Chris Weimer

The most recent I've gotten from Richard Carrier is that he doesn't agree with Doherty 100%. As to what he disagreed with, I didn't inquire any further. But a simple search here can easily point out several problems with Doherty's theory, for example, κατα σαρκον.

spin

Addressed to Earl:
I think there is evidence to support the existence of John, given the conflict between the information given in the gospels and Josephus, and I don't support a mythical Jesus, but what does it matter if one is real and the other is not, if you've never seen either?


spin

gnosis92

my point is why would early christians prefer a non-existent jesus as opposed to a historical john the baptist? doesnt make any sense to me. why wasn't the gospels and the gospel of q and thomas attributed to a historical john the baptist, as opposed to a non-existent jesus?

aa5874

I do not think that two persons, working independently, can use fictitious information and re-construct identical findings. Once Richard Carrier and Doherty agree in principle that the Jesus described in the NT is not historical, then each one will only be able to speculate about how that name evolved into a religion and will ,in all likelyhood, differ from person to person.

spin

My point was, how would they know and why would they care. This notion of "non-existent" means something to you, but participation in existence seemed to be different in those days, when gods could have relations with humans, whether with virgins who miraculously conceived or with ones that got turned into cows or whatever. If "non-existent" gods could intervene in salvation history for the benefit of humanity, does it matter that they didn't do so in this world?

Besides, John was not a messianic or saviour figure, but one who advocated ritual purity of the body. They had different appeals.


spin

gnosis92

the view of bart ehrman and agnostic and professional historian mean by existent is that there was a jesus of history, and my point is that if jesus did not exist how could a religion which claims a non-existent savior compete with a religion of john the baptist and his followers, rooted in a historical personage.
since it seems unlikely the conclusion is that jesus is a figure of history

spin

Barty can have his opinions.

You are rather confused. The religion doesn't claim a non-existent saviour. Non-presence in the real ordinary world doesn't mean that an ancient needed to think that the entity of a Jesus referred to something that didn't exist in the spiritual realm either. Look at the claptrap that the gnostics believed, aeons and archons and what-nots.

John wasn't offering a new religion. He was working wholly within Judaism.

Still, your appeal to an ancient having to prefer one to another because the one is a real person doesn't in any way reflect the past. It is based on your modern desires for simple realism, when reality obviously wasn't perceived quite in the same way as it is today, since it didn't have the benefit of centuries of scientific endeavor to bring a semblance of coherence to the world.


spin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gnosis92,

This is a good question.

I think when Jesus of Nazareth evolves, we have a number of Christ groups competing. There's 1) the followers of John, who believed he was a prophet, 2) the followers of John who believed he was the Christ, 3) the followers of Simon Magus who believed he was the Christ, and 4) the followers of Jesus/Joshua of Nun who believed he was sitting on the right hand of God and about to come down as the Messiah. The Jesus of Nazareth Cult (which I now believe appeared around 150) could appeal to all four groups. They could appeal to the John-the-Prophet group by keeping John as a revered prophet, the John-the-Christ group by pointing out that John had done no signs, the Simon Magus group by incorporating the magic deeds of Simon into the character, and the Joshua cult by giving the Messiah the name of Jesus and saying his return was imminent. It was a nice synthesis and had a little something for everyone.

It's like the movie Ocean's Twelve, George Clooney and Brad Pitt for the women, Catherine Zeta Jones and Julia Roberts for the men, a little action, a little comedy; how could you go wrong.

Without film or video, it was impossible to say for sure who had really lived and who had not lived 100 years before. Also the historical messiahs were 95 +% fiction to begin with, so a 100% fictional messiah wasn't that big a leap.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

GakuseiDon

I'd like to see that also, though I doubt that scholars in any other field are expected to address the work of amateurs as a matter of course. After all, which of the following versions (ignoring the overlap) of the Jesus Myth should scholars address? Doherty's "World of Myth"? Carlotti's "Julius Caesar as Jesus Christ"? Harpur's "Osiris as Christ"? Acharya S's "Sun of God as Son of God"? I doubt any scholar has time to address them all. Why should they address the one that you, personally, support over the others? Because YOU think that it's the correct version? (But then have you yourself gone out and publicly reviewed the other versions in the way that you want scholars to publicly review the version you favour?)

To paraphrase an old saying: we are all "agnostics" regarding the Jesus Myth, it's just that I am "agnostic" to one more version than you.

I think faulting scholars for not addressing fringe ideas in ANY field is wrong. It is up to those pushing the ideas to make sure they come to the attention of the scholars, and to do that by pushing their case in peer-reviewed publications. After all, isn't that what we would expect a scholar convinced on the Jesus Myth to start doing anyway? Otherwise, why be concerned whether scholars are addressing the Jesus Myth or not?

We should encourage Jesus Mythers to address academia! And if the peer-reviewed publications are found to reject such articles just on the subject being addressed, this should be exposed. But if Jesus Mythers are doing nothing to try to publish in peer-reviewed publications, then this should be exposed also.

post tenebras lux

Hi GD, as you are aware, the Jesus Seminar refused to look at the MJ's case. As I posted only a few days ago in another thread you participated in: