aa5874

You are NOT sure why you are arguing.

I am surely arguing for MYTH Jesus.

Well, once the Gospels contain statements which CANNOT be historically true and you are NOT sure if there are any that are historically true then the MYTH Jesus theory is NOT disturbed at all.

The MYTH Jesus theory REMAINS FIXED and SOLIDLY supported and compatible with the evidence.

It is HJ of Nazareth that is DOUBTFUL. Not even you can say what in the Gospels is historically true about Jesus.

The MYTH Jesus theory is NOT disturb at all since "the canonical Gospels contain some statements which cannot be historically true".

J-D

I don't think you know what you mean by that.That depends on what the 'MYTH Jesus theory' is.That also depends on what the 'MYTH Jesus theory' is.That depends on what 'HJ of Nazareth' is.I don't know why you say not 'even' me. I don't know of anybody who can say what in the Gospels is historically true about Jesus. I don't see anything special about my inability in particular.That still depends on what the 'MYTH Jesus theory' is. If the only conclusion you are arguing for is that the canonical Gospels contain some statements which cannot be historically true, then I agree with you, but I don't know whether that is the only conclusion you are arguing for.

mountainman

There is a spectrum of myth jesus theories. There is a table and a list of these. The types of 'MYTH Jesus theory' have been sketched out in previous discussions.


The commonality between all 'MYTH Jesus theories' is that they ascribe to Jesus a historicity which is ZERO percent (in contrast to the spectrum of "Historical Jesus theories, which ascribe to Jesus a historicity which is greater than ZERO - between 1 and 100 percent.)


If you agree that the canonical Gospels contain some statements which cannot be historically true, what is the overall result (to the stories themselves) of removing these statements which cannot be historically true? Apart from a series of statements which may or may not be true, how does the removal of the statements which cannot possibly be true effect the overall assessment and integrity of the "remaining PACKAGE of the books of the New Testament"?

aa5874

You already ADMIT that you don't really know why you are arguing so what is the point?

What you say does NOT disturb the MYTH Jesus theory at all, it AUGMENTS the MJ theory.

1. Some statements in the canonical Gospels CANNOT be historically true.

2. Some statements in the canonical Gospels might or might not be historically true.

3. Myth Jesus cannot be historically true so there are statements in the canonical Gospels that ACTUALLY SUPPORT Myth Jesus.

4. HJ must be historically true but you have NO IDEA what statements in canonical Gospels that are historically true.

5. The Myth Jesus theory is SOLIDLY supported.

6. HJ is IN DOUBT.

7. The MYTH Jesus theory is UNDISTURBED.

J-D

Then it dependso n which 'MYTH Jesus theory' aa5874 is talking about.That depends on what you mean by 'historicity' as a variable which can range between nought and 100%.They get shorter.I don't see any way in which removing the statements which cannot possibly be true affects the assessment of the remaining statements.

J-D

That depends on what you're talking about.That depends on what you mean by the 'MYTH Jesus theory'.That depends on what you mean by 'Myth Jesus'.That depends on what you mean by 'HJ'.That depends on what you mean by the 'Myth Jesus theory'.That depends on what you mean by 'HJ'.That depends on what you mean by the 'MYTH Jesus theory'.

aa5874

It is Time for you to get some rest. You appear to be getting incoherent or have some other serious problem.

I have ALREADY told you that your very claims do NOT disturb the Myth Jesus theory at all.

1. Some statements in the canonical Gospels cannot be historically true ENHANCES the MJ theory.

2. Some statements in the canonical Gospels might or might not be historically true AUGMENTS the MJ theory

HJ is in DOUBT since you have NO idea which statements are historically true about Jesus.

gurugeorge

No, not just "not historically correct", but not even anywhere near the ballpark of "historical", "historically true or false" doesn't even apply AT ALL.

The question "historically true or false" re. a being's doings in a text can only be asked of a HISTORICAL BEING, i.e. an entity we have already decided is accessible to historical enquiry (and therefore accessible through the texts).

i.e. a fantasy being is not accessible in any way to historical enquiry, therefore the question "historically true or false" would be just NONSENSE if asked of his doings as reported in a text.

But your statements and questions presuppose that the question "historically true or false", if asked of a statement about the "Jesus" figure in the stories, actually makes sense.

i.e. you have already, at the back of your mind, decided that "Jesus", the referent of the stories, is a historical being, because you are applying the category "historically true or false" as a criterion for distinguishing statements about him in the texts.

Again, a historical statement about a fantasy being is neither true nor false, the "historical" category SIMPLY DOES NOT APPLY. A statement about a fantasy being cannot be "historically false", because it can't be "historically" ANYTHING.

Think of the superhero example again. "Is it historically true or false that Spiderman was in New York on the day the Skrulls invaded?" Here we have a historical place (New York) mixed with fantasy beings, but the presence of the fantasy beings in the question totally negates any possibility that the statement might be either historically true - OR historically false.

But of course, as you rightly pointed out, it's only because we know beforehand that Spiderman is a fantasy being that we can say here, definitely, that the historical question does not apply.

But we do not know that "Jesus" was a historical being, such that we can say of any statement in the texts about "him", that it may be "historically true or false, and (e.g.) in this case probably true/false".

And if, in reality, "he" should turn out to be fantasy, you will have been speaking nonsense all along when positing "historically true or false" about any statements about "him" in those texts.

Whereas if, in reality, he should turn out to be man mythified, then (quite by chance) you haven't been speaking nonsense all along

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about.

1. If some one claims as historically true that Spiderman was in New York the claim MUST be historically False.

Spiderman does NOT exist.

2. If some one ADMITS that Spiderman is a Fiction character and also claim that Spiderman was in New York then the claim is accepted as the product of a Myth Fable, a Fiction story or entertainment.

It is virtually impossible to use the PUBLICLY ADMITTED claim that Jesus of Nazareth was a GHOST CHILD and Acted as a Ghost to supply the evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

NO-ONE uses the PUBLICLY ADMITTED FICTION in Superman comics to supply the evidence for an "Historical CLARK KENT".

J-D

It is time for you to get some rest. You appear to be getting incoherent or have some other serious problem.I have not made any claims that I have disturbed any theory.That depends on what you mean by 'the MJ theory'.That depends on what you mean by 'the MJ theory'.That depends on what you mean by 'HJ'.