mountainman

Hi TedM,

Thanks for that list of references. aa5874's consistent reply has been "Jesus Christ was NOTHING more than a Greek fable that people of antiquity BELIEVED".

I think aa5874's position would be if the same analysis were to be performed on the text of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings", and these same questions were asked such as: 1. What really happened, and 2. What the writer says happened. While the claim that the writer say Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit, flesh, a hobbit capable of things hobbits can't do as far as we know, is true, the claims themselves cannot distinguish fiction and history.

To do this each of us needs to make a small hypothesis. It appears aa5874 hypothesis, based on how he sees the evidence,
may be different from your own. Conversely, you may not have yet formulated any hypotheses in these matters. (See below).


I think aa5874 has as his hypothesis that Jesus was a fabricated myth and was not historical in the least.

Well it might assist the discussion if you did, since it should be obvious to all (including aa5874) that you have researched the material in depth and for some time. We have defined such positions in that "Beginners Table for Positions on Historical and Mythical Jesus's". I will try and summarise.

Spectrum of Positions on the HJ from historical to mythical

Those who think that there may be an historical core to Jesus will allocate some non zero amount of historicity to Jesus, and to that they will add a covering of myth or redaction or fiction or fabrication. The positions of those who think there is an historical core is thus a spectrum in itself defined by the "historicity" by which they perceive Jesus, between 100% and 0.042%. You dont usually meet too many people who argue for 100% historicity. A 85% historicity implies a 15% corresponding myth component, a 50% historicity implies a 50% corresponding myth component, and a 5% historicity implies a 95% corresponding myth component. In my experience and onservation, the large proportion of all commentators, athiests included, support this position.

On the other hand, many mythicist hypothesis, such as that espoused by aa5874 in ""Jesus Christ was NOTHING more than a Greek fable that people of antiquity BELIEVED", do not associate with the core of Jesus any historicity whatsoever, and the figure is totally mythical and indeed possibly fictional.

What is your position or default hypothesis ?

What is your position on this spectrum TedM? Obviously the default position on this must be the former - that Jesus had some sort of an historical core. The latter position, that Jesus had no historical core at all, appears to be a minority position. Anyone trained in the material usually assumes the default former position.

The position is basically an hypothesis.
I am imagining that you see it this way too.



I think the impasse between yourself and aa5875 is that while you are talking about how Jesus was described by the NT authors in terms of him being a human being with an historical core of some form who appeared in history, aa5874 is talking about how Jesus was described by the NT authors in terms of him beings a myth, a story, a fable and/or a fiction, with no historicity.

With no common ground between your two positions or hypotheses, slippage in communication may easily occur.

Anyway, best wishes to all participants,


Pete

Doug Shaver

There's your problem with aa, Ted. He has become convinced that he already has all the enlightenment anyone could possibly need. The only people who need a more enlightened perspective, as you put it, are those who disagree with him.

He is a bit like Paul in that regard. Paul had this revelation somewhere, somehow, about the Christ. You and I may disagree about what the content of that revelation was, but I think we agree that Paul thought something had been revealed to him. Then he went around preaching that revelation to others, and woe unto anyone who dared suggest, "Paul, I think you've made a mistake."

Of course, aa doesn't claim to have had any revelations, at least not of the divine sort. But he does think he has discovered Something Very Important about how Christianity got started, and there is just no way anybody is going to tell him he made a mistake.

TedM

This is not my problem with aa, Pete. aa constantly is making a case for the writers as not having a human being in THEIR minds as the object of their writings. He points to passages that suggest maybe Jesus had no father, was referred to the Son of God, and then ignores the passages that Jesus had a mother, ate food, etc... It's frankly ridiculous. Yet, he continues over and over with such nonsense. This is a problem because he interjects this theory in any thread that discusses a potential historical Jesus core--as if to say "none of the writers were even suggesting that Jesus had walked the earth as a human being so no argument of any kind -- ie expectations, behaviors of any person in the 1st or 2nd century -- is relevant. These constant interjections are highly annoying and disrupt the flow of communication.

My own position is irrelevant to this issue I have with him. But Pete, thanks for a thoughtful response.


Yes, this is a curious thing I see in some people. This rigidity is IMO dangerous in a segment of those same folks. Hopefully in this case it only remains an annoyance.

Toto

So - I split of aa5874's hobby horse, and Pete rides his hobby horse into the thread.

Why not. :banghead:

aa5874

There was NO guy named Jesus in the NT. In Acts, it was NOT a guy that ascended through the clouds.

Acts 1. You seem to have NO regards for the writings of antiquity and is CONSTANTLY imposing your UNSUBSTANTIATED beliefs.

In the NT, Jesus was some kind of Ghost or some kind of SPACE ALIEN.

Jesus PROMISED his disciples that he would SEND a GHOST to give them POWER in Acts. These are NOT the words of a mere Guy. These are the words of SPACE ALIENS.

Examine the words of Jesus in ACTS 1.5- Why do you have NO regards for the BELIEFS of people of antiquity? People of antiquity BELIEVED in Ghost Stories, Myth Gods and SPACE ALIENS.

You MUST respect the history of the PAST. You MUST TRY and understand THE evolution of RELIGION and NOT impose your UNSUBSTANTIATED guy.

Acts of the Apostles is EXTREMELY critical in UNDERSTANDING the EVOLUTION of Religious BELIEFS.

Based on ACTS, we KNOW or can deduce that people of antiquity did BELIEVE Jesus was some kind of SPACE ALIEN or some kind Ghost like MARCION'S PHANTOM.

aa5874

What you are ATTEMPTING to do is most ABSURD. You are ATTEMPTING to show that the NT is HERETICAL and CONTRARY to the very teachings of the Church.

You are NOT ready.

We ALREADY know that the VERY CHURCH WRITERS claim it was HERETICAL to teach that Jesus was just a man with a human father. See "Against Heresies"


You APPEAR to COMPLETELY NAIVE and is NOT ready to discuss the EVIDENCE.

1. The claim that Jesus of NT said X or Y and did B or C does NOT destroy his MYTH ORIGIN.

Romulus and REMUS said D and E and DID F and G on earth but are Considered MYTHS.

If you think that MYTHS cannot talk or walk on earth then you SADLY mistaken.

The very Greeks and Romans that BECAME CHRISTIANS who believed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost did BELIEVE in MYTHS that talked and walked on earth.

You have UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE any EVIDENCE to show that Jesus was a man with a human father and did actually exist.

Do you have any IDEA what Romulus and Remus talked about and did on earth? They had a human mother.

You have done the unthinkable and have made the NT a compilation of HERESIES.

TedM

Who is trying to do that? Not me. The very fact that you have written the above shows just how badly you have misunderstood what people talk about in these thread that talk about a historical Jesus.

Confused? Start with addressing what I've given you to address. Listening is the first step to real communication.

aa5874

You are now PUBLICLY denying your own theory that Jesus was a man.

You are NOT ready.

Do you realize your posts are recorded and that you have a history?

I will just DESTROY your HERESY right now with ONE verse.

Ga 1:1 - You are NOT ready to discuss the evidence from antiquity.

mountainman

Hang on a minute Toto,

If you carefully reread my response it was fairly and squarely aimed at trying to understand the foundation or the basis of the dispute, not to promote any one side. Unless we really understand or attempt to understand the precise nature of two people's specific positions, and resultant conflict, then we will not be any the wiser.

Everyone rides their own hobby horses and hypotheses. As far as I can surmise, the general and default hobby horse in BC&H has been since its inception, the discussion of some version of the historical jesus core, to which has been redacted some percentage of myth by unknown participants in the chain of preservation of the original manuscripts of the NT.

I was not criticising this HJ core investigation, the default hypothesis, this claim, this hobby horse. I am trying to identify precisely what is being engaged. I am attempting to understand the very basis of the dispute in a logical and objective fashion.

lovesilentdeath

Yes, you are right! There was no question until the Reformation, other than the Arian heresy. However, this was to our benefit in its outcome. Is Christianity anymore than Judaism with the Messiah fulfilled by Jesus. Why is the Old Testament included in the canon and why is Revelations part of the canon text? All this brought up the idea of dispensations, along with conflicts on earthly rule by Jesus, rather than heaven.

As the doubts have increased the consensus of belief has decreased. The religion become exposed as it is, a superstition from a myth of the primitive tribal society. The platonic reasoning is exposed and what we have come to know is all this mythology and superstitions are based on the means of social control. The Romans used it for centuries after its fall from power.

The idea of religion is part of our history, it is an expression of the human mind, not a fixed reality.