Elijah

I have considered the myth to history position. I don't feel there is a very good case being made for it.
I am unaware of what you are trying to argue for with those references yes. I don’t see what evidence they present to support a mythical origin.
My “own hypothesis” is weighed against the other competing ideas since there isn’t any real evidence of the time to compare. Historical to mythical is more rational and probable than mythical to historical in my mind.

rlogan

That is your prior hypothesis. In Bayesian terms. So could we now look at data instead of the priors?

The most important initial data markers for me are in two works by Josephus. He was commanding general defending Jerusalem (CE 70) against the Roman siege and wrote extensively on the history of the Jews and Jewish Wars. In around 90 CE. He had reason to know of such a thing and wrote of dozens of Jesus' - take your pick please and tell me which one is the historical progenitor to Jesus.

How can one say they have the "historical Jesus" belief without looking into the actual Jesus' we have? There's ones who led little rebellions against the Romans. Sons of high priests. Crazy guys not quite rising to the level of "itinerant preacher" but humorous. Pilate tortured that one and let him go.

Do your job and come up with him. Plenty to choose from. And they run the gamut from the gutter to the highest levels of politico-religious power.

I've done so and report that up until around 90 CE no historian mentions a Jesus that in any significantly acceptable way resembles the gospel guy and there were many of such historians - but most importantly Josephus. Which is why the Roman authorities centuries later picked that exact person for planting a forgery about Jesus existing as a person.

This we call the Testimonium Flavianum. The "testimony" (allegedly) by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. It was forged by Eusebius in about 324, and it is absolutely essential that a person understands that at this very time Chistianity was being made the official state religion under the emperor Constantine. A series of meetings eg Council(s) of Nicea were held where political compromises were made over the exact form and composition of canon.

One of these councils settled whether Jesus was man, God, or spirit (word?). He came out all three. That is what political compromises do. He was the trinity from then on, and anyone saying different was thereafter executed.

Eusebius was a Bishop and official historian and therefore secretary of carrying out the state mandate. The way they manufactured some pretense of "history" to the Jesus Christ was a bald-faced insertion into Antiquities of the Jews.

For me this comes down on the side of complete, not partial, forgery as some would want to cling to. Just no mention of Jesus Christ at all.

Explain how the history-to-myth explains the compelte absence of a historical Jesus being mentioned at all until this time, and how it explains this forgery better.

Next data point:

By around 112 or so we have Pliny writing the Emperor on A superstitious cult that does have a "Christ" but no historical Jesus.

http://www.beavervalleysoftware.com/...2&user=&email=


The data in 112 says there is a Christ and there is no data on any Jesus.

So the data IS myth to man. It sounds like you have not tested your theory against this data. My "theory" is just the data I have. 100% myth to man data.

I think it important to understand the religions theory behind Christ and why the myth is self-sufficient to the religion. Having a man is actually contrary to what are our earliest forms of christianity.

We go through a long period of Christianity with no man. A fair reading of Pliny says Christianity has been going on for possibly as long as 25 years. Long time with no Jesus. And it fits with Josephus - it might actually exist at that time, and yet be too small to notice - but in the beginning it was a Christ and not a Jesus.

I think it important too that Pliny speaks to the Emporer about Roman Citizens who are Christians. Not a Jewish thing. And there's much more to compare in terms of data. The literary evidence siggests the gospels are written in a place distant and time from the alleged events. See all the material spin has posted here.

But I want to zero in why it is so important to understand Constantine, Eusebius, and the Testimonium Flavianum. It was critical to create a historical person as the linear progenitor to the official state religion.

We have the whole Marcion wing without a belief in a historical Jesus and Paul merely having visions of him. A christ before a man. The most important thing about him is that he is Christ. And we have no extant gospels alleging any kind of historical Jesus until when? I believe this also comes down to Eusebius in terms of extant gospels. Prototype drafts and one earlier version of Mark for sure.

Then you have the Bar Kokhba revolt, which has a Jewish Messiah, a total destruction of Herod's palaces, and other Jesus Christ sounding progenitor material. Including that as the actual dispersion of the Jews, which occured in 135 CE not 70 CE.

More positive data that needs explaining against the man before myth hypothesis. There were men. Ones that would be the exact candidates for a real Jesus to be mythologized. Good golly there's the Jewish Messiah right there for you. Show me how you went through all of the historical Jesuses and men that ought well be behind myths if there are going to be any... show me who the Jesus was. This one?

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


Gah! Back to Eusebius. It is finally at this time any argument over whether Christ was a spirit or God or a man is settled.

The actual history of it in terms of the DATA is that Christ the myth came at the very least many decades before any notion of a man arises. Centuries before it became "history".

That historical existence was imposed by state dictatorship over thought, not by evidence. The purpose was to control religion as a political strategy.

Evidence was altered to suppress opposition (TF). Choosing Josephus demonstrates how important it was to forge it there. Because he is the one who would have written of it. And they knew well it was not true.

So now you have all the elements - motive, means, and opportunity for the historical Jesus superimposed on the Christ cults originating independent of any historical Jesus before it. Boatloads of Jesus' mind you, but none you can finger for me as progenitors.


Earl Doherty has done a lot of the heavy lifting. And his strongest suit in my view is looking at the data. How christianity was a history not of a "big bang" man-to-myth exaggerations - but inatead different "Christ Cults" merging into one.

That fits again myth to man better than man to myth.

Once gosepels did get going there was no shortage of them - Eusebius has to banish the Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Barnabus, Judas? and all manner of other writings. Centuries after the fact you have all kinds of different Jesus', yes.

There is more evidence to consider. But I see that you misunderstand what I am trying to say about "hypothesis testing".

You are trying to see what is more logical to you without examining data.

I am trying to say forget about data-free guessing. Just look at what data we actually have.

That data starts with no historical person and no Christ. Then a belief in a Christ appears. Lots of Jesus' to be historical progenitors if this is your belief, but none of them fit.

It is not until centuries later that Christ cults are merged into one belief that is anchored in a state-mandated but false historical Jesus.

The one I can find for you is actually the gospel Jesus' and I can show their origen in scripture. They searched the Hebrew Bible for him and used a lot of Isaiah. Many other books too but this too supports myth to man. Made up from scripture.

I don't see you looking at this data and explaining it with your hypothesis.

aa5874

You seem not to realise that it was the church writers and the authors of the NT who presented Jesus of mythical origin.

Look at Justin Martyr with his presentation in "First Apology" where he compares the "biography" of Jesus to the mythical sons of Jupiter.

"First Apology 21" Justin Martyr clearly presented a biography of Jesus similar to the mythical sons of Jupiter. Justin did not ever claim that Jesus was born naturally.

Now look at Tertullian on the "Flesh of Christ" 1. And in chapter 2 of "On The flesh of Christ" it is says this. It was the authors of the NT and the church writers who presented a biography of a myth called Jesus and the mythicists are ALL agreed.

Elijah

The one who sacrificed his life and told his followers to do the same.
The history to myth person would probably call into question about the evidence for the son of a carpenter that would be expected to remain, compared to the remains of other similar individuals of the time. This is when the myth to history person usually tries to argue that a magical man should have left more records when that isn’t what a historical believer should be arguing for.

When the myth to history theory has absence of evidence as its only evidence to support its case when no reasonable expectation of evidence should be expected for the person in question it brings serious doubt to the theory.

What would you expect him to know about a historical Jesus and why?
How are you interpreting Christ here?
You have zero data supporting the myth theory in my mind, sorry. You have a text from someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity talking about Christ and you’re going he is mythical cause he’s not calling him Jesus here. Maybe I’m missing something but what you are suggesting from the text seems completely unreasonable.

I’m curious to the religious understanding you have of the early Christians and about the concept of Christ that you believe they were worshiping.
So you’re with Mountainman in that it is a giant Roman conspiracy established by Constantine and written by Eusebius? I used to think he and that theory was a Christian on here spoofing the other mythers, still do kind of.
What does Marcion say about a historical Jesus? Paul having only visions of him is expected given the circumstances of him being dead at the time.
Contrasting the understanding of what a messiah should be and do should help you understand the success of the Christ meme, if you try to understand it as a messiah claimant and not a myth confused for history. Understand why Kokhba failed and then maybe you can understand why Jesus was so successful with the people and in Rome.

The one who got himself killed in a showy enough fashion to have his followers do the same spreading the conviction in his claim of messiahship is the historical Christ in my mind.

I need to know what your understanding of the Christ myth is and how you support it.

So how would you describe Christianity and it’s ideology at the time of the political manipulation/manufacture.
Still not following your conspiracy theory. I don’t understand the motive, see the means, or believe they had the opportunity. A more natural change from myth to man is more believable then a giant governmental conspiracy theory.
As I mentioned earlier to you there was a lot of competing ideas surrounding Christ then and still is to this day evolving the overall Christian meme.

How so? A religion with no lasting founder is expected to have some division in the ranks early on but to jump to the conclusion that it is because of a mythical origin, I don’t see the reasoning behind.

Yep many many ways to understand Jesus and what he was doing up on that cross. And many times his name has been used to further others religious beliefs.

What I see when I look at the data is a lot of missing data. But I am probably misunderstanding you about “Hypothesis testing”

Post any data you think supports a mythical origin and I’ll look at it, so far it’s the same ol thing.
When do you think they started making it up and which texts do you think were forged then?
Who is the “they” and what did they find in the Hebrew bible, what is the meaning behind the myth “they” established or is it just some random ideas yanked from some texts thrown together with no meaning?
I’ve had this argument before. I’m very very unimpressed with the current state of the myth theory. I do have some hope that it will actually someday contribute something productive to the conversation but not in its current form .

Elijah

He is trying to argue that nothing they believe is any sillier then what they believe about their gods. There is a point to what he is saying and it isn’t that Jesus is mythical in origin like their gods are thought to be.
Jesus having a supernatural body doesn’t support a mythical origin it just supports them not having a modern understanding of physics/biology. Jesus and flesh is an issue when the flesh/material world is seen as evil /corrupt by a portion of the religious thinkers of the time.

bacht

Elijah, what do you make of passages like these?:


[God] has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Col 1:13-20

In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.

When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

Heb 1:1-4

----

Scholars have dated the epistles as earlier than the gospels. It would seem that even before Mark, Christians saw Jesus as almost equal to God himself. Hard to reconcile this with the picture of a human teacher.

Elijah

Bacht, I see it as personification of an unknowable God, like being one with the Way in Taoism (with some variation depending on philosophical leanings.) It's not genies inhabiting human hosts, it's more like humans personifying wisdom or reason, mystically speaking (probably).

aa5874

So, what kind of origin did Achilles have? Achilles was the offspring of a sea goddess.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

The church writers called those who claimed Jesus was just a man heretics or liars. See Against Heresies by Irenaeus.

The church writers claimed Jesus was truly born without sexual union.

There is no other credible information anywhere about Jesus that clearly shows he was a man who was eventually worshipped as a God during the days of Tiberius.

Now, if they did not understand physics or biology, it may very well be cartoon characters or ghosts that they were describing.

Elijah

The version we are familiar with comes from Homer I believe. If he based his off a man or metaphor for something else I don’t know and I don’t think you do either.
Sorry, we are coming from two completely different understandings of the concepts in discussion.
Because they believed he was more than a mere man not that he didn’t exist at all right?
Yep, the virgin birth seemed to be a big deal to some. Still is to some Christians for some reason, but how do you think this supports a mythical origin?
No credible information but a lot of suspect information pointing to someone causing a big deal with his death.
Or you could be taking artistic/poetic representation literally, which may not be the best way to understand the philosophy of the time.

Which text do you think best describes the God you don’t believe in?

bacht

Isn't the literal understanding the place to start? It's like the question about the intention of the gospel writers: how do we know they were writing philosophy, what clues did they leave (which seem to have been missed by those old proto-Catholics)?