I continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, considering the latest, of a never ending, round of pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism, namely Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster.
I personally chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus written pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD, see Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations
We continue my comment to a Facebook page:
That Lataster actually thinks that Paul did not even make it clear that Jesus was a person who died on Earth is not only a radical claim and utterly unfounded but it betrays his desperation to discredit, by ignoring, one of the earliest traditions about Jesus within the Bible. In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul employs technical terminology about how tradition was passed on to him with regards to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received.” Paul even encourages people to seek out and question the eye witnesses “the greater part remain unto this present,” which is what Paul personally did.
It is inaccurate to generically assert that when Paul claims to know something about Jesus, he claims that it came straight from God. Paul (and Luke) labors to elucidate that he spent time with the Apostles and other disciples specifically for the purpose of learning about Jesus from them (for examples see Acts 9:19; Galatians 1:18-19). Such issues are not theological minutia, they are simple statements that anyone can, and ought to, double check.
It is no wonder that, at least during the interview, Lataster cites nothing whatsoever but merely beyond generically references (there it is again) entire books or even authors in general. He states that Paul wrote this or that but whereabouts? He generically states that Paul never mentions this or that and in order to reply I would have to read everything that Paul wrote (which is actually coming up on my reading schedule early next year) so you see how he gets off easy? His one generic statement vs. my reading everything, quoting, citing, etc.—a few seconds to state his, unchallenged, generic claim versus quite a few hours, equaling days if not weeks, of my reply.
He seems to presuppose that Paul should have written a historical account of Jesus but an arbitrary demand. Also, it makes sense that, if, the latter writers add more historical detail as time goes by it is due to just that; time is passing and they are ensuring that more is known by latter people about that which was once common and current knowledge.
Lataster claims that Paul is referring to a “celestial Jesus” but does not seem to consider that at the time Jesus was no longer on Earth and so was, at that time, a “celestial Jesus” of sorts: a glorified, spiritual (not spirit) resurrected Jesus. And yet, this is the very same Paul who writes of Jesus that “when the fullness of the time” temporal, linear, Earthly time, “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” so not some celestial spirit but born on Earth to a human, “made under the law” meaning born Jewish (Galatians 4:4).Lataster claims that Paul, generally, does not get along with Peter because there is reference to one single time he confronted him on one issue. I am afraid that this is merely the stuff of fluffing and puffing up to make much ado about nothing and you should have called him out on it.
We will next consider Raphael Lataster’s conspiracy theorizing modus operandi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.