mountainman

The Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc support a non historical jesus. The Gnostic literature is a massive step away from historicity into the surreal realm of popular fiction. The Docetic references from the non canonical texts and from the Nag Hammadi codices spell the end of the historical jesus for any rational enquiry, and open the door of myth and fiction.

The simple historical fact of the entire Christian corpus is that these mythical stories were deemed heretical to the historical jesus, and were banned by the all-powerful imperially embraced state monotheistic cult.

"But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive"

Here it would appear that some doubted whether the Christ ever lived at all in an historical sense. With extreme docetism, the text continues ....

"And he was crucified and he died - not his own death, for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals. And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church."

~ NHC 11.1 "Interpretation of Knowledge"

Jesus is not dead. Jesus never lived. He was a badge someone stuck on a monotheistic revolution in the Roman Empire over 16 centuries ago, and it sounded like a "Chrestos" badge - the "plain and simple religion of the christians" was a "Good Religion".

Erhman is digging a pit for himself. He does not understand the chronology because he is using the standard issue Eusebian GPS. And as a direct result, he does not identify the 4th century political aspects of the anti-christian Gnostics. Does he mention C14?

Vorkosigan

Yes, but it takes a while to put together a response, so perhaps Earl should get started on a collective volume ASAP. Topics might be

Tacitus
Josephus
Pliny and other non-christian sources
general remarks on the Paulines
galatians
romans
gospel of mark and historical evidence
critique of nt historical methodology
essay on nt scholar responses to mythicism, fleshing out earl's excellent rant above in more formal tones
archaeology and jesus evidence
gnostics
evolution of the historized jesus in early Christianity

...more?

judge

Ok no prob. Might be best not to clutter this thread then. Ill start a new one soon on why earls ideas or absurd, meaning illogical and wildly unreasonable.

judge

What is extraordinary is that these ideas are deemed heretical and refuted by apologists, but earls absurd theory never gets a mention.
It makes no sense.
Its entirely absent!

mountainman

Hegemonic inertia.

mountainman

The details are presently absent and obscured because the "Christian orthodox victors rewrote the history of the conflict", to quote Bart Erhman. My suggestion is to examine the Council of Nicaea and the associated Arian controversy in an objective fashion by examining the political interplay of TWO opposing sides - we might learn something from the Anti-Christ called Arius. I think the argument may be made that Arius was the first political mythicist.

judge

How many other "heresies" did they write out of history?
Or was it only Earl's one?

Christians apologists went to great lengths to write about heresies...er...except..this particluar one.

aa5874

That is a SIGNIFICANT statement from Ehrman.

Did not Christian writers actually make references to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 that the very HJers claim is a reference to an ordinary man called Jesus?

Origen and Eusebius made such references.

Well, if "Christian orthodox victors rewrote the history of the conflict" then "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 must be about the Jesus of Faith as found in the NT.

After all, Christian writers did claim that James in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is the same James in Galatians 1.19 and in Galatians 1, the very first verse, "Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man but of Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead.

And, upon investigation, the Apostle James had no human brother called Jesus Christ based on the "Christian victors".

Ehrman's own statement has confounded his search for HJ as soon as he admitted He only has the "history of the Christian orthodox victors".

Ehrman has inadvertently confirmed that what we have are indeed myth fables, not history, from the "Christian orthodox victors".

EarlDoherty

You know, judge, if you were a little more organized and literate in your postings, instead of your usual chaotic spelling, grammar and general incoherency, your opinions might garner a little more respect. As it is, your ideas come across as about on a par with your literary abilities.

We’ve been over this one before, more than once. But then, you never pay attention, do you, judge? By the time we encounter the earliest Christian heresiologists (Irenaeus, etc. in the late 2nd century; Justin’s heresiological works are lost), the initial Christ cult as represented by Paul had long since taken part in a morphing into proto-orthodox historicism based on a reading of the Gospels as historical accounts. And by then the great heretical enemy was Gnosticism, something that was more than enough to keep Irenaeus & Co. occupied. Why would they take notice of something that was essentially dead by then? And to recognize it for what it had been would have been to recognize that the earlier stages of their own movement failed to believe in an historical Jesus. What were the chances they would do that?

Besides, I’ve also pointed out before that in fact we do have some evidence about what could well be ‘mythicist heresies’: in both Ignatius and 1 John, much closer to the time when mythicism would still have been active and in conflict with the initial stages of a changeover to an historical Jesus. But you missed or ignored that, too, I take it.

Early Christianity is a lot more subtle and complex than someone like you would be capable of imagining, judge, especially when compared to the simplistic scenarios most historicists subscribe to. But I realize that subtlety and complexity, let alone concepts that are unfamiliar to the modern mind, are not your average historicist’s strong point. About the most complex thing in traditional historicism is the contortions and fallacies that it has to indulge in to try to counter mythicism.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

To Vork:

The problem is, something that would be presented as a response to Ehrman would need to use his book and the arguments as presented within it as the starting point, so it would be difficult to begin any writing ahead of time. Though it is possible that some preliminary steps in regard to organization could be taken, and in sounding out various contributors and topics they might address.

I could see you handling the Gospel of Mark, but before sinking your teeth into it, you would need to see how Ehrman approached the subject. Which is not to say that in principle a writer would have to restrict him or herself only to direct comment on what Ehrman writes.

Earl