Onias

No, because the existence of both God and Adam is contentious, and so is Santa, but Saint Nicholas is not. Some myths can have an historical kernel and others do not.

aa5874

Exactly. Jesus was the Son of a God without a trace or kernel of history.

If we go back in time and look for Jesus all we would find is Saint "Not-a-lots". [Saint Nothing]

If Jesus had a kernel of history then the Jesus cult would not publish all over the Roman Empire that he was the Son of a Ghost.

If the early authors of the Jesus story wanted people to believe Jesus did exist as only as a human being then they would not have claimed he was born after his mother became pregnant by a Ghost.


It is absolutely clear to me that the NT is just a compilation of 2nd century or later Myth Fables that people of antiquity believed and was later made the basis of a New Religion.

outhouse

Better to be atheistic

Except of course we can make certain conclusions like the baptism by JtB in the Jordan and death on a cross/T at Romans hands, which there is almost a complete scholarly consensus for. Why are they all wrong, and only you are correct?

If you want to follow Richard Carrier, that fine he does good work. His and your opinion however, in my opinion, raise more questions then answers.

outhouse

I don't know why mythicist don't focus on Jewish characters like Noah or Moses that are 100% mythical in nature. [probably because they recreate history hundreds and hundreds of years in the past as a track record, not decades like the Jesus legend..

But you take the mythology surrounding David, yet he probably did exist a the core. There are more Jewish characters in mythology that surely existed.

spin

There is as much evidence for Jesus' actions as there are for those of Hereward the Wake, Prester John, Robin Hood and the like, ie none. That doesn't mean none of them existed, but that assumptions of their existence are founded on nothing tangible. The gospels are not historical sources, though christian scholars may bleed at the eardrums to the contrary. As I have told you to no response, the gospels are unprovenanced, undated, anonymous works of unclear genre, whose core content is unsupported outside christian preserved literature. This is not the basis for any history.

But then you eventually appeal to authority for lack of any evidence. And you are obviously wrong with your claim: "Why are they all wrong, and only you are correct?" You know full well that I am not the only one on the side of scholarly methodology.

I don't follow Richard Carrier. You are just doing your usual stuff. Please get your stuff in order.

As to my opinion raising more questions than answers, that's very true. Too many people are content with assumptions as answers. Point to the assumptions and those answers suddenly seem to vanish. Generating useful questions is good for understanding, while producing half-assed answers is good for nothing.

aa5874

The genre is clear mythology.

The writings about Jesus are Myth Fables.

Justin Martyr made it extremely clear and presented some of the Myth characters of the Greeks and Romans..

The stories of Jesus are no different to the Myth Fables of the Greeks.

First ApologyThe Jesus story is not history and the Jesus cult argued for hundreds of years that Jesus had no human father.

outhouse

My bad. But in the aspect of Historical verses Ahistorical Jesus you "share" that one aspect.

It was a half compliment towards you anyway, I have always placed your work in high places.


My HJ is on a very short list.

Whether or not he existed, the first century cultural anthropology is fascinating, and why I am in this.

The assumptions in this area bother me as well, as long as one places it into context of plausibility in hopes of future understanding is one thing.


Look at what has changed in the last 20 years.

Do the different books not have factual history contained within them in certain aspects?

I think you mean, for you, they are not good historical sources.


Much of the dating is very close and not worth debating.

You find them ahistorical until proven otherwise, that's fine, its only your opinion.


Don't get me wrong, you throw rocks at the house, don't get upset when people come outside and defend it.

So mythicist can make these statements without question?


I agree its not, nor should it be a go too answer, but either is throwing rocks to begin with.



I only "know" that you find Jesus ahistorical.

How "you" explain away the Paul and the gospels I am personally not entirely sure of yet.

I "don't know" your methodology, other then your highly intelligent, very knowledgeable on the subject and only one other person at this site is as educated on the subject as you.

The fact you disagree with "dates" throws a few red flags, but without your version to debate, there's no use starting now, you could be correct in some places.

spin

In the core content, neither I, nor anyone else, know.

Unprovenanced, undated, anonymous texts whose core information has no outside corroboration make shit history, no matter how you tart that up.

Rubbish. Try to make a case on any of the documents and I'll cut you to pieces.

It's not that simple. Find someone who who can get history out the core gospel content and you'll have found a liar.

The image doesn't get the finesse of the situation. You point out the lack of evidence for a view that has a group supporting it and you'll expect that group to defend it, but that says nothing about the quality of support.

I'll let you deal with mythicists.

Before you can see the landscape, you need to remove the clutter.

Understand the issue though: that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. Whether he did or not, he lacks any historical evidence.

Paul is irrelevant. He tells you he never met his Jesus in real life and got his information through revelation. No history there. What's there to explain about the gospels beyond the stories they tell. Narratives unattached to history need little explanation until they can be attached.

The fact that you toady to religious experts is your problem. Opinions are no substitute for research and analysis of evidence. There are good reasons for disinformation in this field, reasons that any freethinker should be aware of. This doesn't mean that one can discount the stories as not having happened, but that they lack the starting materials to be considered as historically tenable.

Toto

The topic of the historicity of Acts has been split off here

Adam

I'm aware, spin,
That your carefully phrased agnosticism rarely leaves room to call you out on claims that cannot be supported, and your comments above leave the issue open. This leaves me confident that you never posted in my thread

Significance of John
(nor has Jeff Gibson either) because my peer-reviewed article provided evidence that you constantly claimed was missing from my bigger thesis in my larger thread

Gospel Eyewitnesses. Naturally you never agreed that I could prove my thesis that there are seven written eyewitness records to Jesus, but you no longer claim that I never presented any evidence for the three of them in the Gospel of John.