Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, I never did any such thing.

But this is not what I said. I spoke of followers of these figures, not historians, lionizing them just as the followers of Jesus lionized him, and historians ignoring them just as historians ignored (i.e. did not write about) Jesus (assuming Josephus does ignore him).

Which actually was a claim that you originally denied with respect to Hillel and Bar Kochba!

But be that as it may be, you miss the point of contention. It's not that " some figures in history are perceived by their followers to have had greater power or to have been more influential than they were in real life" -- which, by the way, was not part of your original claim about what is and is not "realistic".

It's your claim that if these figures bore any resemblance to what their followers said about them, they therefore would also have been noticed = "wriiten about" by historians. And as the evidence from Dio shows, that's just not true.

And I note that you have yet to answer the following questions:

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Amen. Hallelulah. We can be certain that the original Gospel narrative "Mark" is not primarily history. The serious question is whether it is primarily theology or entertainment. It could be theology which choose a style of Irony or it could be entertainment which choose a subject of theology.

The lack of awareness of the author makes me think it is entertainment. This would explain why Christianity rejected the author as the author. If the intent of the author was primarily theology, why would Christianity not know who the author of the original Gospel was?

Or for those who need points sharply explained, if the author was a skilled entertainer (and "Mark" is the most skilled of all Christian authors) than he would not have had a Christian entourage and Community. If he was a theologian than he would have.

SNM, I believe you already accept these possibilities.


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Solo

The "historical witness" of Jesus is treated "like shit" by Mark, says JW. If only (people with) demons, the reader and the big crowds that want to be with their glorious but passing object of desire (and forget sometimes to eat because of it) have access to the gnosis of Jesus, what is the historical witness doing in the narration ? Why is there a historical witness at all, given that the gospel of him comes only from psychos, living outside of Jesus time ? Why this setup, if this was a duel of competing gnostic schools ? And how probable is it that Mark's skewed perspective, rather than - again - a duel on the gnostic plane, would have been replicated, and reversed, later in the Clementines ? The simple answer to that would be, AFAICS, because there was a historical witness and there was a gnostic witness.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Solo, you seem unaware of my position which is HJ. I not only agree that the above, mutual rejection of historical witness by Paul and "Mark" is evidence for HJ based on what they are rejecting, I believe it is actually the best evidence for HJ available. Subsequent Christian writings all try to convert this rejection of historical witness into historical witness (which indicates they had no access to historical witness).

"Mark" can be entertainment and evidence for HJ. The point though is that Paul and "Mark", as rejection of historical witness, are Indirect evidence for HJ. Indirect evidence is much closer to MJ than direct evidence would be. The related issue which these unholy boards are just starting to touch upon is to the extent Paul and "Mark" reject historical witness to Jesus, what exactly is left? The analogy I keep using is the classic episode of the Adam Family where they give Cousin It (I choose this name deliberately) a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left.

Now I say I Am HJ but only in the context of having to choose one or the other. Since my best evidence is witnesses who did not know Jesus and reject the testimony of those who did I'm fine with Spin's position of Agnostic on the subject if that is an option.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

skepticdude

There is nothing alarming about using investigative techniques to prove that one's admission is exaggerating the truth of what really happened. People exaggerate all the time. About as alarming as gravity.

Sure, but we are claiming to have discovered that the part of the story that says Jesus is god, is the part that goes beyond the truth.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement: I do NOT start out granting an ancient author the benefit of the doubt and then believe whatever is written until skeptics prove it wrong.

Such skepticism is employed everyday by most Christians themselves. If you don't think so, ask yourself what characteristics of a story make you suspicious that it is exaggerating the historical truth? Are you open to the possibility that a flying elephant can teach a box of crayons to talk in human language, or do you draw the line at some point just like skeptics do?

aa5874

You do not understand my position at all. I do not ACCEPT the NT as historical in any way except that a GOD/MAN character was placed in Judea sometime between 6 BCE and 37 CE.

It is the authors of the NT that provided the witnesses for their fictitious events.

They claimed the 1st bishop of Rome saw Jesus walked on water, they are the ones who wrote that the 1st bishop of Rome was present when Jesus transfigured and dead people was talking to Jesus.

It was the authors of the NT who wrote that the 1st bishop of Rome with other apostles were present when Jesus went through the clouds.

I do not called those events exaggerations but fiction. There could have been no witnesses to those events, they simply did not happen.

Exaggeration can be employed for actual events, not non-events.

Please tell what events about Jesus that you know were exaggerated?

maryhelena

Not so simple really - sure the point about a historical man, a man who was seen as being important to the early Christian movement, is probably accurate (after all things had to begin somewhere...) but that this man was the Jesus of Nazareth of the gospel storyline - well now - that is another issue altogether.

We have history and we have interpretation of that history - so yes, indeed, the actual history of the designated gospel time period cannot be side-stepped. Methinks the mythicist camp would be shortchanging themselves if they seek to do that. It cannot all be mythology, mythicism, gnostic witness, interpretation - or what have you. The bare bones, the actual historical happenings are the foundation stones from which all the rest flows.

The question really is - what did the early Christians 'see', what was it in the historical time period that stirred their imagination? What was it that motivated them - motivated them to merge an interpretation of OT prophecy with the ancient dying and rising god mythology to create the gospel storyline?

(It cannot be a question, in the gospel storyline, of imposing an overlay of myth upon a historical man. The 'man' in the Jesus of Nazareth storyline is an 'everyman' - all things to all people. From cynic sage to apocalyptic prophet. Simple answers are not necessarily the way forward when dealing with prophetic or mythical interpretations.....)

aa5874

The actual designated time period for the gospel story has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity or history of Jesus unless one ignores the description of Jesus.

One cannot ignore the description of Homer's Achilles and still try to find Achilles in Antiquity.

Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, that is absolutely essential information, just like it is absolutely essential to know that Homer's Achilles was described as the offspring of a sea-goddess.

There are no bare bones of Jesus, he was a one of a kind, unknown creature, the Creator combined with the created, spirit and flesh, who vanished from the face of the earth through the clouds.

Who are those Christians that saw something like Jesus before the resurrection and ascension? Which supposed Jesus believer wrote that he saw something like Jesus alive before he died.

The authors of the Gospels did not claim they saw anything like Jesus alive before death.

The PAULINE writers did not write that they saw something like Jesus before he died.


The God/man in the NT was a parable talker and miracle worker that was difficult to understand. His prediction that he would be raised from the dead must have failed and his disciples fled in fear when he was arrested, and were in hiding fearing death..

If Jesus was a man he accomplished nothing but total destruction of himself and his organisation.

There was no resurrection, there was no day of Pentecost, the disciples were not empowered by the Holy Ghost.

The name of Jesus was HORRIBLE NEWS to the disciples.

Solo

Yes, that's very, very close to what I believe. Paul rejected the traditions around HJ altogether, despite the pathetic later attempts to make him a good choir boy among the miracle-mongers. Mark was a Paulinist, and his gospel was most likely a response to propaganda of the new waves of Petrine pentecostalists who threatened the dominance of Pauline Christians in Mark's diaspora neighbourhood during and shortly after the 66-70 war. They were likely vying for converts and poaching in Paul's churches telling stories and tales of Jesus' wondrous deeds. Mark lampooned them. The exorcisms, healings, Caesara Philippi "confession" & Transfiguration, likely had some traditions behind them but Mark retrofitted them and complemented them with allegorization of Paul's teachings and Paulinist traditions freely flowing from Jesus' mouth. Mark also ridiculed the conspirational secretiveness of the disciples by making Jesus prohibit them from "revealing the Messianic secret" that he himself freely declares (among the ones who have gnosis).

At the center of the dispute was Paul's cross as the symbol of the ultimate messianic fate. Mark created the story of the passion, specifically to separate the historical witness from it. The Petrines were deniers of the cross as Paul revealed in the Galatians. Mark's Jesus is condemned to be crucified in a brilliant allegorization of Paul's teaching. He is inculpated as a blasphemer (offence to the Jews) and a seditionist, even though Pilate sees him not as a pretender but a harmless fool. In the end Pilate gives in to the mob (folly to the gentiles). Mark denies to Peter and Co. access to the news of the son of man rising from the dead. Among other things Mark's SE has the effect of the Jesus Transfiguration glory never getting out (through the Petrine office), as the disciples are enjoined not to speak about that until the son of man rises. But they don't know that he rose, besides, and this would probably have made the Pauline pneumatics laugh their head off when reading 16:8 and rmembering 9:10: the Petrines did not know what the rising from the dead meant in Paul's church ! So even if they had been told by the women, they would have had to first figure out the Pauline "spiritual" resurrection.

Very much so. One effect of Christianity being created and dominated first by Paulinism, is that we know nothing of JC historically except that he was crucified. The Petrines might have responded to Mark by creating a more authentic portrait but Matthew preferred to keep the Markan model in essentials, and do the "historical rehabilitation" of Jesus disciples within that model agreeing to the cross mythology, which looked perhaps much more realistic after the war ("blood be on our children".) It also happened to be the most promising way to woo the Paulines to the true faith of the observances.

Just the bare assurance that if the cross was real, the poor guy was in a great deal of discomfort at the end.

It is an option, by all means.

As the Lord told me, "Should someone slap your right cheek, do not stupidly turn the other cheek. The smart thing is to weigh your options in everything!"

Jiri

wavy_wonder1

Wow, what is this upcoming monster?!

Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)


Finis,
ELB