Chili

Jesus was a boy in that painting he used and that should do it for him.

outhouse

Actaully that is all in line with what is known.

The Roman/Gentiles all viewed Galileans as trouble making tax rebels, and that is why the Joshua figure was crucified.

And Paul, he definatly deified the figure with his own teachings.

aa5874

Again, you are an INVENTOR. There is absolutely no story at all in the Canon or outside the Canon that Jesus was crucified because he was a tax rebel.

You claim is absolute fiction.

In the Myth Fables of the Canon, Jesus was delievered up to Pilate after he made a Blasphemous statement in the presence of the Sanhedrin.


You cannot INVENT stories from your imagination about Jesus. We already have at least FIVE of them Canonised and "CAST in stone".

Mark 14:64 KJV

EarlDoherty

For that, you'd have to go with the existence of a Q. And even then, such "recording" is undoubtedly no more than the Q people's own preaching being accorded to their perceived mentor, John the Baptist, a generation or two earlier. (If even he existed.) Certainly, Josephus gives no hint of apocalyptic preaching by John. (If even that passage is authentic.)

It looks like we are being set up for yet another round of mythicist demolition of yet another naive attempt to create yet another historical Jesus. I wonder how long Hoffmann's "semi-sincere" resolution of niceness toward mythicists will last.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

As someone who has no dog in this fight I marvel at the manner in which mythicists accuse the historicists of 'mean spiritedness' when they themselves are ever eager to 'combat' anyone who promotes contrary positions (= the existence of Jesus). The enlightened mind strives for indifference. This is where clarity is found.

Many of you seem incapable of recognizing that the rabid zeal of your 'fight' against religious opponents is the furthest thing from dispassionate. Let me give you a hint. Whenever you are engaged in a 'war' against anything - whether it be drugs, poverty, ignorance etc you are not acting dispassionately and hence unscientifically.

And while I am at it, the careless use of the word 'exist' drives me to distraction. I hear people speak of 'Jesus not existing.' How is this ever proved by denying his humanity?

There seems to be a difference between arguing for the non-existence of God and the humanity of Jesus. Jesus can be ahistorical and a Hindu is correct in worshipping his god(s) or goddess(es). In the same way, you seem incapable of acknowledging that Jesus was literally thought to have come as a god by some into real historical/time and space (= without the womb of a virgin). I don't see how any of these arguments you develop discount the idea of God or an angel or a name being present in the world in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.

Indeed most of your 'combat' seems to be directed against an American Protestant notion of a 'real Jesus' who was born to ordinary parents and thus was 'a fully real person.' This would not have been an issue in antiquity. Instead there were those who believed that Jesus was a God born from a Virgin (the Catholics) and those who thought he was a God descended directly from heaven. What do any of these arguments you are making have any relevance to any of these ancient controversies?

Oh I forgot. You are waging a 'war.' Let's have a real discussion when the battle subsides and you are in control of the myth-making.

Adam

Hoffman takes the polar opposite position from that other major HJ body, the Jesus Seminar:
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...s-the-outline/

Robert W. Funk et all, The Five Gospels., 1993, p. 147.

The Jesus Seminar focuses on Q1 sayings, whereas Hoffman uses what they would call Q2. The Jesus Seminar wholly rejects Mark 13 except for a minority that does accept Mark 13:2 with Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple. Grant Hoffman that these ideas were so prevalent at that time, wouldn't it seem more likely that the original Jesus lacked these Q2 and Markan accretions? Hoffman would do better to argue for two very different original Jesus figures that got merged into the Synoptic gospels.
Wouldn't that be a come-uppence against Mythicists, not just that there was a historical Jesus but that it's so well founded that there were two of him?

outhouse

Your wrong again, and im wondering about your comprehensive understanding of this material.


Hoffman is being very vague in his HJ, and follows my take prettty closely.


Because he is semi vague, for me, this gains him credibility.

What he is stating also follows some of Crossans view so it is not opposite. Part of the problem I have with Crossan is his definitive attributations to the Joshua figures ministry.

No one really knows exactly what hi sministry constituted, and how bad the unknown Roman authors perverted his message. Anyone who takes Q as a literal word for word straight from Joshua teaching is sorely mistaken. This includes turning the other cheek.


Its my opinion that any peaceful action on Joshuas side was only to stop the tax flow to the temple priest and Romans by a cynical lifestyle where in the community takes care of itself and is peaceful with one another. IE peaceful with fellow Zealots, not everyone. And these actions are shown by his possible violent actions in the temple.

outhouse

If we follow Hoffmans leed, on this. mythers have every reason for taking such a hard stand.

My personal take is mythers are right in many aspects becuase mythology was heavily used in recreating their new religion for a sect that had started to split with Judaism, before Joshua was even born or christianity developed.

The NT only focuses on the last week of Joshuas life because that is all they knew of the legend. had he not been martyred at passover, he would have been unknown. Only because these Hellenized God-Fearers found this appealing did this legend become famous in time.

spin

The Joseph Bell Gambit.

Adam

I don't particularly care that Robert Funk and Joseph Hoffman take absolutely opposite sides. I did quote Funk, however, as the High Priest of Jesus Seminarianism because I knew that J. D. Crossan differs and is yet thought of in error as a prime examplar of it. (He is not listed as a fellow in my 1993 The Five Gospels text.) Crossan is outhouse-type, allowing for revolutionary politics not kosher in the Jesus Seminar.

Is anyone else going to try to tell me that the two excerpts I picked are not exactly contrary? Tell me that they're not representative, if you like, but does anyone agree with outhouse that I'm wrong once again? Hoffman explicitly trumpets that his view is irreconcilable with peaceful intent. So does everyone agree with me on who has the reading comprehension problem?