teamonger

No, you have it backwards. I accept that Jesus existed, because that's what the evidence indicates to me.

Atheist writer Michael Arnheim: "... Jesus' execution was clearly the cause of acute embarrassment to his followers, so much so that it is impossible to believe that it could have been invented by any of them."
t

teamonger

I'm not sure why you get to define what a NT historian is. But if you think Grant is, here's what he says on this topic:

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth .... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms .... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. -- Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels"

t

spin

As far as I can see, there is no such thing as a "NT historian". The new testament is a literary text that has been ascribed as having information that refers to events that actually happened. Except for a few frills, none of it has been shown to represent anything that happened. What we have with historical Jesus people is merely text manipulation. (I don't like this bit... Hmm, but that bit's still ok.)

A historian is someone who tries to clarify what happened in the past based on evidence a more or less objective audience can verify.

Grant, in dealing with classical subjects was a historian. One of the verifiable sources he tended to use was numismatic data. (I don't know why Grant bothered to leave his comfort zone and meddle in the historical quagmire surrounding the nt.)

Relevance? I merely commented on who was and who was not a historian.


spin

aa5874

It is NOT true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

The information provided by the NT and Church writers indicates that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, conceived through the Holy Ghost, and ascended through the clouds when he was supposed to be dead.

All you have done is accept as true whatever you think is plausible and have rejected whatever you think is implausible.

But, what you have continuously failed to understand is that every event with respect to Jesus was regarded as plausible or entirely credible when it was written.

The conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost was just as plausible or believeable as the crucifixion or the Last Supper.

The transfiguration of Jesus was just as plausible or credible as preaching in a synagogue.

You have identified fiction in the NT, and you are using your imagination to fabricate another Jesus not found anywhere in the NT that cannot be supported by the NT, Church fathers or external non-apologetic sources.

Your Jesus is not in the NT.

You have rejected the plausible and credible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, the credible and believeable temptation story of Jesus, the credible baptism where the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like doves, the credible transfiguration, the credible miracles of Jesus, the most credible ressurection and ascension of Jesus, and the truth that Jesus is in heaven.

It is not true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

Minimalist

What evidence? All that exists are the self-serving documents of his fan club and even these have been edited down through the ages.

spamandham

No. That isn't the purpose of a hero biography.

The opposite is true. There is no reason to suppose he was recording an oral tradition. Considering the depth of OT allusions used within Mark - that vast swaths are constructed from the OT - an oral tradition is almost out of the question.


Talbert is not a mythicist. He's very much mainstream.

neilgodfrey

I'm not sure what the descriptor of the writer as an "atheist" has to do with anything, but I would be interested to see what rationale he gave for his claim that the execution of Jesus "was clearly a cause of acute embarrassment to his followers". Can you yourself tell us what evidence (not supposition) we have that actually supports this claim of embarrassment?

On the contrary, I believe that the execution of Jesus was what gave Christianity its ever-expanding appeal and attraction, its edge. Paul considered the cross of Christ a cause for boasting. Ancient wisdom literature from Mesopotamia through Palestine and down to Egypt all acknowledged that unjust suffering was the fate of the righteous and pious man. Indeed, they were righteous and godly to the very degree that the world misunderstood, rejected, hated and unjustly abused them. Who do you think most people generally relate to? The miraculously blessed and successfully triumphant? Or the those who see themselves as righteous and who suffer unjustly? I bet identifying with a god who knew your sufferings and gave you a happy ending through it all will win out 99% of the time over the former. (And I'm also an "atheist writer", whatever that has to do with anything.)

Neil

Kapyong

Gday,

What conspiracy?

The Jesus Myth thesis is not about a conspiracy.

Why do people say this ?


Kapyong

gurugeorge

Because it's a convenient strawman, easy to knock down.

Of course one can't rule out conspiracy on all sides, but one can't just assume it.

I think there was only a tiny bit of deliberate conspiracy to fabricate something major in the real story of early Christianity; I think many of the activities that came together to create the myth of Joshua Messiah (whether he be a murky man mythologised, or pure myth) were probably quite innocent, often well-meaning. (Using "innocence" relatively here - one must always be at least slightly suspicious of religious manifestations; religion is so ineluctably shrouded in mystery-mongering it makes an easy field for con-artists to reign in.)

aa5874

Those who propose a Jesus who was merely a human apocalyptic preacher seem not to understand the difference between a theory that Jesus was just human and actually having evidence that he was indeed only human.

First of all to propose that Jesus was only human is to reject the entire NT and Church writings, since of all these writings refer to Jesus as a God.

In the very first verse of gMark, the author claimed he is writing about a God, the son of God, and in the last verses of gMark, (even the short version) the author claimed that this God, Jesus has resurrected.

The author of Matthew, like that of Luke claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus existed as the Word of God before the world was created. The author of Acts claimed the disciples witnessed Jesus going through the clouds. A letter writer called Paul claimed Jesus was in heaven and would come back to earth for dead Christians when the Father of Jesus blows a trumpet or make some kind of sound.

The NT cannot support a human only Jesus.

Therefore, those who propose the human only Jesus must look outside the NT for their Jesus, they must look outside apologetic sources. and they must produce either written texts or physical evidence for the human only Jesus.

No evidence can be produce up to now, whether written or physical, after nearly 2000 years.

The human only Jesus theory is completely flawed, all evidence is imaginative.