2-J

Actually after reading some Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty, I do think there's a reasonable case that there need not have been an individual at the start of it all. Of course my opinion on that is subject to revision based on new arguments and evidence.

All I'm saying is that the historical core makes sense as a concept, and I think that most people would allow a wide variety of types of individual to count as this historical core, (for example even if this certain Jewish holy man taught things which are not part of mainstream Christianity today).

spin

And so it should.

Making sense is of little use other than -- for most -- a necessary starting condition. Most fiction, for example makes sense. Making sense is not a sufficient condition for anything. A fictional core makes sense. A mythical core makes sense. A dream-based core makes sense. A drug-stimulated core makes sense. A delusional core makes sense. A historical core makes sense. How does any of it help us get further along?


spin

2-J

I think it's worth arguing that the idea of a historical core behind Christianity makes sense. aa5874 seems to want to deny it makes sense because the Jesus of the NT was born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, etc. Others argue we should restrict what we allow as counting as a historical core (e.g. Anat who seemed to suggest that if the NT contains teachings from various sources, this rules out a historical core aswell). There is debate about what would count as a historical core.

Does it get us any further? Well it does make a difference as to the kind of evidence you need to show there is a historical core. For example, if you rule out the possibility that any figure closely associated with miraculous occurences in the main sources about him having a historical core, you're going to rule out Jesus having a historical core from the get-go. If you say a figure whose alleged surviving teachings are informed by more than one source cannot have a historical core, then you make it easier to show there was no historical core to Christianity than if you allow a historical core even if the alleged surving teachings are informed by more than one source.

aa5874

Let me make myself absolutely clear again.

I am arguing that there is no evidence to support an historical Jesus. It is not known how Jesus of the NT was derived.

HJers need to provide evidence of their historical Jesus. That makes sense. Just provide the evidence.

There may be hundreds of possibilities for an historical Jesus but ZERO evidence.

If you think your historical Jesus makes sense then just simply provide the sources of antiquity external of the Church that can show that your historical Jesus makes sense.

I can show you Matthew 1.18. Luke 1.35, Mark 16.6, John 1, Acts 1.9 and the writings of the Church that clearly show Jesus as an implausible mythical entity.




Just provide the sources of antiquity that mentioned Jesus the MESSIAH during the time of Tiberius external of the Church.

Who wrote about Jesus the Messiah who was deified in Judaea and worshipped as a God around the same time PHILO was in Rome claiming that Jews would NOTdeify or worship men?

All I need to see are sources of antiquity external of the Church that can support your historical Jesus that you think makes sense.

ApostateAbe

Those who are especially active against the Christian religion are more likely to accept the theory that Jesus was nothing more than a myth, for many reasons.

1) It is embarrassing to Christianity.
2) It makes the anti-Christianity rhetoric easier.
3) It fits the view that the gods have always existed only as myths.

Those who don't put a lot of thought into the Christian religion are likely to accept the prevailing view that Jesus existed as a human being of some sort.

I am someone who strongly rejects the position that Jesus was only a myth. I find the theory ridiculous and embarrassing. We are a minority on this forum, despite the evidence and the consensus of qualified experts being on our side. And, like the qualified experts, we don't make nearly as much noise as the ideologues.

spin

What does one do with round tables, ladies in lakes, holy grails, and wounded fisher kings for what may originally have been an account of a struggle against Germanic invasions being turned into a French romance? aa5874 isn't a useful sounding board.

It's really more about how one can get to a historical core. If people fall over trappings such as virgin births and miracles, or secondhand sayings, or reused Hebrew bible motifs tarted up as prophecies, it shows us the possibility that a historical core may be unreachable and that massaging the same data will get us no closer to the hypothetical core.

The notion of "ruling out" works on the principle of assuming things about Jesus. What can we honestly assume? Shouldn't the process be: what can we show about the central figure of christianity, starting from the earliest literature? Jesus is the central figure of a developing tradition, a figure that is for us only literary, as literary sources are all we have. Is there evidence available that allows us to extract Jesus from that literature and place him in the real world? At the moment, I don't think so. But all this wasted effort talking about historical, mythical, or fictional cores doesn't help us get out of the literary straightjacket.


spin

Toto

Egads, did you just discover this thread?

Your points 1) and 2) are clearly false. The mythicist hypothesis is difficult, so much so that some atheists avoid it. The idea that Jesus was a mere human is enough to invalidate Christianity, and is an easier sell at present.

I expect the consensus of qualified experts to change (as the consensus sometimes does.)

ApostateAbe

The MJ hypothesis is difficult for those who seriously debate the subject with people like me, non-religious people who take the HJ position. But the point is the perceptions, not the reality. Atheists like to believe that Jesus never existed, because it maximizes the perceived embarrassment against the Christian religion. The apocalyptic cult leader Jesus is a close competitor, I suppose, but the point stands. And, if it is debated only against stupid Christians, then MJ is the easy victor. It actually helps to convince Christians to give up the Christian religion. I know, because I have seen it happen, twice, and both times it was reportedly with the complete bullshit Kersey-Graves/Acharya-S/WTF style of MJ. That particular style of MJ is popular on the Internet for a reason, and the Earl-Doherty/Robert-Price/GA-Wells MJ is a step higher intellectually, but the same memetic explanation applies.

Yes, I did just discover this thread. I took a break from this forum.

spin

If you only had the seven undisputed Pauline letters (the earliest literature), could you still persist in your support for a HJ? ie with no gospels to cloud your judgment, could you conjure up a HJ? (And note this has nothing directly to do with Paul's belief in a real Jesus, for Paul states he never met one in the flesh. )


spin

ApostateAbe

I got into an argument with someone on YouTube about this, which is frustrating because of the character limit. He made the point that Paul doesn't really talk about Jesus much, so his conclusion was that Paul thought of Jesus as spiritual. But Paul does drop a few hints of the physicality of Jesus, like his crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Crucifixion was very much a Roman thing to do, and, on that basis, the probability seems to tilt toward Paul's Jesus being physical. That says nothing about whether Jesus was mythical, but it seems a lot of Jesus mythers think that Paul's Jesus was only spiritual and nothing more, and I do not see the evidence. Without positive evidence, it only takes one mention of Jesus' crucifixion to dismiss that point entirely, and the authentic Paul epistles had many mentions of crucifixion. Another point made was that Paul never quotes Jesus. That does strike me as odd, and it seems to be a good mystery to investigate, but I don't see how that is relevant to the question at hand. A mythical Jesus is just as easy to quote as a historical Jesus, if not easier. And I think the clincher is the chapter in Galatians where Paul reportedly meets James, "the brother of the Lord," and Peter--two associates of Jesus that are corroborated in the synoptic gospels. A lot of ad hoc explanations can be made for those two points, and they are possible, no different from lots of ad hoc explanations, but they are not probable, and the HJ position seems to have the consilience of the evidence when it comes to the authentic Pauline epistles. The evidence matches and adds up to the HJ conclusion. With the construction of the failed apocalyptic prophet Jesus, built from the rest of the New Testament canon, the HJ position is cemented. I am thinking about writing a long treatise on it and sending it to American Atheists.