Petergdi

How so you set up a line as to what defines a "new" religion?

I suspect many christians still think that Judaism and Christianity are essentially two divisions in the same religion. It seems to me that the people who took it upon themselves to define who was and who was not a proper Jew in the late first century were the ones who created Christianity as a new religion.

Peter.

spamandham

Why would I try to defend mythicism, when I'm not proposing it!? :huh:

In regard to analyzing the gospels, I'm leaning on the work of modern scholarship for that, such as Talbert. The gospels are not history reports, they are an ancient genre we call 'hero biographies'. But don't let the name fool you...they are nothing like what we call biographies in the present. They are basically religious propaganda legends written to settle doctrinal differences. To the degree they contain any actual history, it's a literary device.

What are your assumptions regarding the motives of the gospel writers, and what do you base those assumptions upon?

What is your basis for determining the liklihood of various scenarios?

spamandham

Acts, are you serious? When do you think Acts was written, and by whom?

Elijah

If you are arguing against a historical core then you are arguing for a mythical origin. Unless you have some middle ground theory I am unaware of.
What makes the story of Jesus a “hero” story? What would you consider the closest proximities from the time period of hero biographies that compare to the Gospels? A few examples of the genre from the period and area would be nice.
Establishing that Jesus was the messiah who sacrificed his life. I base this assumption on the story told in the NT.
Frequency of occurrence is the main one. Number of stories of a savior written in a historical setting versus the number of people who have walked thru history with a messiah complex. Then the probability of a myth getting confused for a historical savior versus just followers thinking their leader was a savior and exaggerating claims of him that are taken literally later.

No Robots

Perhaps the problem lies more with your understanding than with my terms.


It was you who referred to Plato and Aristotle. I could very well enter into a comparison of them, but I think that Spinoza adequately resolves the question. If you want a lengthy discussion, perhaps you could start a thread in the philosophy forum?

Charlton Ogburn claims that the true playwright chose the pseudonym on literary grounds, and it was only for reasons of subterfuge that it was later associated with a living man:

If the pseudonym of the poet-dramatist were to be protected, there had to be a stand-in for him, an actual person who could be pointed to as "Shakespeare." Shaksper of Stratford seems to have been picked because of the similarity of names and because, a hanger-on of the theater, he had evidently not been above allowing the credulous to believe he actually was the great but mysterious playwright.--"The Man Who Shakespeare Was Not (and Who He Was)"

Amaleq13

Paul's Christ-believing opponents were calling for adherence to Jewish law. That is not a new religion.

Amaleq13

It is part of the body of evidence.

I accept that the author of Acts was likely the author of Luke. I also accept that both were written after Paul's letters. Relevance?

Where do you find anything suggesting that Jesus' original followers started a new religion?

Petergdi

Right, but from the Rabbinic point of view, the Ebionites were apostates from the law. Ebionites were clearly Torah-obervant by their own standards, but not by the standards of Rabbinic Judaism.

Peter.

Amaleq13

That doesn't describe a new religion. It describes a dispute within the same religion about who is and is not truly representing that religion.

spamandham

When there is insufficient evidence, "I don't know" is the proper response. I can criticize your position, without offering an alternative.

Talbert has provided a comprehensive analysis of the similar period hero biographies in "What is a Gospel". Off the top of my head, similar works were written for Dionysis, Asclepius, Apollonius, and Socrates. This is not a comprehensive list.

Implicit in you conclusion are:
1. The gospels were intended to portray history
2. The authors were in position to know that history
3. What was originally written has been passed down to us with reasonable accuracy
4. That history actually happened

Do you agree you are implicitly assuming these things, and if so, why do you assume them?

Considering you think there's a historical core to Adam, I'm not sure that means a lot. However, you've done more than just claim Jesus has a historical core, you've claimed it most likely he was a peasant. What is that particular assessment based on?