aa5874

It would appear that some who claim to be HJers do not even understand that the "historical Jesus" theory ONLY deals with an human Jesus, not a God/man or Docetism.

On one extreme there are HJers who claim that the Gospels are FUNDAMENTALLY true and at the other extreme there are HJers who claim the the Gospels are fundamentally FALSE or Embellished and that the actual Jesus did virtually NOTHING in the NT as described.

So those who are actually promoting that Jesus existed in Nazareth as a supernatural being who was RAISED from the dead, in effect a MYTH, are NOT really HJers, they are pseudo-HJers.

These pseudo-HJers promote MYTHOLOGY as history.

Now, the Jesus who the author of gMatthew claimed lived in a CITY called NAZARETH was described by the very author as the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

On what basis must anything in gMatthew be ACCEPTED as true?

The author made no claim that he was writing history or that he was an eyewitness of any event in his story.

If it is NOT true that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost why MUST it be true that Jesus lived in a CITY called Nazareth?

Once virtually everything in gMatthew appears to fiction and the unknown author did NOT claim he was writing history then it is unreasonable to claim gMatthew's Jesus must have existed and did live in a CITY called Nazareth.

It is the reverse. The abundance of written evidence from antiquity support that gMatthew's Jesus was unknown during the reign of Augustus, and Tiberius when Pilate was governor of Judea

gMatthew's Jesus is a work of fiction and there was NO CITY of Nazareth.

Ferryman to the Dead

Jesus did not start christianity! He knew nothing of this fabled religion. Paul was the father of this cult! The word christian did not appear until some 40 years after his death. Why is it that people associate him with xianity? How could he have known about it? The christianity Jesus was Jewish, he lived a Jewish lifestyle, followed Jewish law......sheeples need to find another founder because he did not start it or knew anything about it!

gurugeorge

Umm, isn't that what I said? Of course "super-powers" is just a mildly derogatory way of talking about it, side-referencing the "argument from Superman" (which is, to remind the esteemed assembly, that if you have a piece of writing with fantastic stuff in it, and no external corroboration, then it's difficult to say whether, like Superman, the story is totally , as we would say, "fictional" - or in the case of Jesus, "myth all the way down" - or euhemeristically based to some extent on a human being, like Popeye - or in the case of Jesus, a "man mythified").

As to whether "part God" or "fully God", that is of course the very sort of theological nicety that was in debate for a while. The fact that some part of the Church settled on an answer that many other parts had to follow on pain of death is neither here nor there for our purposes.

But strangely, the Church Fathers and the like set great store by the miracles (e.g. Origen contra Celsus) - they were supposed to have really happened, and were supposed to have shown that this Jesus was divine (e.g. cf. Mark, where the disciples are shown up because even after performing umpteen miracles they still don't believe he's divine - of course the reader is expected to scoff at their foolishness because he is supposed to see that such a miracle working entity must indeed be divine).

Perhaps not in the broader picture, and perhaps not for a believing Christian, no - but when it comes to trying to separate historical wheat from mythical chaff, it's rather important to try and find something original this supposed historical figure might have said. If everything (as per Robert Price's hypothesis) can be paralleled in other sources, then methodologically, there's nothing left to work on that might be suspected to be historical.

Hey, I have no beef with some forms of Christianity as teachings about how to live one's life. There are several noble teachings in this world that are like that. Whatever turns the key for you and opens your heart - but to me, it's all just symbolism, and some symbolism speaks to some people and opens their hearts, "works" for them, and others don't - they need something else. So long as nobody's trying to force everyone follow a one-size-fits-all teaching, there's no problem.

However, I would question:if a huge chunk of the Jesus stuff can be paralleled by Rabbi, Stoic and Cynic wisdom, where would you be getting your evidence that there's this especial "knowledge of divine forgiveness" that this Jesus fellow historically spoke about? (Actually "divine forgiveness" is itself a strong Jewish theme, if I'm not mistaken.) Isn't that just one of many modern appearance-saving theological constructs?

Maybe the genius was just in putting this combination of teachings together in this way? Perhaps. But that was evidently done by the writers of the mish-mash, there's no reason to suppose it was done originally by the supposed eponymous founder.

Arguments from "feel" have some weight (in the sense that it's sometimes legitimate to follow "hunches", one's mind may be cleverer than one knows), but not really any evidentiary weight. I myself feel that the there is, barely discernible, a unique voice in the messy thicket of the "Paul" writings that I quite admire (he's a sort of bolshy, cantankerous but loving mystic), but I wouldn't put that forward as evidence supporting his historicity.

Juststeve

Since a free exchange of ideas is not permitted on this issue I am withdrawing from this conversation as of now. If any of you want more details, ask the censor.

Steve

spin

:melodramatic:

That's a novel exit strategy, Justs! People spend time replying to you and you cut and run without replying. Saves you from justifying yourself. Blame someone else on the way out to account for the rapid departure. A "censor" indeed. :hysterical:

Next time, however, try telling people you tend to cut and run so not to bother replying to you. It would streamline the process.

Better still just tell them that you believe what you are told about Jesus existing, so they can assume you've said what you had to say and also save yourself the bother of saying what's been around the circuit many times already.

:wave:


spin

bacht

Poor Steve. He didn't seem comfortable defending the HJ position, but didn't seem to have another perspective to work from. He may represent the majority of people out there, the target market for the Dan Browns of the world.

gurugeorge

I think that's a bit unfair on Steve, I think he's a rational guy - it's just that, well, what do you expect when you come in all guns blazing, virtually calling everyone a moron who explores certain non-mainstream ideas?

show_no_mercy

What?

Who is denying your freedom to exchange ideas? Who is censoring you? Since when does "I disagree" imply censorship?

spamandham

If you were to cite the expert analysis, then that would be an argument from expertise.

But instead, you keep vaguely retreating to 'mainstream scholarship' every time you're cornered. That is a classic argument from authority.

I've searched high and low for mainstream scholarship that has head on addressed the historicity of Jesus, and while I can't say with absolute certainty it doesn't exist, it sure is obscure if it does. The bottom line is, mainstream scholarship assumes a historical Jesus and goes from there. An unanalyzed opinion is worthless even from experts.

The 'censors' here have been very lenient with your constant violations of the forum rules. Take your whipping like a man and, and rejoin us with less of an attitude. Most of the rest of us have had to take a few licks from time to time.

No Robots

What is being discussed is the Christian response to mythicism. I believe this to be a very serious challenge to Christianity. And I don't think that established scholarship is at all well-equipped to deal with it. In this, I am in agreement with the mythicists. However, I do believe that there is a more than adequate response available to Christians. This response, however, means jettisoning much of the standard Christian interpretation. Traditionalist Christians are thus in a bad spot: they must either abandon Christ to the mythicists, or abandon their own traditional understanding of Christ. For atheists, however, the prospects are bright. They can have the completely human Christ. They just have to reject mythicism outright. By doing so, it is the atheists who become the vanguard of the New Christianity. I do not think that established scholarship will ever go down this road, however. Scholars will either join the flailing defence of traditionalism, or ally themselves with the mythicists. So, what is needed is a guerrilla approach to the New Christianity. Let our rallying cry be, "Back to the catacombs!"