blastula

You are arguing against the claim, "From the epistles, we learn nothing of what he said or did between his birth and his death." If Gethsemane is a fictional story, as you agree, then we learn nothing from it of a historical Jesus, whether or not the writer believed in a historical Jesus.

False. That's a different argument to rebut than the one set out in your OP, and the Hebrews passage you cite wouldn't help against that argument anyway if you are arguing it refers to Gethsemane.

ApostateAbe

The argument and counter-argument is all about what the early Christians believed about the historical Jesus. If you don't agree with what the argument is about, then I don't think there is anything to be done to correct that. Sorry.

blastula

Even if that is the argument, the Gethsemane citation fails as I just explained and you failed to rebut.

Something can be done. Show that the quote in the OP, and as you just even re-quoted,

Show that this quote is prima facie talking only about what Christians believed rather than what they knew.

(Not to mention that "early Christians believed it" is very poor evidence of a historical Jesus.)

ApostateAbe

blastula, I am not so interested in parsing out the wording of the arguments to prove what the arguments are really about. I am arguing something relevant between Doug Shaver and I, and the historical accuracy of early Christian claims are plainly not relevant except as they reflect what they believed. But, if you like, then you can send a message to Doug Shaver and see if he agrees with you, and I'll be happy to accept a correction. If you would like to know my arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus, then I can direct you to my other recent threads.

blastula

^More irrelevant blather to cover up the problem with your Gethsemane reference.

dog-on

What, exactly, is the difference, in reality?

ApostateAbe

Religious myth is literally believed, and fiction is not. They each follow different patterns.

Toto

Are you sure? What about all those people who believe their religious myths are part of a higher truth and not mere grubby reality?

dog-on

Perhaps, but you did not answer the question. Again, what, exactly, is the difference, IN REALITY???

ApostateAbe

As in: what is the difference between a text written and believed by religious adherents and a text written for anyone to be entertained with a story? They have a set of differences in reality, but I don't really know what you are getting at. Maybe you mean that there are no real differences because they are subjective? The differences begin as matters of subjective interpretations, like the differences between a pair of texts of any sort, but they are differences that exist in reality all the same, because beliefs and perceptions are a part of the real world. Subjective phenomena like beliefs become objective phenomena when outside observers analyze the evidence pertaining to actual beliefs. What is the difference between a technical instruction manual and a fictional novel like Pride and Prejudice (or via: amazon.co.uk) in reality? There is one and only one pair of things that a given person believes about those texts.