mountainman

Apollonius has a generous inscription in the Adana Museum whereas the archaeology for Jesus essentially commences with the basilicas and the crosses of the 4th century. Eusebius the honored church historian is one of those people who states works are attributed to Apollonius, and quotes from these works, and moreover referes to Philostatus's "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" as a HISTORY on many occassions in the many books Eusebius wrote against Apollonius.

The fact that a comparison between Apollonius and Jesus was not produced until the 4th century suggests that the Myth of Jesus never appeared in the Greek speaking Roman empire until the 4th century.

mountainman

Spin started the thread and the table.

The point I was raising here is to highlight the indicator called "historicity" which is a measure of how much ancient historical evidence exists for whatever is being subjected to examination and assessment. Those who support the HJ position need evidence to substantiate their claims but there is little if anything that can be furnished. For those who support the MJ position this vacuum of historical evidence is to be expected, for varying reasons.

GakuseiDon

I can't say I understand the reasoning here. If Eusebius forged early Christian history to show there was a HJ to his audience's expectations, why leave such big gaps so that the vacuum of historical evidence is to be expected for the MJ position?

aa5874

Let us NOT confuse the issue.

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius is NOT about an "historical Jesus" but about the Jesus of FAITH, that is, the Jesus that was Fathered by the Holy Ghost and a woman.

The HJ argument does NOT accommodate "historical" Gods, or God/men like the Jesus Christ in "Church History"

The HJ argument is essentially that Jesus was PUBLICLY known to be only a man and that it was the very disciples and others who LIED to themselves, and INVENTED and Embellished his activities.

archibald

Here's one the mythicists don't seem to cite, but could/should.

Muhammad al Mahdi. The Twelfth Mahdi. A Mahdi is a bit like a Messiah.

Devout 'Twelver' Shia muslims (not an insignificantly sized crowd, apparently. 85% of all modern-day Shia Muslims) believe that a certain man (Muhammad ibn al-Hasan) was an historical person, even though the evidence, and perhaps the likelihood, seems poor. Allegedly born in 869AD. Only one alleged, brief appearance, aged 5, at his father's (the 11th Mahdi) funeral. Nothing before, nothing after. After that he disappeared (in what they call 'The Occultation'). They believe he's still alive, in hiding, and wait for him to return at what appears to be a sort of judgement day/end times.

By the way, after his dissappearance, he could still be consulted, by a very select few 'deputies'

'Whenever the believers faced a problem, they would write their concerns and send them to his deputy. The deputy would ascertain his verdict, endorse it with his seal and signature and return it to the relevant parties. The deputies also collected zakat and khums on his behalf. For the Shia, the idea of consulting a hidden Imam was not something new because the two prior Shia Imams had, on occasion, met with their followers from behind a curtain. Also, during the oppressive rule of the later Abbasid caliphs, the Shia Imams were heavily persecuted and held prisoners, thus their followers were forced to consult their Imams via messengers or secretly.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Imams

Said to have had a miraculous birth, too. And did miracles, as a little boy (pre-occultation, obviously) :]

Horatio Parker

I've never seen this position summarized; to my mind it's the most sensible one for a believing Xtian: if the theology is true, then the history is irrelevant. It's a MJ position without signing on the dotted line.

Adam

I thank you, Vorkosigen,
for your lucid contributions on my thread, "Gospel Eyewitnesses". However, I'm up to my sixth gospel eyewitness now, and it's Simon in Luke at my Post #132. I list lots of what I see as eyewitness passages and evidences. (See also my Post #74 about my fifth eyewitness, Matthew as author of Q, but I give that less focus because Q is obscured by Proto-Luke as an intermediate layer.) I would appreciate your comment over there, even though your mind seems made up in advance.

mountainman

The Testimonium Flavianum, the Letter exchange between Jesus and Agbar and between Paul and Senecca, and many other forgeries were not really given the opportunity to be questioned and challenged in the 4th century. The gaps have appeared because since the Age of Enlightenment what was once uncritically accepted as church dogma and official legend has been exposed as pious forgery.

mountainman

Hey Horatio,

I think this may be spin's preferred position, although I could be wrong. It was questioned as an option in the table, but defended by spin for inclusion in the spectrum of other more widely debated positions. The implication of this position that history is "unknowable" and/or "irrelevant" is not an implication that I would accept. Spin's thread Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions has more data on this.

Best wishes



Pete

Horatio Parker

I agree that most if not all traditionalists wouldn't see it that way. It strikes me as closer to MJ, but that's my interpretation.

I don't see a conflict between MJ and faith; in fact I think it improves the theology.