but not both. Paul verifies very little of the account of Acts and nothing of the gospel of Luke other than the death and resurrection, which he portrays as a celestial event. The crucifixion to Paul is not at the hands of the Romans or the Jews, but at the hands of "the princes of this world," which was by no stretch of the imagination a description of Pilate or the Sanhedrin. Paul also did not write I Timothy or II Timothy, since we're having fun.

Add that the cold open refers to the Daily Planet as a great metropolitan newspaper and Perry White later refers to Clark as a mild-mannered reporter. Well done. Superman was my guess, but I couldn't fit all the "tagline" references together (and, for the record, Superman himself says he's here to fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way, something Dean Cain's incarnation NEVER SAID).

explain the tagine clue?

Did they all have heads?

He's a red something. I can't remember. Not a household name. Dagnabit. Can't remember.

I look at Paul like Chris Geer showing up at HQ four years after Wierwille's death, scolding everyone like he's Wierwille's true heir, 'cept he never met Wierwille and spent three years as a deprogrammer. And the Trustees were like, he must be Wierwille's heir. God told him! Like, no one would ever believe it, and rightly so.

The thought did cross my mind

Does he though? Never met him. Saw him in visions. Swore up and down he never learned from those later alleged to be his closest friends and family? Never referenced the empty tomb. Never talked about his disciples. Is Paul REALLY useful?

We were talking about the same reference.

Entirely. And if you read it, it flows much better without it. It was CERTAINLY forged partially. Josephus never said "he was the Christ." I mean come ON. There's a second reference to a Jesus that I have to double check because I honestly don't recall the details other than "um, that's not what happened." There's also another reference from a historian who is simply repeating what Christians believe, but people act like his reference is a validation of historicity. That would be Tacitus, for those who know. His reference to Jesus is parenthetical to a different point he's making, but because he talks about Pilate, people assume Tacitus checked out Roman records and verified Jesus' execution. No, he did not.

WIll watch this later, but the story of Jesus becomes a lot more interesting when you go in chronological order of when the books of the Bible are written. What emerges is the story of something that happened in "the heavenlies" that could only be discerned through scripture, which would EASILY explain why Paul would be the first person writing about it while others who were allegedly closer to him don't actually commit much (if anything) to paper. The closest you get is Peter, who mentions nothing of an earthly ministry (I Peter being relevant, II Peter being recognized by scholars as a forgery). Paul's failure to acknowledge the betrayal/death of Judas makes a LOT more sense when you realize he wrote before that story was concocted. For him, Jesus was seen of the 12 after his resurrection. But to Paul, everything about Jesus is cosmic. None of it happens on earth. Jesus isn't killed by Pilate and the Romans. He's killed by the princes of this world, who would not have done it had they known the consequences. It's been long acknowledged that "Matthew" didn't write the gospel that bears his name (he would not have needed to plagiarize Mark if he were an eyewitness to what he recorded). It's not until the gospel writers, LONG after Paul, that we see stories of Jesus as an actual human being. They took what he wrote and historicized it. But they didn't collaborate on their accounts. So Luke has him born after the census, Matthew years before. Had he actually been an historical figure, that conflict would have been resolved easily. Matthew has him moving from Judea to Egypt and finally to Nazareth. Luke has his family from Nazareth all along, with the trip to Bethlehem carrying an absolutely absurd justification (a census that makes you register someplace other than where you live? AYFKM?). We KNOW from history that John the Baptist existed. So we make Jesus his cousin and concoct a story where John defers to Jesus' ministry. The cult around John is thereby coopted to become a Christian appendage. Honestly, if not for Paul referring to James as "the Lord's brother," I would be utterly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character (not just that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but that he was never around to claim it, as historical as King Arthur and Odysseus).

Briefly, sure. Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met. Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him! The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down. Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal. This is just glossing over the info, not really giving it full consideration. GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.