Adam

I have had lots of recent posts ignored or dismissed probably as "inconvenient". Perhaps this "stone-walling" is justified if to accept a first premiss would undermine the prime defense against all subsequent arguments.
Here's one that's a special case, however--one could argue against me, but using a basis that everyone here on FRDB finds unacceptable (conspiracy). From
Post #234 in The Big Picture: A Top 10 List for HJ
No one seems want to comment on the almost universally acknowledged source, the Passion Narrative. Here's
Mark,John, and Barabbas Post #31
And that stimulated my OP and subsequent expansion in
Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #534
I would prefer that these issues be addressed on the relevant threads. However, instead of that or in addition to that we should discuss here any identification of a boundary beyond which one may not proceed without granting too great an advantage to HJ or Biblicist arguments. Here are starters: Are mythers only safe to deny even a Crucifixion, because this would give too much credibility to the Passion Narrative? Must a source for the Passion Narrative be denied because stripping supernaturalism from the Passion would undermine rejecting historicity of the grittiest fact about Jesus? Would accepting it as historical imply historicity to whatever gospel stories might explain how and why Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death? Would other dominoes subsequently fall?

steve_bnk

After a good botttle of wine it is hard to take this seriously.

In vino veritas.

stephan huller

I'm so bored of all of this. But let me for arguments sake ask you a question. There are just as many people on this earth who believe that Jesus was actually crucified on the cross as believe that someone else (Judas) was crucified in his place. Since that substitution goes as far back as Irenaeus and our earliest Christian sources why should we take the idea that a physical man 'Jesus of Nazareth' was nailed to the Cross so seriously? There were Christians who did not believe that Jesus was actually nailed to the Cross. They continued to function as worshipers of Jesus in spite of their rejection of what you call the reality of the Crucifixion of Jesus. What matter is it that the four canonical gospels agree on something when Irenaeus tells us that a version of the Gospel of Mark ended with either Jesus watching Christ or Christ watching Jesus crucified (the names become jumbled typically depending on the recension cf. the switch in Against Valentinians when compared to Against Heresies of parallel material).

It may be agreed that the gospel went back to some historical event but the reality of Jesus or his Crucifixion can be questioned or even denied without compromising one's belief in the truth of the Christian message. Only the Catholics held that Jesus was a man and that he was actually crucified it seems. What does the 'agreement' of the synoptics and John as a proof for the reality of Jesus's crucifixion when there were even earlier versions of the same texts which denied your proposition?

sotto voce

thief of fire

I find them hard to follow and have been impressed that some have taken the time and effort to read understand and respond.
Im not trying to be unnecessarliy critrical, just saying.

aa5874

Well, that is PRECISELY erroneous. Based on "Against Heresies" it was CONTRARY to the Church to preach and teach Jesus was a man born by sexual reproduction.

How could you be so wrong???

The Catholic Church taught that Jesus was the VERY SON of God.

Excerpt of The Nicene Creed I find it extremely disturbing that the fundamental belief of the Catholic Church is flagrantly mis-represented.

Horatio Parker

MJ exists regardless of HJ.

Spiritual events occur in a spiritual realm, outside of history. Or time.

It's theoretically possible for an archetype to physically exist. But in the case of HJ, there is no evidence outside scripture. And scripture is theology, not history.

Adam

Of whom are you speaking? I have been particularly underwhelmed by lack of interest in discussing Proto-Luke and the Passion Narrative even when I have revealed texts that cannot simply be dismissed as supernaturalism. I suppose what I thus call The Gospel According to the Atheists is regarded as letting the camel's nose under the tent, a domino too far that would support accepting other gospel texts.

steve_bnk

If I may summarize my time on the forum

1. Some of us non believers believe a possible human non divine Jesus existed, others do not. There is no possible answer.

2. Christians have a general set of attacks on atheists when in reality there is nothing to attack. No ideolgy, faith or otherwise. Atheism is a rejection of deities. No objective eveidence of a god Abrahamic or otherwise.

3. Some participate in debates simply because it is history and interseting as a subject. None believe any of the writings are divine inspiration.

4. None believe any of the superntural tales. The discuissions of links between various writings and the discussion on orgins of texts is academic.

5. IMO after endless threads I think the faithful come here more to bolster their own weakness in faith than to convert any of us.


6. The theist attacks and approaches all boil down to a limited set of forms. It gets repititious, your OP may not just be interesting enough to draw attention. I was serious, it is hard to tke this op seriously.

7. We are not afraid of religion per se or are unwilling to let the camel's nose under the tent. We are judtifiably afraid of the potential of organized religion to oppress us. Evidenced by history thru to the USA and the world today. Mad men suicide bombers in the extreme, attempts to limit birth conctrol in a secualr state based on some biblical sentiment the benign end. It is not just Christianity we reject.

'...Would accepting it as historical imply historicity to whatever gospel stories might explain how and why Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death? Would other dominoes subsequently fall?..'

Actually they do. It was recently discussed on another thread and on a good PBS show as well. In a Judea-Roman political context the story and the execution make sense. Use state execution instead of the emotionally loaded word crucifixtion. Rome routinely used the method.

The Jesus of the story srcewed with the Jewish power elite, and when he intefered wit temple business and high profits he would have been messing with Rome as well.

Sedition was in air in Judea and anti Rome sentiment was high. There were a number of wandering 'messiahs' claiming the mantle. The Jews eventually rebeled. For an analogy I look to the turmoil in the mid east today. hotbed of religious nationalism, unrest, and sedition.

Everyting the Jesus in the gospels did said 'go ahead make my day...execute me..I dare you'. As a loose analogy it would be like a mystic wandeing the deserts of Saudi Arabia popping into a mosque making proclamations against the church and the king. Not long to live. They do execute in Saudi Arabia for religiious offense. In fact state Islam paints a picture of the orthodox Jewish state of 2000 years ago. They stoned people to death back then.

The story of the Jesus in the gospels minus the divine makes sense in context of the times. He would have been one of many Jews unhappy with both Rome and the temple in collusion with Rome. How, why, by whom, and when the supernatural was added to the theme has been the subject of many threads.

The supernatural tales have no coorborating references in the times. There are no Rioman letters like 'Hey Tiberius, you won't believe it but I saw this dude walking water, really'.If you get the drift.

Chritianity today boils down to a belief in the alleged eyewineses to the ressurection giving rise to a faith in the Christian afterlife. That is it. All Christian debate and apologetics is about protecing that belief from corruption and doubt. I expect the doubts my friend are yours not ours.

So endeth the sermon.

sotto voce

There are two of you? Most here are Catholics.