J-D

I don't think that's what I'm trying to do, although it's hard to be sure because your analogy is opaque to me.The discussion doesn't have a framework. That's the problem.

If you think you can generate a fruitful discussion without ever saying in sufficiently plain language what the question is that you want to discuss, I think you're woefully mistaken. But it's your choice, of course.




None of this, incidentally, has anything to do with the question I was posing to Toto, and which you were ostensibly responding to. Because of the lack of a clear framework for the discussion, you attributed to my question a significance it never had.

Toto said that everybody except fundamentalists agrees that the Gospels contain mostly myths. If what Toto meant by 'myths' is 'statements which are not literally true', that may be correct. But if Toto meant something more specific by 'myths', then I can point to at least one (published; but not well-known) example to demonstrate conclusively that there are non-fundamentalists who do not agree that the Gospels contain mostly myths.

Doug Shaver

That depends. Can it count as an explanation if you don't believe it?

dog-on

J-D, perhaps a good definition to be used in this case, as any discussion of the purported actions of the central character seems to be irrelevant, is as follows.

If Christianity began with a revealed Jesus, then myth.

If Christianity began with an actual Jesus, then not myth.

archibald

No, J-D. I have said it in plain english. It's just not the question you appear to want it to be. It's a general question, which only makes the basic distinction between MJ and HJ. Or if you prefer, NEP (non-existent person, whether fictional, legendary or mythical) and EP (existent person). I've already said that I accept the limitations of that, because I'm more interested in the general investigative methods, criteria and standards used no matter what the specific scenarios. It doesn't of course rule out someone citing particular HJ scenarios or particular MJ ones, or saying (as has already been done) that there is a spectrum involved, and indeed probably you could split NEP and EP into various sub-categories on such a spectrum, with 10% factually accurate EP near one end and 90% factually accurate EP near the other. Or should I say, likely factually accurate, as far as can be estimated? :]

It seems to me that you would prefer if I said something like HJ scenario A1 is more likely than MJ scenario A2. Fair enough, but that is not the parameter I want to use. If you want to do a thread on that basis, you need to go and do one, and I can see why you would want to, honestly I can, because I've already said I take your point. Though it seems to me there are a different set of limitations to that in its own way. Not least that if there are, say, half a dozen basic MJ scenario variants and half a dozen HJ scenario variants, then you would need to do 36 threads to compare the HJs to the MJs, and my maths is not up to calculating how many more you would need to be able to also compare the MJs against each other and the HJs against each other.

Might I suggest a general thread where we discuss methods of comparison generally?

Whoops. That's what I am trying to do. :]

Iskander

That Christianity started with the man Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity. I know of no other explanation. Paul and the rest of it all is part of the Christian explanation.

People who say Jesus did not exist as a man have nothing to offer as an explanation. The deniers prefer to bully the reasonable people that object to their backseat criticisms.
.

dog-on

Christianity may have started, just as well, with a revelation. So now you know two possible explanations...

Would you like more?

Iskander

yes

archibald

Yes, we often do, for more major characters. For many many minor characters we don't.

In any case, the general point is that it is not unusual for actual persons to have myths and/or exaggerations added to their story.

So, when you say the MJ scenario is 'simple' because it is well known that people just invent characters, that is not saying very much, because it is also well known that people have confabulations added to them. In any case, you are not actually describing the MJ scenario, which involves both a non-existent person (NEP) in the first place and a switch (apparently not long after in historical terms) to an EP, with as far as I know, no clear evidence of any switch having been made.

Roger Pearse

Much the most likely explanation.

If all we had of Christianity was a stray mention in a single 5th century text, we would still tend to posit a single charismatic individual founder.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

Correct, in fact it is beyond any reasonable doubt that someone "founded" what we call Christianity.

The question, as always, is who.