Will Wiley

Did Paul think that Jesus never walked the earth?
Where would we expect to see Jesus's parents mentioned elsewhere?
Not having the parents of Jesus mentioned outside the gospels till Irenaeus doesn't, to me, seem that strong an argument for his non existence.
Assuming this is true (and really all we have is an argument from silence) then it may be that these phenomona are just a later part of the religion. There is nothing in the earliest references we have that place importance on these things. Paul doesn't, as an example.
I don't think I'm quite handwaving them away. Are my questions and points unreasonable?

outhouse

what a little over 30 years after his death, legends of a man start surfacing unlike any other mythical charactor.


romans are worshipping what amounts to one of their captives, who is said to be a tax dodging hand worker traveling with some low life fishermen teaching and healing for dinner scraps. WHO dies a embarrassing death.


all in a time when people could easily say, HEY!!! I was at passover in the temple and remember that, or deny it.

Logical

We agree on more things than not. Both mythicists and historicists agree that Jesus at worst did not exist, and at best existed but as a pretty insignificant individual who went unnoticed by historians of the time for a long time. I think both sides would concede that the evidence is pretty damning for, at most, the latter conclusion, and at least somewhat compelling (or "hmmm" interesting) for the former.

I've said it before: Mythicists' work in this field (that I've read) decidedly demolishes the typical Christian idea of Jesus, even if I'm unwilling to go as far as agreeing that he never existed. So much of "him" is disproved that the possible remaining part (his mere physical existence) is really turning into a mere academic debate.

This reminds me of Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi criminal who, when accused during his trial of murdering 3.5 million people, he said he was only responsible for killing 2.5 million people! I can imagine mythicists and historicists sitting around endlessly debating the 1 million difference, forgetting the bigger picture, that they both agree he killed at least 2.5 million, and that is enough to convict him of being one of humanity's worst criminals in history.

aa5874

It is completely erroneous that the Gospels historicized Jesus. Please just go and get familiar with the Gospels and stop repeating FLAWED opinion.

In gMark, Jesus was WALKING on water and Transfiguring-- See Mark 6 & 9

In gMatthew, Jesus was Born of a Ghost--See Matthew 1.-20.

In gLuke, Jesus was Born of a Ghost--See Luke 1.26-35

In gJohn, Jesus was the WORD that was God the Creator. See John 1

It is blatant mis-leading information that the Gospels historicized Jesus.

The Gospels did the Complete opposite.

The Gospels SHOW that Jesus was TOTAL MYTH.

spin

How many other mythological characters have you sampled, outhouse, to be able to say "unlike"? Answer: none. You just made it up.

The emperor Julian described the start of christianity as appealing to the lowest classes and spread amongst them. You haven't contributed anything more.

"Gosh, an embarrassing death"? Dionysus had a rather embarrassing death. Osiris was hacked to pieces. How many others died embarrassing deaths? This is a silly argument. Looking at a religion from an outsider perspective doesn't help understand them. Paul's Jesus had to die as a payment for others' sins. Crucifixion was a cruel death to display the price paid for salvation.

Yeah, well, given that Paul's religion was spread in Anatolia and Greece, people who had actually been to Jerusalem were very few and far between. People who had been at the time reputed for the death of Jesus are simply improbable. Besides with the Jewish War too many people were displaced so believing that someone could come along and falsify Jesus is vain.

aa5874

The INVENTED Gospel of outhouse fabricated from Myth Fables in the NT which was fabricated from the Mythology of the OT.

Toto

You can read him that way.

Men at that time were typically known as X son of Y.

It's not by itself. It's just part of a cumulative case.

This is where you start waving your hands.

Relics, souvenirs, pictures, monuments are normally a part of social groups. Why would Paul think that there was a historical Jesus, but show no interest in any place he visited, the site where he rose from the dead, etc? Why would Paul show such disrespect for people who actually knew Jesus? Why didn't any other Christian until Constantine's mother and followers look for relics or places where Jesus walked? There's no good answer. So you just say, oh well, maybe they just didn't care about that sort of thing, maybe they thought the world was going to end tomorrow, maybe.

Will Wiley

Can you supply some evidence for this?
An argument from personal incredulity
Another argument from personal incredulity
How do you know none did?
How did you decide that?
I haven't said anything.
No I didn't say that.

Will Wiley

Well I guess I can read him anyway I like. But not all ways are rational.
This did not answer the question though.

stephan huller

Why is it you people don't even know what is written in the Pentateuch:

Because the Lord your God walks (mithallek) in the midst of your camp, to save you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, that He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you. (Deut 23:14)

the same verb is used in Genesis 3:8 - "God walking in the garden"

angels walk too - "the angel of God had been walking (haholek) before the camp" (Exodus 14:19)