dog-on

I don't really get where you are coming from, or maybe I haven't been clear.

For instance:

You ask this question and also intimate that this is a hole in my "theory". Now once again, for clarification purposes, here is what I have stated:

1. Paul makes up a revelation about a god named Jesus Christ.

2. Some time later, a writer, (we'll call Mark, for the sake of this discussion), composes a fictional biography based on Paul's letters, the LXX and maybe some author's writings, like Josephus, for instance.


Now your question asks me to divine the thoughts of unknown individuals. So to clarify, you need to answer this:

Confused by who, exactly?

What evidence can you provide that this "who" was actually confused?


Secondly, you have to provide evidence that the gospel was intended to be read as history, in the first place. One cannot simply assume this to be the case.

Here is your problem. Mark, no where in his gospel gives an indication as to his motive, nor have I ever seen any evidence that the original readers of this gospel thought that his story was, indeed, intended to be history, or not.

If you wish to make a case for why you think that Mark actually intended to write history, please make it.

If you wish to provide evidence that the original readers of Mark's gospel thought it was history, please do so.

Such evidence could then be used to attack, at least, my second theoretical statement:

2. Some time later, a writer, (we'll call Mark, for the sake of this discussion), composes a fictional biography based on Paul's letters, the LXX and maybe some author's writings, like Josephus, for instance.


Until you do so, your question, above, is simply irrelevant and does not, in anyway undermine my "theory".

I can now only hope that you can see the similar flaws in the rest of your questions, as they stand.

Thank you.

aa5874

You have admitted that you are not able to explain the suicide man theory to me. You are just wasting time.

Why was not the letter writer called Paul worshipped as a God or confused as a God? In the NT, the letter writer was beaten 195 times, he was stoned, he was jailed and according to church writings, he was crucified.

The letter writer called Paul, according to the NT, sufferred and was persecuted for about 30 years after the offspring of the Holy Ghost had ascended.

Why was not the letter writer confused as a God after so much suffering and persecution, even exceeding the persecution of the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Why was not Peter confused as a God, according to church writings, he was also crucified?

Why was Stephen not confused as a God, he was stoned to death, and even repeated similar words to the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Why was James, the so-called brother of the offspring of the Holy Ghost, not worshipped or confused as a God? James was stoned or clubbed to death according to church writings.

Why wasn't James the brother of John confused for a God, he was killed, according to the NT?

You cannot explain to me how a man can be confused for a God because he was killed, committed suicide or was suicidal.

Suicide man could not have been the first and only man to commit suicide in Judaea.

Suicide man could not have been the first and only man to have been crucified in Judaea.

Suicide man could not have been the first and only man to be accused of blasphemy.

So, explain to me how suicide man was confused for a God and worshipped as a God with the power to forgive sins while the Jews still observed the Mosaic Laws and with the Temple still intact.

Explain your theory on the confusion.

bacht

Right, as a Jew there was nothing original or unique about Jesus, except maybe to gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish tradition

If Jesus had been a military leader who challenged Rome or Syria or Egypt and won, THAT would have been a reason to give him the messiah title, even if he died in the attempt

If Jesus had been a claimant to the Jewish throne and overcame Roman political control, THAT would have been a reason to give him the messiah title, even if he died in the attempt

A passive victim of foreign powers was nothing special, nothing to be celebrated - UNLESS this man was not an ordinary man but some kind of supernatural being, OR a uniquely perfect human eligible for a final atoning sacrifice, a role not allowed by the Jews since the days of Abraham and Isaac.

No Robots

Then why do so many Jews who are intimately familiar with Jewish tradition see in Christ something special and unique? For example, we have this from David Flusser:

I do not think that many Jews would object if the Messiah when he came again was the Jew Jesus.--David Flusser, "To What Extent Is Jesus a Question for the Jews?". In Christians and Jews, p. 71.

bacht

'While critically distinguishing the historical Jesus from the visionary portrayal in the Gospels and other Christian writings, Flusser advocated Jesus as an authentic Jew, though misunderstood by his non-Jewish followers. David Satran, a professor of comparative religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said, "Dr. Flusser was rather remarkable in his strong insistence that not only was Jesus a Jew from birth to death, but that Jesus did nothing that could be interpreted as a revolt or questioning of the basic principles of the Judaism at the time." Personally, Flusser viewed Jesus as a tsadik with keen spiritual insight and with a "high self-awareness" that near-contemporaries similarly expressed, such as Hillel in the Talmud and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in certain Dead Sea Scrolls.'


The gospels contain contradictory messages about Jesus' Jewish orthodoxy, including whether the Jerusalem temple was necessary. The Teacher of Righteousness and his followers were obsessed with rules about the temple service including following their own sacred calendar.

Do we have evidence that Jews of any age, starting with the 2nd C, showed significant interest in accepting Jesus as their messiah, or even as a teacher? Are there really "so many Jews" who see Jesus as anything other than a nobody, or worse?

aa5874

And, we have Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" the Jew.

Trypho saw a parallel between the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin, and the mythical virgin births of of Greek myths.

Dialogue with Trypho 68 And in "The Life of the Twelve Caesars", "Vespasian", the healing methods of the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin, are similar to those sanctioned by the mythical God called Serapis.

The "Life of the Twelve Caesars" Vespasian The offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin, was indeed like the offspring of the myths Zeus and Danae, who spat in peoples eyes as practised by those who believed in the myth Serapis.

Elijah

Yea there is nothing to that theory at all. Its’ not that you have holes in your theory you have two names on a couple of poles sitting in a giant hole that is your theory.
That’s your job to illustrate how it was confused and that confusion spread. The central tenet of the myth theory is that it started as a myth that was confused for history. Explaining that confuse in a convincing believable way is necessary to any even remotely complete myth theory.

Obviously it is meant to be read as trying to support the belief in a particular messiah. Now if that messiah was historical or made up from the author is debatable but much more likely that an actual person is being promoted then just a simple piece of fiction being confused for a historical messiah that takes over the world.
So? That doesn’t matter, you are still going to have to read it and see if you can figure out what he is trying to convey to the audience or look to similar works. “He didn’t tell me what to think” is no excuse to not. The intent of the gospels should be obvious if you are familiar with the concept of a messiah or savior.
Who is Mark? Who are the original readers of Mark? Christians? When are they reading it? Do they become the first evangelists of Christ?
Yea, still don’t know who the writer is. Don’t know what he is writing. Don’t know his relation to Paul or how it was confused. Don’t know who read his work or when or how it was confused for history.

Hopefully you can see the flaws in your theory as it stands now. I don’t like being difficult but seriously there is nothing to your theory.

Elijah

I admit I’m wasting my time with you. No doubt. But that’s because I’m talking with someone who has an obvious bias towards the information and is never going to look at this rationally because you have a personal agenda and it’s not to find the truth.
To all your why wasn’t the other apostles deified to the extent of Jesus is simply because they are messengers of his.
Why would any of those people be confused for a god? Where any of them positioning themselves as the messiah? (As already mentioned in post #314’)
Maybe I can demonstrate then. What is your understanding of the Logos that Jesus is personifying and where do you get that understanding from?
It’s not a simple suicide though is it? He’s gathering followers and asking them to do the same. He’s establishing a meme.
Doesn’t matter his crimes or form of punishment. It’s the willing sacrifice and imitation of that sacrifice that makes his story take off.
People like you, unfamiliar with the philosophical concepts are the ones who go around preaching his message. The message was given to the gentiles and then inserted into Rome. You should expect some simplification and paganization of the ideas surrounding him.

I would ask you to explain your theory but, you have already basically admitted there is no reason to not believe a historical core is possible and no reason to believe in a mythical origin, that your objections are based on personal problems with Christ/religion not on rational thought.

bacht

Elijah, just because posters here can't present a theory that makes sense to you doesn't mean that such a theory doesn't exist. I'm not a scholar, so I can't point you to every piece of evidence that contradicts the HJ scenario.

But you haven't demonstrated that you understand historical method well enough to wholeheartedly endorse an historical Jesus, and you seem unwilling to acknowledge that religious texts may require more skepticism than non-religious reporting (due to inherent bias in religious witnesses).

You've shown that you have your own interpretation of the NT, and that's your right. But you can't turn around and say that your theory is the most plausible without referring to other researchers. The essence of modern scholarship is cross-checking each other's work. Without this your theory remains one among many others.

At least mountain man and others here have put some work into studying the literature. Whether or not his theory stands up over time will depend on the scrutiny of other researchers, not simply on whether he "feels" right about it.

Elijah

There isn’t any evidence to contradict a historical core. There is no unbiased evidence to support a historical core either but since there is no complete theory to support the mythical origin then I see no reason to go with that line of thinking. When someone sometime gets a good theory together I will obviously consider it.
Ad hominem argument instead of putting a case forward doesn’t help you much.

I think it is the mythers that are having a problem with the understanding the bias or religious witnesses. You can’t imagine how someone could make impossible claims about someone else so you just assume it’s a work of fiction.
I’m not a scholar nor am I looking to publish scholarly works. IMO. Historical core is far more plausible then mythical origin. If I’m wrong then I’m sure one of the more academic minded people on the board can correct me on why.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that most of the mythers are biased against religion. It’s not about what feels right but about getting the understanding that supports their skepticism no matter how little it correlates with the evidence/history.

His theory standing up over time will depend on getting a reasonable theory together. If you can get something that makes sense then there are plenty of people out there who will believe that just because they want to. Promoted right with some conviction even a theory that doesn’t make any sense can get some believers. It’s not going to be the scrutiny of researchers that determine the survival rate of a religious theory. If you could scrutinize a religion away we would have no religions at all.