Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: Loren Rosson's assertion in response to my having said:

> > To assume, as Loren
> > does here, that whether Jesus
> > actually existed or not, makes no difference to a
> > correct understanding of Paul,
>
> I said no such thing; I assume no such thing. As too
> many others on this list have said to you, try reading
> a post before reacting to it.

I answer:

Here was Loren's comment to which I was responding, along with the earlier
posting from David Hindley that Loren's comment was referring to:

> Dave Hindley wrote:

> > I think Eric Zeusse felt that those who
> > write books such as _The Jesus Mysteries [etc]
> > were not providing explanations that convincingly
> > explained *how* the final synthesis of all these
> > pagan ideas came together...I'm not sure what Zeba
> > Crook was trying to suggest, except that it came
> > across as a wee-bit reactionary, and perhaps also
> > expressed in frustration.

> And I'm not sure why this issue is being obsessed on
> C-P (touchy tempers notwithstanding). Unless this is
> brought to bear on Pauline matters, it seems more
> appropriate for a list like XTalk.
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH

I close:

Each individual participant in this forum can judge for himself whether or
not Loren had implied that the issue of whether Jesus actually existed isn't
appropriate to discuss on Corpus-Paul. If Loren implied that, then my
inference that he did was reasonable, and his objection to my inference that
he implied this was unreasonable. If he did not, then my inference was not
reasonable, and Loren's objection was reasonable.

I would like to know what others in this forum think about this. First of
all, is it relevant to discuss on Corpus-Paul issues regarding Jesus's
historicity? And secondly, was Loren saying no to this question: that such
issues shouldn't have been discussed in this forum?

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net