godfry n. glad

No.. It's not "obvious" at all. You presented no "evidence" other than to state that:

What evidence is that? How do you _know_ that the Christian cult originated soon after the alleged execution? All you have is an unsupported assertion.

How do you know that the "Christ cult" didn't exist _before_ this reputed date?

godfry

Mageth

godfry, I made no such claims of "knowledge" about the matter at all. I do not claim to know that the "Christ cult" originated soon after the crucifixion (I would have hardly called the execution "alleged" if I did, no?), though as a starting position I think that is a valid assumption based on the Biblical account (which, of course, is wide open to counter-arguments). The "Christ cult" may have existed before the alleged crucifixion, but I haven't seen any evidence or argument to support that position; of course, I'm willing to examine any such evidence or argument (does Doherty discuss this, or perhaps someone else?)

And I did not claim that said "best evidence" is anything other than an unsupported assertion. I did not posit said "best evidence" as an assertion in an argument trying to establish the validity of an HJ (as I said, I'm currently agnostic on the question of HJ), I'm merely tossed it out there as the only thing I currently see as possible extrabiblical evidence of any sort with any possible validity that supports an HJ (is that qualified enough?). It should be obvious (again) from my posts that I don't consider this as very solid evidence at all, or that I think the HJ position is one that is highly probable and that I am thus arguing in support of.

The bottom line is, whether Jesus is historical or purely mythical, the accounts of Jesus in the Bible (i.e. the Gospels) are clearly mythical. To me, that's the important thing to note, and on that I hope we can both agree. Other than that, whether Jesus really existed or is purely mythical is merely a matter of some academic interest to me, an interesting debate but nothing else. I don't have an iron in the fire, so to speak.

You're coming across as quite dogmatic about this. I personally don't think such dogmatism about the subject is warranted.

godfry n. glad

Now it's _your_ turn to reread _my_ post. My first post in this thread.

Since then, all I've seen is a bunch of hand-waving and claims of "the obvious" when nothing at all is "obvious."

Bald assertions do not make anyone's case.

godfry

Tristan Scott

Of course it's possible that it is all made up. I'm not arguing that, if you are going with that presupposition, please don't let me get in your way.
Most credible scholars put the dating of the synoptics at between 70 and 90. If Jesus' ministry lasted till the 30s it is not hard to believe that some would still be around that remembered him by the time the synoptics were put down. If not, it is still not hard to believe that some of the teachings were handed down to the next generation by word of mouth. I'm not saying it is good evidence, in fact, I believe I put the word evidence in "" to denote that it may not really be evidence at all. I'm just saying it is probably the best your gonna get.

Mageth

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Now it's _your_ turn to reread _my_ post. My first post in this thread.

Sorry, I did earlier read your post (and I just reread it), but your attacks (that's the way I perceived them, anyway) on my obviously (there's that cursed term again!) similarly agnostic position on the subject have come across to me as rather dogmatically arguing against an HJ, causing me to temporarily forget your earlier statement that you are agnostic on the subject as well.

Since then, all I've seen is a bunch of hand-waving and claims of "the obvious" when nothing at all is "obvious."

I deny that I have been "hand waving", and the only time on this thread I've used "obvious" or anything close to "obvious" is in saying "[I've] obviously explained why I have doubts as to the validity of even that evidence", which if you read my posts should be, well, obvious.

Here's what I said about my "best evidence":

To me, that should make it obvious (oops, sorry) that I "have doubts as to the validity of even that evidence", and am definitely not claiming it as a "bald assertion" or as being "obvious".

Bald assertions do not make anyone's case.

I've made no "bald assertions", I've made nothing I would call an "assertion" at all, and I haven't been trying to make a case one way or the other.

godfrey, I think we both essentially hold the same position - both of us claim to be agnostic on the issue. You are currently leaning towards a mythical Jesus; I am currently leaning towards an historical Jesus. Isn't that enough?

funinspace

Obviously not for some -- couldn't help myself--long day.

Mageth,

Sounded rational enough for me, especially when not splitting hairs.

DK

reprise

You can download The Jesus Puzzle.

Mageth

Yes, but it's my understanding that there is at least some additional material in the book.

And I like to read my tomes from good 'ole paper.

godfry n. glad

If you consider requests for supporting documentation to be an attack, then you should give up forming an opinion on this right now. I'm not "dogmatically arguing again and HJ"...I'm asking to to provide documentary support for the contentions, hypotheses, assertions...whatever. You basically stated that your leaning toward HJ was posited on the "the origin of the Christian cult soon after his alleged execution...". That is an assertion without documentary support....How soon? On what basis do you make that determination? How strong is that evidence? Why trot it out here if it's now so weak that you're ready to disown it when somebody asks you to support it?

Then you go on to claim, "Most credible scholars put the dating of the synoptics at between 70 and 90. If Jesus' ministry lasted till the 30s it is not hard to believe that some would still be around that remembered him by the time the synoptics were put down."

Credible scholars? Wait... We need to stop here and determine who it is that _you_ consider to be credible scholars. All those Christian NT scholars trained in Christian seminaries? Scholars I consider credible are pointing out that many of the assumptions made by the scholars to which you alot such esteem, like the a priori assumption that Jesus was historical, are faulty. Like the possibility, even the probability, that the gospel documents are as late as mid-second century CE. It _may_ have been as early as 70, but then, it may have been as late as 120, or even later for some others. The "credible scholars" have made a lot of unwarrented assumptions based upon their wishful thinking.

Now, did I say YOU personally were responsible for all these? No.

The bald assertion was this: "Jesus = man who was mythicized." and was made by Vinnie.


Sure... that's enough, but I personally think you should take care with such "hand waving" as "credible scholars" and what they happen to think. It's an appeal to an authority which has been steadily eroded over the past century. Indeed, Albert Schweitzer gave it a swift kick in the head just about a century ago.

godfry

Mageth

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
If you consider requests for supporting documentation to be an attack, then you should give up forming an opinion on this right now. I'm not "dogmatically arguing again and HJ"...I'm asking to to provide documentary support for the contentions, hypotheses, assertions...whatever. You basically stated that your leaning toward HJ was posited on the "the origin of the Christian cult soon after his alleged execution...". That is an assertion without documentary support....How soon? On what basis do you make that determination? How strong is that evidence? Why trot it out here if it's now so weak that you're ready to disown it when somebody asks you to support it?

Godfrey, I merely posited that "assertion " in support of where I started from (I see it as the only "valid" evidence for even starting from the position that it is probable that Jesus was an historical figure). I'm not making an argument of it, or posing it as part of an argument, or wanting you or anyone else to buy into it. As far as "documentary support", I've never claimed that there was any, though Spong (in Resurrection: Myth or Reality?) makes the same argument, for what that's worth.

In any case, the Bible itself (the Gospels and Acts, particularly) is one document that makes that claim (and a claim for the HJ), and that itself presents "evidence" for it (and please don't take this the wrong way; I know there are serious questions as to the validity of the Bible's claims). Since the document I'm examining makes the claims that Christianity is based on an historical Jesus and started soon after his crucifixion, I choose to start from the position that that is what the Bible claims, assume that the claims have some probability of being at least partly true, and go from there.

Then you go on to claim, "Most credible scholars put the dating of the synoptics at between 70 and 90. If Jesus' ministry lasted till the 30s it is not hard to believe that some would still be around that remembered him by the time the synoptics were put down."

Credible scholars? Wait... We need to stop here and determine who it is that _you_ consider to be credible scholars. All those Christian NT scholars trained in Christian seminaries? Scholars I consider credible are pointing out that many of the assumptions made by the scholars to which you alot such esteem, like the a priori assumption that Jesus was historical, are faulty. Like the possibility, even the probability, that the gospel documents are as late as mid-second century CE. It _may_ have been as early as 70, but then, it may have been as late as 120, or even later for some others. The "credible scholars" have made a lot of unwarrented assumptions based upon their wishful thinking.

Sorry, but that bit about "credible scholars" was posted by someone else. Perhaps you can repost this response directed at the person who actually made it.

Now, did I say YOU personally were responsible for all these? No.

The bald assertion was this: "Jesus = man who was mythicized." and was made by Vinnie.

Understood. But I repeated that "bald assertion" in a post of my own, but qualified it quite a bit, of course. That's my current position, but not one I am asserting, put much stock in, or am even arguing in support of.

And if it's Vinnie you want to level the "bald assertion" charge at, I'd suggest you do so in responses to Vinnie, not to me.

Sure... that's enough, but I personally think you should take care with such "hand waving" as "credible scholars" and what they happen to think. It's an appeal to an authority which has been steadily eroded over the past century. Indeed, Albert Schweitzer gave it a swift kick in the head just about a century ago.

Well, I would consider your advise about taking care with such "hand waving", if I had actually made that statement.

Edited to add: I'm a bit puzzled by your comment about "such "hand waving" as "credible scholars" and what they happen to think" when earlier you included the following in one of your posts:

"And, then... There are credible scholars who have floated the idea that Paul himself may be a polemical fictional creation."

I'll leave it to you to clarify your position...