mountainman

Apollonius of Tyana

Gooch's dad

Apikorus: those are excellent poll choices. I would vote for the last "YES" option.

Clivedurdle

I would go for a mix and match answer.

NOT co-equal part of Trinity.

Extremely unlikely to have existed, but there may have just have been a bloke called Fred on whom some of the stories might be based, but he might be a teacher of righteousness 100 BCE.

Might be a play in which he is the central character (series of plays?)

Might be a deliberately constructed antithesis to Augustus?

Strong mythological, gnostic and legendary accretions - but on what?

Is there a central point to go back to, or is it the other way round, different ideas get pulled and pushed together to create this religion, that does have different jesi over time - gnostic and emperor and fish Christs for example.

mountainman

If we were to examine this specific postulate it appears
to me that it might very easily fragment on account of
the necessary, parallel and consequential question:
Did Paul exist?

Thus increases the more detailed combination and
permutation of more primitive hypotheses. Where
will it end? Only when someone tries to map out
all the possibilities in a coherent and exhaustive
methodology.

If you look at it as a matrix of:

* 1. Jesus
* 2. Paul
* 3. << WhoElse 1 >>
* 4. << WhoElse 2 >>
*
*
* n. << WhoElse n >>

Where you have to work out where to draw the
line with the figures, if you consider n > 2.

You then have the current expanded spin options
against all these people. Has such a process been
attempted with Jesus and Paul?

Apikorus

GD: Thanks. Me too.

spin

This position really seems to me that you don't think there's enough evidence to make a reasoned decision, so you'll just guess "yes" (perhaps because of the weight of tradition, or whatever).


spin

Apikorus

My reasons are based on a general understanding of the cultural milieu and Jewish sectarianism at the time, consideration of the gospel narratives, and consideration of the evidence from Josephus. Of course these written sources must be viewed critically, given their well-known problematic attributes.

I tend to believe that there was an historical Hillel as well, and I think there is even less evidence for him.

In the end, it comes down to some rough assessment of probabilities.

jakejonesiv

I would like to see the four who voted
Yes (messiah)
to come out in the open and defend their position.

spin

I'm sure you would . But that's not the scope of this poll, which is simply a factfinder! And I'm not even sure that it's fodder for this forum, as I fear it would wander of the long and narrow of BC&H.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
I go "yes" these days but I may still be overly influenced by that classic line from GB, "If a supreme being asks if you are a god always say "yes"!". You make a very good point that people should not feel like they have to vote (yes or no) and saying "I don't know" is probably not used as often as it should be. Certainly there's a huge Distance between what would be good evidence that, um, uh, what was his name again, existed and the existing evidence that that man existed. That Christians and Chris rely heavily on the argument that if you don't accept the existing evidence as proof that Jesus existed than you also don't accept it proven that other famous ancients existed such as Alexander, Amenhotep III and George Burns as a good argument for Jesus' existence is symptomatic of the lack of any good evidence. The Doubt regarding whether any ancient existed is not evidence for Jesus' existence, it's evidence against Jesus' existence. Specifically for Jesus, the supposed good evidence we do have has been transmitted by the Jesus people and is therefore [understatement] Biased [/understatement]. Yes, they thought the evidence they transmitted was true, but they didn't use modern scientific standards. And I'm still waiting for someone to reasonably explain how the ancients not using modern scientific standards to transmit evidence for any ancient figure is any type of evidence for the existence of that guy who's name I forgot again.

Again, if I have to answer yes or no I answer yes. This is because I see agreement between our two earliest sources of Jesus, Paul and "Mark", which makes sense to me from a Historical standpoint:

1) Paul did not believe in Jesus during Jesus' life because Jesus did nothing Impossible and the people who knew Jesus generally did not claim that Jesus did the Impossible. After Jesus died Paul believed in Jesus doing the Impossible. No one could directly dispute Paul because Jesus was dead. Paul generally avoided discussing Jesus' life because he couldn't compete there with those who knew Jesus and emphasized Jesus' Historical life of Teaching and Faith healing.

2) "Mark" accepted the basic beliefs of Paul that Jesus' Historical Teaching and Faith healing was unimportant and misunderstood by those who knew Jesus as important. What was important was the Impossible Jesus and especially Jesus' Passion.

What our earliest witnesses to Jesus than have in common is a Rejection of the witness to the Historical Jesus. This makes me think that I should have a qualified "yes" here. What Paul and "Mark" are Rejecting is the historical Jesus. This makes me say "yes" because this Rejection requires something to reject, which I think is the historical what'shisface. However, as Paul and "Mark" themselves are actually rejecting and not believing in the real historical Jesus I wonder if I should be saying "yes" here. The real historical Jesus is the cause of the evidence of Paul and "Mark" even though they themselves don't believe in the real, historical Jesus. So I think I need a Fee, Phi, Foe, Frum, Fifth Philo-sophy here:

Yes, there was a historical Jesus but Christianity Rejected this historical Jesus and is instead based on a fictional Jesus who's priMary source is the imagination of Paul and "Mark".



Joseph

MYTHOLOGY, n.
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page