Donn10

1. MJ
2. HJ

A. Just a man
B. a prophet
C. Divine

I. Teachings/actions accurately recorded in the bible
II. Teachings/actions corrupted as recorded in the bible

So many Jesi to chose from. HJ? MJ? I’m agnostic & apathetic. I've seen no conclusive evidence either way and I don’t really care. Without proof that he was divine and that the bible is an accurate record of his teachings and actions, H or M makes no difference to me.

Chaucer

Why?

aa5874

Bethlehem was a known village south of Jerusalem, if Jesus did exist and grew up in Behlehem as a child, people would have seen and known Jesus, however because Jesus was a fable, the fabricators claimed he was born in Bethlehem and left almost immediatedly after birth and grew up in an unknown location.

It would apperar there was no CITY called Nazareth in the 1st century.

Nazareth cannot be found on any 1st century map of Judaea and is not mentioned in Hebrew Scripture. And further the so-called prophecy that Jesus was to be called a Nazarene cannot be found in the Bible.


Mt 2:23 - Nobody external of the Church wrote about Jesus and nobody wrote about the CITY where he lived as a child in the 1st century.

Why?

Jesus was fiction.

Sea

Paul's lack of attention to Jesus' public ministry is maybe the best argument for a mythical Jesus. If I were to make a list of things more readily explained by mythicism, I would include that right at the top.

However, we can't assume Paul's own movement seemed successful "without the need of a real anything." Even if Paul didn't talk a lot about biographical details, he could have benefited significantly from pre-existing buzz and name recognition for this Jesus guy. I do agree Paul shaped Christianity as we know it, but I suspect he fed off an existing popular movement. Much easier than starting cold!

Paul might have been successful without a prior Jesus movement based on a real charismatic career. I'm just saying his success is easier to explain with the groundwork laid by others.

I hope people realize none of these are meant to be proof mythicism is untenable. They're not. I am just listing reasons to lean historical. Mythicists can even agree with this assessment just as I agree Paul's scant biographical details is a reason to lean mythical.

Paul's disconnect with the teachings and themes of the Gospels usually helps mythicism, but in this case it helps historicism. The Gospels don't look like Paul's theology with a biography spread on top.

If the story were being made up from scratch, it would have been so much easier to just say Jesus was from Bethlehem as was expected.

News to me.

If Jesus was being made up to suffer an ignominious death and to fit prophecies in Isaiah 53, it would have made more sense to have him die of some horrible disease. A leper Messiah perhaps. Heck, it would have been an impressive visual scene, spiritual metaphor, and reference to Moses to show his skin healthy after resurrection.

Sea

The only first century evidence comes to us through the Church. However, historians can use the principle of dissimilarity to analyze even highly biased texts and be fairly confident of some elements.

I find it amusing that the best line of argumentation for a historical Jesus is usually missed by conservative Christians because it relies on disharmony in the New Testament.

Sea

Maybe aa5874 is implying that the people of Bethlehem would be wise to the fabrication if it was claimed Jesus grew up there.

(But somehow they wouldn't be wise to the fabricators making up a empire-wide census that brought a bunch of David's descendants to town followed by Herod killing all the babies a couple of years later.)

Toto

The gospels were not written until any eyewitnesses from Bethlehem were long dead, so I doubt aa5874's explanation.

A much stronger indication of the mythical nature of the gospels is the so called "Sea of Galilee," otherwise known as Lake Kinneret. It is just a lake, not large enough to support a storm that would frighten the disciples or require the attention of a god walking on water.

Toto

Conservative Christians have faith. That's all they need - faith that the gospels are true, mostly.

The criterion of dissimilarity, or of embarrassment, has been thoroughly discredited as a source of history. You don't know what was embarrassing to the early church, or if the apparently embarrassing story did not have some other motive. Was the baptism of Jesus by John embarrassing to Mark, who wrote it? Probably not.

spin

Sea, for your information, I am not a mythicist, so please don't try to argue mythicism with me. I am agnostic on the historicity of Jesus. I have also said that people continually use the term "myth" (and "fiction") on this forum in a haphazard and sloppy manner.

Your statement appears to be biased through the use the notion "lack of attention", which goes beyond the evidence. If Paul didn't receive real world knowledge of Jesus, then he cannot have a "lack of attention", just a lack of knowledge, if there were any real world knowledge.

It also aids the view that Paul didn't know anything about a real world Jesus outside the mythicist camp.

This is possible, but we are trying to deal with evidence.

This is the same burden shifting I have objected to in the past. It says, "I can't argue in favor of my belief, but you have to argue yours."

For you perhaps. It is more parsimonious the other way around and we have to take his own statements into consideration that speak to his gospel of Jesus not coming from other people (Gal 1:11-12).

Sadly, the direction of a tradition cannot be directed by the past.

This is a non-argument. At the time of the birth narrative production, the tradition already had information of Jesus being a Nazirite based on Jdg 13:5, & 7. "He shall be a nazirite to god... he will save his people...", as Jesus means Yah saves. Matthew receives Capernaum from Mark and has to accommodate both Nazareth and Bethlehem because of the tradition -- and the writer manages to use them all.

Preaching to gentiles. In gentile territory (including "Galilee of the gentiles"). The first gospel seems to have been written in Rome. The little apocalypse is partly about suffering outside Judea. God's announcement in Mark that Jesus is his son is responded to at the crucifixion by a Roman centurian who says "truly this was the son of god." The Jews were the antagonists who didn't receive Jesus's message, which was after all aimed at those people who would believe when the gospels were written, ie the gentiles.

Hang on. You didn't write the gospel. You can't tell them what they should have written. Besides, if Jesus were blemished he could not have been a sacrifice. Your rationalization doesn't represent the needs of the situation.


spin

aa5874

The principle of dissimilarity or the criterion of embarrasment is completely useless.

In the NT, it is claimed Peter saw Jesus walking on water during a sea-storm, Peter attempted or started to walk on water during the storm and almost drowned. Jesus saved Peter from drowning.

Now, based on the criterion of embarrasment, the sea-storm water walking story must be true since Peter was embarrassed.

Fiction becomes facts with the criterion of embarrassment. And further you still must assume in advance that Peter and Jesus did exist.