The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

[mlinssen]

... Thomas has nothing to do with any Jesus that we know, certainly not with any form of Christianity, not even Chrestianity.

Thomas is a deeply psychological text about Ego and Self, and when John took it into a narrative the Chrestian origins were fixated in history

I abundantly demonstrate Thomasine priority via redaction criticism: the text of Thomas precedes that of the canonicals, and that is embraced by quite a few of 'the brass'. So there's nothing to prove anymore, but for those who disagree the task is to disprove what has been proven.

The text of Thomas gets reused - and utterly repurposed - by the canonicals. Blatantly 'evident to all' really, but the outcome of the conclusion that such would lead to is rather nuclear, namely that all of Christianity is based on a text that says nothing about any of the core, pivotal, quintessential, Christian thingies

You're going to have to get your propositions published in a peer-reviewed journal to engage more than a 'few of the brass' in the bleachers ie. it's gonna have to be presented in 'the field of play'; and then make the newspapers


eta:

Thomas made it all up so it would amplify the story that he intended to tell

Unfortunately, it did, and buried it all under tons of debris and centuries of cover-ups
The dramatic irony of Thomas is truly unbearable, it would make even the ancient Greeks weep for centuries

• That's fallacious 'appeal to consequences'

I'll leave you to it Mac, you keep on misunderstanding the Game. The field of play? Really - the earth is round, and a thousand ways lead to Rome. And unlike in the physical world, digital words can travel those all at once, at the same time.
Do you really think I have the patience to indulge myself with obeying the rules of the failed field?

You should know me and awful lot better than that

[MrMacSon]

I'll leave you to it Mac, you keep on misunderstanding the Game. The field of play? Really - the earth is round, and a thousand ways lead to Rome. And unlike in the physical world, digital words can travel those all at once, at the same time.
Do you really think I have the patience to indulge myself with obeying the rules of the failed field?

You should know me and awful lot better than that

Trying to gaslight me won't compensate for your inadequacies, Martijn. Including your lack of perspective.

[mlinssen]

I'll leave you to it Mac, you keep on misunderstanding the Game. The field of play? Really - the earth is round, and a thousand ways lead to Rome. And unlike in the physical world, digital words can travel those all at once, at the same time.
Do you really think I have the patience to indulge myself with obeying the rules of the failed field?

You should know me and awful lot better than that

Trying to gaslight me won't compensate for your inadequacies, Martijn. Including your lack of perspective.

Saved for posterity

[Sinouhe]

rgprice has done a fairly good job demonstrating that Paul also used LXX-OT narratives, as have a few other scholars, albeit only in a more piecemeal way, afaik, ie. in journal articles.

Yes, I agree. I think that everything in Paul about Jesus comes from the scriptures. Not from an oral tradition.

And, as you know, there is increasingly more scholarship that Mark used Paul (as well as more LXX-OT and, albeit less so, a few other tropes and lore of the times eg. accounts of the Jewish War, aspects of Roman emperor worship and politics, and perhaps a bit of Homer (if so, more Iliad than Odessey).

I agree with that too. Although I'm hardly convinced of Homer's influence on Mark. Except maybe on very rare occasions. I think Mark's two main sources are the letters of Paul and the Jewish scriptures. With perhaps the epistle of Barnabas for the account of the passion.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

rgprice has done a fairly good job demonstrating that Paul also used LXX-OT narratives, as have a few other scholars, albeit only in a more piecemeal way, afaik, ie. in journal articles.

Yes, I agree. I think that everything in Paul about Jesus comes from the scriptures. Not from an oral tradition.

I also agree. It does not mean, however, that Paul's letters do not contain any information that is historical or claims to be historical. For example, the letters contain the information that the first Christian communities existed in Jerusalem and Judea. That seems to me either true or a lie or an interpolation, but not scripturalization of OT-passages.

1 Thessalonians 2:14
For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

[Sinouhe]

I also agree. It does not mean, however, that Paul's letters do not contain any information that is historical or claims to be historical. For example, the letters contain the information that the first Christian communities existed in Jerusalem and Judea. That seems to me either true or a lie or an interpolation, but not scripturalization of OT-passages.

Yes, I was referring to the information about Jesus.