Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-09-2011, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no record of the idea that Jesus might have been fictional in the early church.

Records can and have been destroyed, and ESPECIALLY by the early church.

We may presume everyone thought Jesus was historical, or we may presume otherwise and that the heresiologists were careful not to preserve the record that explicit belief (See Nestorius who preserved such record of beliefs in fiction - and thus was shafted by Cyril), but rather ameliorated its description into something less offensive for the future glorious authenticity of the church.

Is it not quite reasonable to suspect that there was at one time a great controversy over the historical existence of Jesus who "appeared in the flesh"? This controversy we have in this century is not new. When did it start? What does the evidence say?

The HJ argument is NOT that Jesus was believed to have existed. The HJ argument is that Jesus of the NT is a mythologized, fictionalized and Embellished man whom they call HJ.

People have believed Gods exist but there is NO evidence that a cult which do not worship men as Gods and claimed it was HERETICAL that Jesus was a man did make a man into a God contrary to their own doctrine.

Toto · 02-09-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
We may presume everyone thought Jesus was historical, or we may presume otherwise and that the heresiologists were careful not to preserve the record that explicit belief (See Nestorius who preserved such record of beliefs in fiction - and thus was shafted by Cyril),

What did Nestorius say?

Quote:

but rather ameliorated its description into something less offensive for the future glorious authenticity of the church.

Is it not quite reasonable to suspect that there was at one time a great controversy over the historical existence of Jesus who "appeared in the flesh"?

No, it's not reasonable. That's not how people thought back then. Besides, the enemies of Christianity thought the worst thing they could say was that Jesus was a criminal who was born of a prostitute. If the Christians could preserve that argument, why would they not preserve a charge of fiction?

Quote:

This controversy we have in this century is not new. When did it start? What does the evidence say?

The idea that Jesus never existed seems to have originated in the 18th century - at least Acharya S has not located a serious mythicist from before that time.

mountainman · 02-09-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
We may presume everyone thought Jesus was historical, or we may presume otherwise and that the heresiologists were careful not to preserve the record that explicit belief (See Nestorius who preserved such record of beliefs in fiction - and thus was shafted by Cyril),

What did Nestorius say?

Have a look through
NESTORIUS - The Bazaar of Heracleides
Newly translated from the Syriac
by G. R. DRIVER, M.A. & LEONARD HODGSON, M.A.
Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford, 1925

Here are some highlights .....

Quote:

10. What the statements are of those who say that by nature God the Word became flesh without having taken a body.

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying
that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly
a nature but a fiction and an illusion;

The above seems a clear reference to a belief in a fictional and non historical HJ.

Quote:

13. How they take the [words] 'truly and not in nature', and in how many ways 'truly' is said.

Nestorius. Truly then they say that God became flesh?
Sophronius says: We confess / that he became flesh truly but not by his nature,
in that he who became, became [so] in truth, and he is the nature but not in the nature.
Indeed the flesh has not always existed, but, as flowing water
when frozen has the nature of ice though it is not so in its nature but has become [so],
thus also has God truly become flesh, and he is the nature of the flesh and not in his nature,
in that he is not it always but he became [so] afterwards.
For this is truly the Incarnation, in his nature to become flesh and man
and not in illusion nor in schema nor in fiction without hypostasis,
which truly would be no incarnation.
He therefore who wants to suppose that it came about in fiction
flees from the truth.

The underlined bits above seem to demonstrate that at least some people heretically clung to a belief that the nature of Jesus was one of illusion or schema or fiction.

Nestorius then concludes his presentation of the heresies and heretics of his time by the following statement:

Quote:

14. Wherein those who say [this] agree with the Manichaeans and wherein they are supposed to be distinct from them.

Has it then been revealed to thee wherein they are imagined [to be] the same
and wherein they are supposed to have differences and abide by the same?
And we ought to leave out the things which follow these, in order that
we may not vainly suppress the truth in what is confessed.

Nestorius says: I for my part say: Let us not entirely neglect this point,
although thou dost wish to run over it as one which is confessed.
Since it has been so unscrupulously said as to / be accounted absurd by the hearers,
I suppose that it is so also to thee. I will now explain this inquiry
to any one who wishes in order that that which surely is supposed may come to explanation;
for I do not see in it anything like or akin to anything [else].

For they are quite as far removed from one another as fiction is far from truth
and [as] the body of fiction [is] from the body [of truth].

I see many who strongly insist on these [theories]
as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion.

And for this reason I wish thee to examine them not cursorily but with all care,
in order that the words of the faith may not be [treated] without investigation and lightly,
but may be clear and known to all men, as things which are somehow defined
by definitions and natural likenesses, and not like things which are represented
by their shadows [and] resemble this or that so long as they are figured in the same likeness.
In what then dost thou say that they say the same thing, in that they are
like the Manichaeans even in the things wherein they reprimand them?

The bolded bit .... "I see many who strongly insist on these [theories] as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion" suggests not only that Nestorius was aware of the existence of people who believed that Jesus was a fictional and non historical being, but that this belief (or opinion) is based on the truth and testimony of ancient opinion. He is summarising a set of heretical beliefs which included the belief that JHesus was fictional - in any other words NON HISTORICAL. In summary he says that he sees many that insist that these theories are based on the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Nestorius c. 386 – c. 451 CE

Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to 22 June 431. Drawing on his studies at the School of Antioch he devised a doctrine that later bore his name, Nestorianism, which emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. His teachings, which included a rejection of the long-used title of Theotokos ("Mother of God") for the Virgin Mary, brought him into conflict with other prominent churchmen of the time, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who accused him of heresy. Nestorius sought to defend himself at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, but instead he found himself formally condemned for heresy and removed from his see. Thereafter he retired to a monastery, where he asserted his orthodoxy for the rest of his life. Despite his acquiescence, many of his supporters split with the rest of the church in the Nestorian Schism, and over the next decades a number of them relocated to Persia. Thereafter Nestorianism became the official position of the Church of the East.

mountainman · 02-09-2011, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Is it not quite reasonable to suspect that there was at one time a great controversy over the historical existence of Jesus who "appeared in the flesh"?

No, it's not reasonable. That's not how people thought back then.

Well haven't you just contradicted yourself?

Quote:

Besides, the enemies of Christianity thought the worst thing they could say was that Jesus was a criminal who was born of a prostitute.

Julian said that Jesus was not found with Incontenence until after Constantine had run after Pleasure, and that Jesus said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus according to Emperor Julian

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

Quote:

If the Christians could preserve that argument, why would they not preserve a charge of fiction?

Because it would have been the one thing detrimental to the running of a perfectly good authenticity business. If the historical Jesus was in fact not historical there would be all sorts of questions they would need to answer. So my guess is that they simply destroyed this. Take as an example the Three books of Julian against the christians, asserting fabrication of a fiction, which were destroyed after his death. It took a while, as the history of the 4th and 5th and subsequent centuries reveals. A relentless pursuit of heretics was good for the monopoly of Orthodox Business. The army and imperial "damnatio memoriae" and death and destruction certainly could have assisted this objective.

Quote:

This controversy we have in this century is not new. When did it start? What does the evidence say?

The idea that Jesus never existed seems to have originated in the 18th century - at least Acharya S has not located a serious mythicist from before that time.

But what is to prevent the "deceivers" in John who would not confess that Jesus had "appeared in the flesh" from being mythicists?

stephan huller · 02-09-2011, 11:39 PM

Quote:

But what is to prevent the "deceivers" in John who would not confess that Jesus had "appeared in the flesh" from being mythicists?

Knowledge of terminology.

You are a mythicist. The author of 1 John was NOT a mythicist. The term "mythicist" (as I understand it) refers to the perspective that there exists no credible scientific evidence for the "historical" Jesus and other biblical figures. Almost every mythicist I have ever come across does not believe in God or - perhaps more correctly - those people who embrace 'mythicism' as a means of 'debunking' the truth about a religion they don't beleive in.

The people whom 1 John is railing against - viz. the Marcionites - thought Jesus did not have a physical body because they thought he was God and God doesn't have a physical body. The Marcionites weren't sitting around laughing at Christianity thinking it was a joke. They just thought that - for some reason - Jesus had to APPEAR suspended from a stauros to bring about redemption for everyone.

We don't understand their system because the Catholics were very hostile to them and their beliefs but BECAUSE they believed in Jesus as God and emphasized it a great deal they can't be accused of thinking that Christianity had no historical basis. Indeed Adamantius seems to hint that they thought Paul was present at the crucifixion so in some ways they went further at developing historical witnesses for the Passion (as it stands none of the evangelists are recognized as being witnesses for the central event in the gospel narrative which is bizarre to say the least).

The closest we get to having a solid witness for the crucifixion among the disciples are the various traditions related to Mark identifying him as being present at the things he placed in his gospel (Muratorian canon), the title theorimos (Copt. 'beholder of God') and various other statements in the traditions outside of the European Church.

Another example is Ephrem who in many places in his writings intimates that John did earn the promise of sitting at the righthand of God (and thus stayed with Jesus to the end cf. Mark 8:34, 10:32).

I happened to find this interesting reference in Clement of Alexandria today:

some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (αἱροῦντι τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.(Strom 7.16)

Many people deny that Clement's Alexandrian Church already had an attachment to Mark and his gospel at the time the Stromata was written. Yet I see this as confirmation of a Markan credal formula.

The terminology is clearly derived from the Gospel of Mark where ἀκολουθοῦντες appears twice:

Mark 10:32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going in front of them, and they were amazed; and those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες) were afraid. He again took the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were going to happen to him.

Mark 11:9 Those who went in front, and those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες), cried out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

The reason why we should be so certain that Mark 10:32 is meant rather than Mark 11:9 is because of the conjoining phrase '... take up faith' viz. ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ποιοῦνται τὰς πίστεις. In other words, the reference in Strom. 7.16 is one part Mark 10:32 but channeling the first reference to Jesus foreshadowing of his death in Jerusalem:

Mark 8:34 He called the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, "Whoever wants to come after me ... and take up his cross (καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ), and follow me (καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι)."

Both ἀράτω and αἱροῦντι are forms of the verb αἴρω 'to take up' or ' to lift.' Thus, when the two passages are connected like this, Clement is saying that while some disciples fell away from faith, at least one disciple 'followed' Jesus all the way to the cross. This would have the effect of confirming that Clement at least thought it was a historical event.

Yet interestingly in the same section Clement rejects (or at least 'corrects') those who believe that Jesus was born from a human mother. The whole passage reads:

Now, it is a very great thing to abandon opinion, by taking one's stand between accurate knowledge and the rash wisdom of opinion, and to know that he who hopes for everlasting rest knows also that the entrance to it is toilsome "and strait." And let him who has once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation, "not turn back, like Lot's wife," as is said; and let him not go back either to his former life, which adheres to the things of sense, or to heresies. For they form the character, not knowing the true God. "For he that loveth father or mother more than Me," the Father and Teacher of the truth, who regenerates and creates anew, and nourishes the elect soul, "is not worthy of Me" -- He means, to be a son of God and a disciple of God, and at the same time also to be a friend, and of kindred nature. "For no man who looks back, and puts his hand to the plough, is fit for the kingdom of God."

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων). "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from a pairing of two things (συνδυασμοῦ). Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics; but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived. Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (αἱροῦντι τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.

The point then is that Clement helps put a face on those who stressed Jesus was a wholly divine hypostasis - the Son of God - but at the same time existed and worked in 'real time' (in real history) and had witnesses to his Passion (i.e. the disciple who was 'perfected' in what immediately followed Mark 10:32 (and then again at the crucifixion).

mountainman · 02-10-2011, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

But what is to prevent the "deceivers" in John who would not confess that Jesus had "appeared in the flesh" from being mythicists?

Knowledge of terminology.

We have the heretics and the heresiologists.
I imagine you are referring to the knowledge of the heresiologists.

Quote:

You are a mythicist.

No, I am, following Arnarldo Momogliano, an outsider, in the following sense:

"Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders."

Quote:

The author of 1 John was NOT a mythicist.

You dont know who the author of John was, or when he or she wrote. The author of John could have been a "Logos Consultant" in downtown Alexandria for all we know. And if the author of John was not "John" the Apostle, then your negative assertion becomes very questionable, because any late "Johns" might be writing fiction - the later "John" wrote, the more likely it becomes that "John" is a tall story teller, a fabricator of fiction, or a master of Myth.

What does the confession that Jesus "is come in the flesh" have, that the confession that Jesus "is an historical figure" does not? Do you confess that Jesus "is come in the flesh"? Why was it important to confess that Jesus "is come in the flesh"? Was it a reassuring confession? Is there any historical evidence of inquisition like coersion?

And finally, were leading citizens and philosophers of Antioch tortured c.324/325 CE following the Council of Antioch (which preceeded Nicaea) if they did not confess that Jesus "is come in the flesh"? Or were they tortured by order of Constantine for another reason?

avi · 02-10-2011, 03:18 AM

Quote:

For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.

Who would have performed this examination on a teenage Jewish mother 2000 years ago?

How was such an observation reported?

Where were these findings published?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The term "mythicist" (as I understand it) refers to the perspective that there exists no credible scientific evidence for the "historical" Jesus and other biblical figures.

You may add, in addition, absence of scientific evidence for conception sans sperm, live birth absent disruption of the hymen membrane, and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation three days post mortem, to that list of non-credible claims which augment the perspective that Christianity is based upon mythical, supernatural thinking. A "mythicist" is simply one who acknowledges the fact that Christianity, by demanding faith in irrational, delusional thinking, represents a myth.

Some folks are confused about this, because they imagine, incorrectly, that if a particular parameter of the equation is truthful, valid, and logical, that then, the phenomenon cannot be regarded as mythical.

It takes only ONE aspect of the belief to be false, superstitious, or irrational, to categorize the thinking as mythical. People do not return to life, after death. FIVE MINUTES without respiration, (at room temperature,) results in anoxic destruction of the cerebral cortex, leading to loss of speech, voluntary movement, vision, hearing, and other cortical functions. In the Christian fable, both Lazarus and JC himself were declared DEAD, for periods of time much longer than a mere five minutes.

avi

mountainman · 02-10-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.

Who would have performed this examination on a teenage Jewish mother 2000 years ago?

How was such an observation reported?

Where were these findings published?

At the Council of Antioch Constantine himself declared "A dove, had alighted on the virgin mary, like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark". But to his credit Constantine also addressed the skeptics. Many correspondents in this forum claim to see themselves as skeptics. Do you have any suspicions about this bit ....

In regard to the claim that two BCE Roman poets (Virgil and Cicero) independently documented the prophecy of the Sibyl, and alerted the Graeco-Roman empire to the future birth of Jesus, about the skeptics Constantine declared the following:

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.
These skeptics were already known to Origen ...

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

So there we have the answer (from the Top) for the skeptics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The term "mythicist" (as I understand it) refers to the perspective that there exists no credible scientific evidence for the "historical" Jesus and other biblical figures.

You may add, in addition, absence of scientific evidence for conception sans sperm, live birth absent disruption of the hymen membrane, and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation three days post mortem, to that list of non-credible claims which augment the perspective that Christianity is based upon mythical, supernatural thinking. A "mythicist" is simply one who acknowledges the fact that Christianity, by demanding faith in irrational, delusional thinking, represents a myth.

Some folks are confused about this, because they imagine, incorrectly, that if a particular parameter of the equation is truthful, valid, and logical, that then, the phenomenon cannot be regarded as mythical.

It takes only ONE aspect of the belief to be false, superstitious, or irrational, to categorize the thinking as mythical. People do not return to life, after death. FIVE MINUTES without respiration, (at room temperature,) results in anoxic destruction of the cerebral cortex, leading to loss of speech, voluntary movement, vision, hearing, and other cortical functions. In the Christian fable, both Lazarus and JC himself were declared DEAD, for periods of time much longer than a mere five minutes.

In addition to this, we might try and re-represent the picture as developed in recent threads concerning the spectrum of belief associated with the HJ hypothesis (leading to HJ theories) and the MJ hypothesis (leading to MJ theories). It serves to highlight that there are two separate spectrums of belief - one assuming the HJ existed, and the other assuming he did not.

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious Forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Pious Forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

An Analysis of the "Theory Space" of the HJ and MJ Theories

Another way of presenting the above table of opinion concerning the available evidence is by means of the following diagram:

Region (1): Purely Historical

The region marked (1) above, totally in red depicts those theories
which consider themselves to be wholly based on an historical Jesus.
No element of myth is considered existent in this segment of theory space.
It is notable that all theories in this category will accept the historical core
postulate and reject the mythological core postulate.

Region (2): Mixture - Both Historical and Mythical

The region marked (2) above, totally in yellow/orange depicts those theories
which consider themselves to be a mixture of both history and myth.
It should be stated at this point that practically all theories advanced
to date will fall into either Region (1) or Region (2). Those in Region (1)
think of themselves as supporting the unexamined postulate of an historical
jesus, while those in Region (2) depend at least to some degree upon the
notion that there may have been some element of truth to an historical jesus.

These two parties consider themselves to be the two exchange participants
in all dialogue to date. An excellent summary of many positions, theories,
and use of hypotheses in contemporary Biblical Criticism and History is
presented on this Matrix of Scholars' Views on Historical Jesus and Pauline Authenticity.

In the above table, where the historicity is greater than zero, then theory
categories 1 through 4 are represented somewhere within the two segments
1 and 2 on the above diagram.

In general, these mainstream theories in Segment spaces 1 and 2 do not in
any way acknowledge that there is any "Mythical Core", and that somewhere
there is a "historical core", perhaps not recoverable.

Region (3): Non Historical - Purely Mythical and/or Fictional and/or "Docetic" (as per this thread)

The region marked (3) above, totally in green depicts those theories
which consider themselves to be wholly based on a mythical Jesus.
No element of history is considered existent in this segment of theory space.
The entire class of theories involving a non historical Jesus are in this segment.

In this class of theories about Jesus, there is no historical core at all.

mountainman · 02-11-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Contrary to Pete I don't think 2nd John has anything to do with the HJ and MJ dichotomy. It is a dispute between those who believed that the Jesus who appeared on earth was actually flesh and those who thought the Jesus who appeared on earth only seemed to be flesh but was actually spirit.

However John who claims to be an eyewitness does not describe the dispute in those terms at all. The dispute was over the "confession that Jesus had appeared in the flesh", and it is the closest thing that I can find in the entire new testament canon which relates to the question about the belief that "Jesus appeared in history".

Quote:

In either case Jesus was actually on earth interacting with ordinary people who took him to be a man, albeit in some cases a very special man.

This assumption is what John would love us to confess, but its not as simple as that since the legions are not outside to enforce it. The fact that the greatest of all heresies (i.e. "invocation of the AntiChrist Card") was specifically stated to be the denial that "Jesus appeared in the flesh" is suspiciously phrased like a common curse, and directed against those who would be insensitive enough to question the historical existence of Jesus.

If we allow the phrase "Jesus appeared in the flesh" to be equivalent to the phrase "Jesus appeared in history", then John seems to suggest that amidst the people of his time were those who refused to confess that Jesus was historical, and that they were to be known as "deceivers". This makes far more common sense.

paygan · 02-14-2011, 10:09 AM

This fits very well with my own theories which follow Barbara Theirings on the point that Simon Magus seems the towering historical figure of the time. I'd advance it an suggest and that while Simon was really Christ, the "Jesus" figure may have been his fabrication entirely. Simon is remembered as "The Father of All Lies".

Me and Barbara may be mistaken, but we do highlight that this Jesus bloke had a lot of friends called Simon, one of whom at least started Simonian Gnosticism - Simon Peter, Simon the Zealot, Simon the Cyrene, Simon the Brother of Jesus, Simon the Tanner, Simon the Leper, Simon the Father of Judas Iscariot, Simon Zelotes, Simon Magus - you pick?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2011, 10:09 AM	#20
paygan Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Plymouth, U.K. Posts: 6	This fits very well with my own theories which follow Barbara Theirings on the point that Simon Magus seems the towering historical figure of the time. I'd advance it an suggest and that while Simon was really Christ, the "Jesus" figure may have been his fabrication entirely. Simon is remembered as "The Father of All Lies". Me and Barbara may be mistaken, but we do highlight that this Jesus bloke had a lot of friends called Simon, one of whom at least started Simonian Gnosticism - Simon Peter, Simon the Zealot, Simon the Cyrene, Simon the Brother of Jesus, Simon the Tanner, Simon the Leper, Simon the Father of Judas Iscariot, Simon Zelotes, Simon Magus - you pick?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.