spamandham

Plausibility is irrelevant. What matters is what the best explanation is. The best explanation is that the empty tomb story is bullshit.

BTW, Richard has refined his position since that book was written. http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/BurialFAQ.html#adjunct

He now doubts the historical veracity of anything in the Gospels.

aa5874

I call it 'the simplest explanation'. The simplest explanation is that the empty tomb story is BS.

Then as we moved backwards, the crucifixion story, BS, the betrayal story, BS, his miraculous acts, BS, his baptism, BS, his genealogy, BS, his virgin birth, BS, and the prophecies, BS.

The best and simplest explanation, Jesus was BS.

Gwen

An opinion is something like "Ice cream tastes good". A fact is something like "I like ice cream" or "Ice cream is made from pig's blood". Facts can be true or false. "Josephus failed to write a single word about Jesus Christ" is a statement of fact, which may be true or false. It was unqualified in that you failed to preface it with "in my opinion" or "as far as I know".

aa5874

Forget about the 'Icecream'. What did Josephus write about Jesus the Christ in the first century?

And, by the way, according to my dictionary, lexicon webster, a 'fact' is a thing known to be true.

In my opinion, or as far as I know, your statement, "Facts can be true or false", is false

mountainman

Then you have to account for the history of antiquity
during the pre-nicene epoch without a "tribe of christians",
and show by some other historical evolution, this tribe
of christians in fact had their polemic literature c.330 CE
MIRACULOUSLY published by a malevolent dictator.

If you reject the historicity of jesus the christ then as an
historian you are obliged (*IMO*) to research and as best
as you can attempt to find out and determine some "theory
of an alternative history" with repsect to the pre-nicene
epoch, absent "the tribe of christians".

In a nutshell ... What is your "alternative theory of antiquity"
explicating the emergence of followers of jesus the christ,
which we know definitely coallesced in the fourth century?

aa5874

Please, no, I am not an historian.

However, with regards to the historicity of Jesus the Christ, it has been overlooked that there were followers of the non-historic Christ, the unbegotten son of God, the 'phantom', as far back as , at least, the 2nd century.

Based on 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus, there were many concepts of the non-historic and historic Christ, fabricated using the OT and other writings and believed to be true by their followers.

And although the Bible of today tries to portray a historic concept, this historicity was never clearly establish, only believed. There was confusion and chaos, according to Irenaeus, all sorts of concepts were believed to be true.

It appears, after the Eusebius and Constantine collaboration in the 4th century, followed by threat of death and buning of books, the historicity concept became dominant.

The silence of the first century with respect to any concepts of 'Christ' gives me the impression that 'Christ' was fabricated in the 2nd century, and this 'Christ' may have been an 'unbegotten phantom'.

mens_sana

I'm not sure why this argument attracts so much repetition when it is so crucially flawed. The foundational assumption here is that Acts is offering an accurate "historical" description of the events and spread of Christian belief. So this assumption is set up, then beaten to death when it would be much accurate to say that Acts is a theological propaganda piece — Part II of a triumphant progression from Creation to Jerusalem, center of Judaism and Jerusalem to Rome, the center of the universe. How can we discredit the HJ, when the argument is based on discrediting a puff job?

mens_sana

... and propaganda need not be baseless.

I like that wording and am including the "2nd edition" in my quotes file. Thank you!

J-D

What do you mean by 'the HJ position'? Do you mean 'the view that everything recorded in the Gospels and the Acts is historically true'? I don't see anybody on this thread supporting that position. But if we reject that position, what point does that get us to? It gets us to this: not everything recorded in the Gospels and the Acts is historically true. However ...... if somebody says 'either everything recorded in the Gospels and the Acts is historically true or else nothing recorded in the Gospels and the Acts is historically true', then that is a false dilemma, because it excludes without justification the third possibility, that some of the things recorded in the Gospels and the Acts are historically true while others aren't.

If somebody asserts that some of the things recorded in the Gospels and the Acts are historically true while others aren't, would you describe that person as accepting or rejecting 'the HJ position' (as you understand it)?

spamandham

I tend to agree. I think a good case can be made that Mark (/pre-Mark) was never intended as a biography at all, but was originally intended as a mystical work. This seems more parsimonious than all the hoops you have to go through to defend the HJ position. The HJers have to explain how Jesus became such a legendary figure in what appears to be a short time. The MJ position is very simple. All the MJers have to do is explain how a known mystical figure came to be thought of as historical, in a way that is simpler than the job of the HJers.

Having prodded on this board and elsewhere several times, it seems that those who support an HJ position can tell you no details of his life supportable by any form of credible documentation. "It's likely he existed" is all you can get. After that, it's one unfounded half baked theory after another. It's seems silly to me to insist on the existence of someone you can't really say anything about.