TedM

I might agree with your conclusions if I didn't disagree with #s2, and your conclusion on #5.

ted

Geetarmoore

While I might understand how you could disagree with #2, how can you disagree with #5?

TedM

My bad--I wasn't very clear. I was thinking that the alleged lack of evidence prior to the gospels is not an indication of the gospel author's beliefs. If, for example we had no mention of Jesus anywhere prior to the gospels (ie, ignore all earlier epistles) I think I would still conclude that the gospel authors believed they were writing about a real person and real events. If they had that belief I think it is likely that at least a toned-down version of their Jesus really existed, and roughly at the time when they claimed.

Solitary Man

In what way? What sort of history? Modern history? If so, then even the ancient historians ought to be discounted. But it says nothing of the ability of testimony for a person.

Like Ted, I disagree with this too.

False dichotomy, one that, I note, excludes Doherty's hypothesis.

Non sequitur.

The conclusion does not hold up.

Clivedurdle

I noted the nil response to my thread was Palestine an island with interest, and I am particularly fascinated by this almighty Rome urban myth. Persians must have gone home I suppose and died out after Crassus had gold poured down his throat.

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

(In Turkey - now where was Paul from again?)

And on fiction, I must note if the only assumption of all translators is that the gospels are reporting real events, are they likely to have emphasised any contradictory nuances?

And why are not all credal statements taken as clear evidence of myth?

Clivedurdle

Welcome! Although I am now a strong mythicist I do not see much if any need for fraud - I see a serious (Platonic?) confusion of real and unreal, possibly by people with serious mental health issues, and quite ordinary human emotions and dreams. See Persinger.

But a study of Scientology and Mormonism in relation to xianity would be fascinating.

Amaleq13

Seriously? You feel free to reach conclusions about the messianic beliefs of 1st century Jews but you are completely ignorant of the messianic beliefs expressed in the DSS?

I think it would be difficult to find any discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls that doesn't at least mention the messianic passages. Even if you prefer the internet as a source. spin is a good source for DSS material. You've got some reading to do.

Ah, an argument from personal igorance. Much more compelling, though no more logically sound, if one has actually done at least some basic research prior to reaching the conclusion.

You're not "new at this" but you haven't read anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls? "not new at this" doesn't mean "informed", then, does it?

Not everything. Just Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) (chapter 8, pages 192-213).

Isn't there a significant difference between having documents for only one example and no other example ever happening? I also suspect that focusing entirely on the beloved leader is too simplistic. There appear to have been many significant psychological, social, political, religious, and economic factors at play.

Because unique events are always well attested?

Unique events are anathema to scientific study but that doesn't mean they don't happen.

Please define a "sufficiently similar" cult and don't forget to explain why the dissimilar factors are so important and the similar factors so necessary. I suspect you know as much about the psychology of cults as you do the DSS but feel free to prove me wrong.

Apparently, you did not understand what I meant when referred to Paul trying to negate the differences between himself and the original apostles. Or haven't you read Paul, either? :huh: I have and it seems obvious to me that he had no interest in mentioning, let alone emphasizing, anything that happened prior to Paul accepting Christ except the bald facts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul very much wanted to be considered just as much an apostle as any of them. Given that, does it make any sense at all for him to want to mention anything that might undermine that desire?

But it appears to be one datum that argues against your conclusion. It doesn't fit with the genre, right? You assum the genre and then hold something contrary to the genre against the texts? That's entirely circular.

Right out there in front, amigo: "If Paul is any measure..." :huh:

Yes, it persisted for many decades until it apparently became a problem for some authors. What is your point?

Only because I've spent a lot of time obtaining background knowledge by reading books as opposed to skimming websites or cribbing from the distillation of others. The latter is certainly easier but, in my experience, less reliable.

It isn't foolish to be ignorant. It is only foolish to remain ignorant when one becomes aware that one's knowledge base is inadequate for the desired conclusion. :angel:

Amaleq13

Clive,

The "seemingly perpetual domination of Rome" was specifically of the Jews so you need to refocus your argument to make it relevant to the claim.

Doug,

I'm sure you weren't going to run off and start learning about cult psychology but, in case you were, it is incorrect to focus exclusively on cults as an example. I could have just as easily inserted "Elvis" and accomplished the goal of pointing out that the question need not be asked. What made Elvis fans so enormously devoted to him that some even denied that he was dead? Charisma is the simplistic answer while a more complete explanation would require most, if not all, of the factors I mentioned as relevant. Right guy at the right time is probably more fundamentally true than anything else. My point is that it is not a question that can be easily answered for any example but we certainly have enough to know that amazing devotion can be and has been obtained by the most unlikely individuals.

There are certainly problematic aspects to the entire scenario but why a group could become so devoted to their leader isn't one of them.

aa5874

The Dead Sea scrolls contain nothing specific any Jesus of the NT. The specific date of writing for any fragment is unknown, that is, even if there are passages of the DSS that make claim to a messianic figure, it is known whether these passages were written after the supposed Jesus of the NT or before.

Furthermore, it is not even known if the seemingly messianic figure in the DSS had already arrived and whether the author was recounting the words of someone else of the past, in effect, there is no specificity with regards to chronology, personality or context.

Even Philo, in Rewards and Puhishment 95, wrote, "a man will come forth, says the word of God, leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations......"

There is no indication that Philo's messianic man ever came, he made no mention of this man even though he wrote and died long after the procurator Pontius Pilate.

Amaleq13

Simplistic and entirely missing the point. True to form, double-a, true to form. At least you are consistent in your confusion.