spamandham

If we did not have that evidence, if all we had were the preposterous stories, would we conclude that there probably was a historical Santa? ...and if we did, how much could we reconstruct of the historical Santa from the legends?

If we did not have solid historical information about Nicholas of Smyrna, the best we could do would be to say "there might be a historical figure somewhere intertwined in the Santa legend, but if so, there's really no way to know anything about him"

This is the situation we are in with Jesus. All we have are the legends, and every aspect of those stories has theological significance derived from the Jewish scriptures. If there was a historical Jesus, he is lost to the ravages of time.

spin

Yes, it was your stated point, which carried your assumptions with it, ie just like Santa Claus with its kernel of truth, Jesus...

The reason I use examples such as Robin Hood and King Arthur is that we cannot decide about them. The data are inconclusive, but then you are arguing a position for which you don't have evidence, not for withholding judgment.

And here you are, just as emptyhanded as the first time you touted historicism.

This is certainly not the way to do it. You don't go from heroine to methadone to something else. You need to detox.

You're rehearsing your stuff again. Yes, we got it some time back that you now believe that Jesus was a failed prophet. But this is based on not much more than him being a used car salesman from Detroit.

Is your aim to ridicule christianity or to understand what can be understood of what happened back then?

As I'm sure you understand by now, the position I have been selling people here is similar to an analysis of Robin Hood: there are indications of a tradition which go back a certain distance and then beyond that is silence. We can't look into that silence. You cannot use probabilities to get you any closer. Whatever happened happened. It's like rolling dice: record twenty rolls; now what's the chance that that happened? To do it again would be 6x6x6x6... you should get the idea that the probability that it happened the first time has no relation to the probability of it happening that way again.

If you want nice explanations, then be happy and don't post them. If you want to know what can be known, then do the work to understand what can be reclaimed.

It should not matter to you now whether Jesus existed or not. You no longer have any emotional commitment to the issue, do you? So how is the existence of Jesus any different from Robin Hood or King Arthur? There is no historical necessity for Jesus to have existed: Ebion who many people believed existed didn't. This doesn't mean he didn't, but it helps you to see that there's no necessity. Or is there some necessity that he existed?


spin

ApostateAbe

Yes, to answer your question, the historical existence of Santa Claus becomes less likely with less information that we have, so I can now see why the miracle stories are relevant to those of the MJ position. I have become too familiar with the clues in Christian writing that are not miraculous and are best explained by original historical substance, and I forget that I am speaking with people of an entirely different paradigm, a paradigm of minimalism about the Bible.

When I read the Wikipedia page, Saint Nicholas seems to be a better analogy than I thought, because our information on Saint Nicholas is entirely myth, except for his existing grave, which would be where the analogy breaks down. Other than that, historical information about St. Nicholas seems to be reconstructed from the myth, which have miracle stories and other unlikely events woven into them.

There are clues within the Christian gospels that I take to indicate historicity of Jesus, and you have heard them already. I think maybe we can at least agree that, if there are sufficiently many parts within the New Testament that are better explained by a historical Jesus than with Christian invention, then the historical Jesus theory is more likely than the mythical Jesus theory, regardless of the miracle stories.

ApostateAbe

spin, thank you, it takes patience to read what you have to say, but I know it takes patience for you, too. If it is alright by you, you don't have to split up my post into many different parts. Just choose a point that is important to you and talk about that. I want to give your arguments full attention and not waste too much time on what is irrelevant.

You asked, "Is your aim to ridicule christianity or to understand what can be understood of what happened back then?"

My explicit aim is to understand, and my second aim is to pass on that understanding to other people. I do have a lot of emotional baggage about the Christian religion, and a lot of what I do and how I think has the subconscious desire to do away with the religion, despite my value of emotional neutrality.

avi

In one respect, Abe, we are similar, and that is this: we lack a proper base, a proper grounding, in the fundamentals, i.e. literacy in Greek.

In my opinion, without rigorous competence in Greek, one cannot hope to teach that understanding (of the new testament) to others.

as there are clues within Iliad to suggest some aspects of historicity regarding the siege of a city in Turkey called Troy. Perhaps there was a real person called Achilles, who was a great warrior. The notion that there may well have been some underlying elements of historical reality, perhaps contributed to the nearly three millenia duration of successful publishing of the fictional Iliad.

The question then becomes this: why are we so successful in detecting mythical traits described so vividly within the text of Iliad, and so unsuccessful in exposing the same mythical character of the Gospels-->which share, with Iliad, a common language, and a common tradition--based upon oral legend, with grotesquely obvious aspects of flimflam (twaddle) in both Greek texts?

The OP focused on crucifixion, an historical remedy for social unrest employed with success by the Romans. There are, then, certainly elements of historical veracity associated with the four gospels. Do those elements outweigh the equally evident myths inserted throughout the texts, as if clues by the authors, alerting the perceptive reader, to understand that one is reading a novel, not a biography?

avi

spin

You know the obvious response to that is: if you only want me not to waste too much time on what is irrelevant, why not just write the relevant stuff and then I won't have any irrelevant stuff to response to?

We all have baggage, as you know. Again, as you know, often the baggage is not visible to us. When it is visible, one has the chance of dealing with it.


spin

Chili

Because they represend his stongholds as converted shepherds to be raised into the upper room after the ego was crucified so that reason could prevail in heaven on earth. (12 ousia's warrants parousia).

The cross itself was the sum total of Joseph's sin that was carried by the sole determination of faith after they released Bar-abbas as the son of man. This was added so that there will be a left and a right at Golgotha in support of the blood and water that he bled as denoted by the men and women that followed him. It shows that he was a 'lush' instead of a 'woosh' in his journey along the pleasure pain principle of life which then is what got him the 12 shepherds that were converted into apostles when he had reached 'the end of his world' to start with.

Chili

The feast of St. Nicholaas is celebrated on Dec.6 to be foreshadow of what is to come later in liife for adults. It is celebrated on Dec. 6 to point at Epiphany on Jan. 6 after 'the New' has taken hold in confirmation of the virgin rebirth that guides the Magi to the vacant lower house for illumination (hence the shepherds understood while Joseph was 'not home' when they arrived in Matthew).

Chili

The disciples were the shepherds who were Joseph's strongholds that he created for himself as Jew while in exile. They are his knowledges as insights instead of just fleeting data collections that so represent the man beneath his cloak.

It is in looking at these insights that he recognized himself to be co-creator with the divine and that is what lead to this final inquisition that brought about parousia wherein his own 12 ousia's were placed as the minor premis of this first order enthymeme wherein the major "who am I" was missing.

aa5874

How did you lose an argument as a mythicist against a person who believed in a myth?

IF that supposed christian believed the NT that Jesus was the off spring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, walked on water, transfigured, and resurrected how did the christian convince you that Jesus was just a man contrary to the christian's own belief?

Now, if you think about it there is no real need for Jesus to have existed for christians TODAY to believe Jesus lived.

If you think about it there is no real need for Santa Claus to have been based of any real person.

If you think about it there was no real need for the Gods Zeus, or Serapis to have existed for people to claim that Zeus and Serapis did exist and ANSWERED their prayers and HEALEDthem.

And if you think about it if Jesus did exist just as a man, did NO miracles, was actually crucified and died this would mean that real people, including his supposed disciples, relatives, parents and followers, would have to deliberately propagate false information about Jesus and then all these people would have to turn around and accuse everyone-else of being liars when they were confronted with the truth about Jesus.


The HJ is just a conspiracy theory.

All that is necessary for Jesus believers is the belief that there was a God with flesh that was on earth during the time of Tiberius who crucified, and died for the sins of mankind.

Hardly anyone one worships Zeus or Serapis today, hardly anyone thinks Zeus or Serapis did actually exist as Gods today, but 1600 years ago Zeus and Serapis were believed to actually exist as Gods and could answer prayers and heal people.

Now, if Jesus was just only an apocalyptic preacher and was deified why was not the executed John the Baptist deified, why was not the crucified Peter deified, why was not the executed Saul/Paul diefied, why was not John diefied, why was not Stephen who was stoned to death deified and why was no other apocalyptic preacher in Jerusalem deified?

In Josephus, Jesus son of Ananus was beaten to a pulp for just saying "Woe unto Jerusalem" and was declared a madman why was not Jesus declared a madman for making similar claims and even teaching his disciples he would be raised from the dead in three days?

There is no record of any Jew, even kings, being deified in Jerusalem by Jews.

The records of antiquity show that the Jews would not deify any human.

King David was NOT deified by Jews. King David was considered a KING of the Jews and the CHRIST of God.

The Messiah Simon Bar Cocheba was NOT deified by the Jews.

If Jesus of the NT was just an apocalyptic preacher then there is no precedent in Jerusalem for Jesus to have been deified by Jews and asked to forgive the sins of mankind, abandon the Laws of Moses while the Temple was still standing.

No HJ supporter can say why Jesus, if just an apocalyptic preacher, was unprecedently deified by Jews and proceeded to propagate false information that he was the Son of their God, born of the Holy Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven when all this was known by Jews to be false.

This admission by you is startling to me since you have constantly accused mythicists of ridicule of christians.

So, it is really you who want to ridicule christians.

But, once you realise that Jesus believers simply believed Jesus did exist as God and are worshiping Jesus as a God just like people used to worship Zeus and Serapis as Gods then there is no need to ridicule anyone.

Virtually the whole world believe some God exist but they all call their Gods by different names. At one time a God was called Zeus now a God is called Jesus. Tommorow, the names of Gods may change but the beliefs about they may probably remain the same that they can forgive sin, answer prayers and take them to heaven when they die.

And an apocalyptic can't do anything like Gods.