Where is the more strong evidence in Paul pointing to an outer space Jesus

[archibald]

Ok MrMacslippery, what about this bit:

...do you prefer to attribute all those to a non-earthly entity?

Basically, do you prefer, or not prefer, the non-earthly Jesus explanation?

[MrMacSon]

Ok MrMacslippery, what about this bit:

...do you prefer to attribute all those to a non-earthly entity?

Basically, do you prefer, or not prefer, the non-earthly Jesus explanation?

lol, FFS - it's you that's been slippery ... or befuddled, or a combination, or worse.

But, to be slippery, I'll say 75:25 ...

[archibald]

But, to be slippery, I'll say 75:25 ...

Thank you. At last.

Now, if you could also clarify what you're getting at in the other thread, about 'possibly not Jewish origins' and 'possibly not spread as is commonly thought' that would be fab too.

Though, on reflection, it's hardly necessary after looking again at your posts.

You think that Christianity was invented later and somewhere else and that events (in texts) were 'transplanted' (later and from this somewhere else) to both Judea and to the places it was supposed to have spread from there. Is that it?

It would be fab if you could just very briefly give a rough indication (of the somewhere and the when) that is your most likely guess. In the other thread, if you think it's more on-topic there. Though given your non-earthly Jesus preferences, it might be equally relevant here.

I'm assuming that your 75 was for non-earthly?

My best guess by the way, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, is that your when is.........4th C?

(Going by you saying something about an absence of information....through the 2nd and 3rd centuries).

[MrMacSon]

But, to be slippery, I'll say 75:25 ...

Thank you. At last.

Now, if you could also clarify what you're getting at in the other thread, about 'possibly not Jewish origins' ..

I was getting at not originating in Jerusalem in the mid 1st century, or at least not fully originating in Jerusalem.

and 'possibly not spread as is commonly thought' that would be fab too.

There is no evidence of Christianity radiating out from Jerusalem, or from Antioch.

My best guess... is that your when is .....4th C?

(Going by you saying something about an absence of information....through the 2nd and 3rd centuries).

No. My point is that there is very little or perhaps no evidence for orthodox Christianity through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What existed through the 2nd and 3rd centuries may have been more gnostic-Christianity or Jewish-messianic Christianity.

That was my point about the lack of evidence for orthodox theology in or from church father related communities.

[archibald]

I was getting at not originating in Jerusalem in the mid 1st century, or at least not fully originating in Jerusalem.

Ok. And instead you were thinking it might have originated..........when and where?

There is no evidence of Christianity radiating out from Jerusalem, or from Antioch.

Really? This is generally accepted, for a variety of reasons. Usually by tracing the paths and locations of the early writers and Church fathers.

In any case, you think it might have spread from..........?

No. My point is that there is very little or perhaps no evidence for orthodox Christianity through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What existed through the 2nd and 3rd centuries may have been more gnostic-Christianity or Jewish-messianic Christianity.

That was my point about the lack of evidence for orthodox theology in or from church father related communities.

But aren't there accounts of early (what were to become) Orthodox christians starting to dominate proceedings in those centuries? The Church Fathers. It's generally accepted that there were other versions, just that what came to be known as orthodox won out.

In any case, in all of the above, I'm really not sure what your thesis is. You hint at it by asking questions, casting doubt etc, but it's hard to assess or even respond to if you don't actually say what you think happened (or might have happened). Questioning one version only goes so far. In this game, we are unfortunately stuck with comparing explanations and trying to see which one best fits.

So, again...

It would be fab if you could just very briefly give a rough indication (of the somewhere and the when) that is your most likely guess.

[MrMacSon]

There is no evidence of Christianity radiating out from Jerusalem, or from Antioch.

Really? This is generally accepted, for a variety of reasons. Usually by tracing the paths and locations of the early writers and Church fathers.

What reasons? How are the 'paths and locations' of the early writers and Church fathers 'traced' ?

.. My point is that there is very little or perhaps no evidence for orthodox Christianity through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What existed through the 2nd and 3rd centuries may have been more gnostic-Christianity or Jewish-messianic Christianity.

That was my point about the lack of evidence for orthodox theology in or from church father related communities.
.

But aren't there accounts of early (what were to become) orthodox Christians starting to dominate proceedings in those centuries?

What accounts?

---

... it's hard to assess or even respond to if you don't actually say what you think happened (or might have happened).

What I think happened is independent of the current conversation we're having. Besides, every time I've previously given you a view about what I think might have happened; you've either ignored it, or misrepresented it in reply.

Questioning one version only goes so far.

That depends on a few things.

In this game, we are unfortunately stuck with comparing explanations and trying to see which one best fits.

Yep. But that indicates you're not sure about the basis for your explanations.

---

So, again...

It would be fab if you could just very briefly give a rough indication (of the somewhere and the when) that is your most likely guess.

you were thinking it might have originated..........when and where?

In any case, you think it might have spread from..........?

I have a number of views. I have one hypothesis that the NT Jesus is based on someone who lived 100 yrs later in the 2nd century -eg. --

1. an actual 2nd century Jesus of Nazareth (when Nazareth was better attested; it isn't before then)
2. a 2nd century messianic or otherwise revered figure -eg. --
   1. Simon bar Kokhba
   2. Akiva
   3. Judah ha-Nasi
   4. Antinous

I think Paul could equally have been 2nd century.

Even then, some NT entities could have been lifted from early to mid 1st century entities in Josephus's accounts.. Such as James 'the Just'.

[archibald]

What reasons? How are the 'paths and locations' of the early writers and Church fathers 'traced' ?

I am not going to set out in detail for you a case that is already mainstream and can be accessed by googling even wiki pages on early Christianity, the spread of early christianity or the chuch fathers. That case/version is fairly well-established. I understand that you are considering alternatives.

What accounts?

For example the accounts of the early church fathers. You must know this already. I understand that you are considering alternatives, but asking me 'what accounts' is only asking me to send you to google to read up on stuff that is already mainstream.

I have a number of views. I have one hypothesis that the NT Jesus is based on someone who lived 100 yrs later in the 2nd century -eg. --

1. an actual 2nd century Jesus of Nazareth (when Nazareth was better attested; it isn't before then)
2. a 2nd century messianic or otherwise revered figure -eg. --
   1. Simon bar Kokhba
   2. Akiva
   3. Judah ha-Nasi
   4. Antinous

I think Paul could equally have been 2nd century.

Even then, some NT entities could have been lifted from early to mid 1st century entities in Josephus's accounts.. Such as James 'the Just'.

Thanks. I'm a bit clearer now on the sort of places you might be coming from.

One question....how do you integrate these possibilities with your being 75% in favour of a non-earthly Jesus?

Would you say that that is your most preferred explanation, and that these others come from the remaining 25%?

[MrMacSon]

So, again...

It would be fab if you could just very briefly give a rough indication (of the somewhere and the when) that is your most likely guess.

you were thinking it might have originated..........when and where?

In any case, you think it might have spread from..........?

I think Jax makes some pertinent points in his post in the other thread (that you have already commented on)

[archibald]

So, again...

It would be fab if you could just very briefly give a rough indication (of the somewhere and the when) that is your most likely guess.

you were thinking it might have originated..........when and where?

In any case, you think it might have spread from..........?

I think Jax makes some pertinent points in his post in the other thread (that you have already commented on)

Yes.

[archibald]

Sorry, I edited my post above...

One question....how do you integrate these possibilities with your being 75% in favour of a non-earthly Jesus?

Would you say that that is your most preferred explanation, and that these others come from the remaining 25%?