squiz

I must agree with Dean Anderson's reply. Not all endeavours should be for purely utilitarian purposes. We don't all study the origins of Christianity purely to provide more athiestic-apologetic-ammunition, but because it is a fascinating puzzle in itself. Personally, I have long puzzled over what appears to be conflicting evidence and am only now starting to make some tentative conclusions as to how this bizzare phenomenon that is Christianity might have evolved.

When discussing the origins of Christianity with Christians, however, I usually don't push mythicist ideas, because they are so far from the dominant paradigm that they are usually dismissed out of hand. I usually focus on such arguments as that they have built the edifice of their entire belief system upon the sands of some unauthoritative ancient documents.

Gregg

I addressed this bizarre argument in my OP of "The mythicist/historicist debate."

My interest in mythicism vs. historicism has absolutely nothing to do with attacking Christianity. I am simply a curious person, fascinated by history and by this historical question in particular. I would like to know, insofar as possible, what really happened, and even if it may be impossible to ever know for sure, I still find the theories and speculations interesting.

I got interested in this topic before I was even an atheist, and it didn't even have much to do with my becoming an atheist.

One doesn't have to have some ulterior motive for being interested in a subject.

mountainman

SCENE ONE, ACT ONE.

there was a time when he was not,
before he was born he was not,
he was made out of nothing existing
God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
he is subject to alteration or change.

--- Arius, 325 CE.


SCENE ONE, ACT TWO

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


Constantine the King
to the Bishops and
nations everywhere. 325 CE.

aa5874

Whether Jesus the Christ existed as a real-life person is the most interesting debate for me. This debate has shown the complete weakness of the HJ position.

Some HJers appear to be personally threathened by anyone who deny the existence of Jesus the Christ and have been, at least from the 4th century, on a crusade to eradicate anyone or any writings that make any other claim.

I maintain the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ, not for convenience, but because of observation and experiences. Whether or not any other person is convinced of my position is immaterial.

That, in my opinion, is a serious error. If you claim Jesus the Christ existed as a real person, without corroboration, then you open yourself to self-deception.

Once you claim Jesus the Christ existed without evidence, the HJer will have your head on a platter. The onus of proof of historicity is on the shoulders of the HJer, he cannot handle it, at least, since the 4th century.

Gregg

The problem with the OP's argument is: Why would Christians NOT have preserved any letters that give some clearly historical information about Jesus, his life and ministry? The idea that nobody was the least bit interested in this kind of information seems rather far-fetched. You had congregations of new Christians, many of them clearly shaky in their faith, and being courted by "false apostles" preaching different gospels. Paul emphasizes that he and his fellow apostles preach "Christ crucified," suggesting that these other apostles did not.

One would think that wobbly new Christians would want some reassurance, at least from time to time, that Jesus, an unknown crucified Jewish man from a faraway land, really was the Christ; some stories about his wise teachings, his acts, the signs and wonders he performed, etc. Not asking for full-blown gospel excerpts here, just some signs of a historical ministry and a developing legend/mythology. And one would think that if any such letters were written, a few of them would have been preserved.

After all, once "Mark" comes on the scene, Christians do start writing about the earthly Jesus, and they haven't stopped since.

Why is it that pre-Mark, Christians show no interest in preserving any historical information, but after Mark, they talk about the "historical" Jesus quite often, and these writings get preserved?

Of course, the other explanation is that all historical information about Jesus was passed along solely by oral transmission (with lots of embellishments along the way) until Mark finally cobbled all these oral traditions together. Christians talked about the earthly Jesus, but they didn't write about him, except through passages in the Jewish scriptures. (True, post-Mark they also write about him through Scripture, but they also make plenty of direct, unmistakable references to the gospel Jesus.)