If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

I should specify what I mean as "Paul was silent about the HJ".

I mean the fact that a reader can't realize, by reading Paul, that the his Jesus was a historical person. He can only conclude that Jesus was an angel for Paul, the Jewish equivalent of a pagan god.

Since when an angel can be poor, from a woman, and a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David and Israelites?

Paul wasn't saying these things before a wall. He was polemizing against Gnostic apostles of which the Jesus was not even a Jew. You can't deny the existence of various Christian sects.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

I find incredible both the blindness and the rapidity by which you assume in advance the equation: being gnostic = being from II° century.

Do you have evidence to the contrary, about the belief of a supreme god above the god creator of the Jews, in the time of Paul?

At any case, even if Jesus existed, you have the problem of the relative (if just not absolute) Paul's silence about him. Why was Paul relatively silent about the HJ whereas the late propagandists did a lot of rumor and hearsay, etc, etc about the HJ ?

Relatively silent: You are making progress. Paul had no interest about the true historical Jesus except for his crucifixion as Christ. That where he based a lot of his theology/christology. Later gospels author added all kind of embellishments and fiction. But that was after eyewitnesses of Jesus had died or just "disappeared".
But Paul wrote his epistles when eyewitnesses were still alive and could be met in Jerusalem. Peter might have been the only of them traveling outside Judea, at least to Antioch, and very probably to Corinth (he had followers there).

Best answer: because they were inventing all these rumors and hearsay, of which Paul was entirely ignorant.

Exactly. That's what you call late "propagandists did after Paul on that minimal Jesus: outright embellishments and fiction added to the true (minimal) Jesus, to make him look more like the pre-existent heavenly deity and the great eternal savior as postulated by Paul and probably others apostles (in the Spirit).
The true (minimal) Jesus would have left doubts about him being the incarnated Son of God, the Lord: etc. He had to be greatly enhanced.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,

I find incredible both the blindness and the rapidity by which you assume in advance the equation: being gnostic = being from II° century.

Do you have evidence to the contrary, about the belief of a supreme god above the god creator of the Jews, in the time of Paul?

The eucharist in Paul is a judaized form of the Genesis episode where the Serpent (allegory of the supreme god higher than the creator) reveals the gnosis to Adam and Eve.

Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared

(Luke 24:31)

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked...

(Gen 3:7)

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Really Tertullian does a very bad argument when he says that any occurrence of a temptation is made explicit in the Gospels, otherwise it is not a real temptation.
When Satan is tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the evangelist doesn't say any time that he is tempting. Satan says what is expecting Jesus if he does x, y and z. Modern readings make the reader believe that the satanic promises are true. For example, Jesus would be became really king of the kings if he had adored Satan. This is totally misleading.

Actually, you are WRONG: check Mk 1:13, Lk 4:2 & 13, Mt 4:1,3.
and Jesus is also said being tempted in Mk 8:11, 10:2 & 12:15; Lk 10:25 & 11:16; Mt 16:1, 19:3 & 22:35

In the same way about Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, when the questioners say Jesus that the family is there out, this is not necessarily true. There was no people out there.

Argument from silence: how do you know there was no people out there? anyway, there are "some people" in Marcion's version (8:20), who are telling Jesus about "your mother & your brothers ...".

At any case, I think that the Satan's temptation stories are judaizing stories, meant to impart to Satan what was basically the anti-gnostic gospel: that YHWH and him only is the supreme god.

Speculation again

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

My point is that just as Satan was a liar when he promised X if Jesus had made Y, so the "some people" there out were liars when they said that if Jesus was gone out he would have seen the his family.

[Giuseppe]

That is the reason why the judaizer "Mark" was moved to portray the family of Jesus, by him introduced REALLY there out (by correcting Marcion where there out there were only the some people, not the parents), as a false family, one who despised the his renegade and crazy son.

[Giuseppe]

So very probably the Markan passages about the family of Jesus standing REALLY there out are an anti-marcionite invention, designed to transform in reality what was only an illusion to deceive Jesus, in order to unmask the his mere human nature.

It would be interesting to ask to Stuart what he thinks about this.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

The eucharist in Paul is a judaized form of the Genesis episode where the Serpent (allegory of the supreme god higher than the creator) reveals the gnosis to Adam and Eve.

Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared

(Luke 24:31)

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked...

(Gen 3:7)

Parallelomania to the extreme: one common word. And yes, eyes can be opened or closed. So it should not be surprising that in the vast OT & NT literature, we have multiple occurrences of eyes being opened.
What does that have to do about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians and that gnostic supreme god? Nothing, as I can see it.

The eucharist in Paul is a judaized form of the Genesis episode where the Serpent (allegory of the supreme god higher than the creator) reveals the gnosis to Adam and Eve.

Pure unfounded speculation.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

My point is that just as Satan was a liar when he promised X if Jesus had made Y, so the "some people" there out were liars when they said that if Jesus was gone out he would have seen the his family.

How do you know Satan was meant to be a liar in these promises?
Where does it say: "they said that if Jesus was gone out he would have seen the his family"?
Why "some people" would tell a lie? to tempt Jesus about saying he has no human family?
But Jesus' reaction avoids the subject completely: that's not an answer to a lie or a temptation. It's rather a diversion. These verses certainly did not have Jesus making a direct answer to a lie or temptation. Actually, nothing is taking away about "your mothers and your brothers" are from Jesus' blood family.

That is the reason why the judaizer "Mark" was moved to portray the family of Jesus, by him introduced REALLY there out (by correcting Marcion where there out there were only the some people, not the parents), as a false family, one who despised the his renegade and crazy son.

Speculation. And who said that GMark was written after Marcion's gospel: very few: another speculation.

So very probably the Markan passages about the family of Jesus standing REALLY there out are an anti-marcionite invention, designed to transform in reality what was only an illusion to deceive Jesus, in order to unmask the his mere human nature.

How twisted is that reasoning! NO probably, very unlikely.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Now that I think, Paul denies that Jesus is davidic, by saying (Rom 1:3) that he is descendant of David kata sarka, "according to flesh", viz. only in the appearance, in the eyes of people. Not really davidic.