archibald

J-D,

I can agree with that, but...........I am worried that if I get into what appears to be a very interesting variant on my OP, I will get confused by trying to handle too many interesting ideas at one time. My multi-tasking abilities are not quite what they used to be. :]

Not that they were ever world class.

archibald

This is true. In a way, this 'reverse' scenario appears to be the norm. Bring out Mr Occam and Mr Hume?

I think it's only fair to say that we do not know for sure whether myth characters who are said to have come to earth 'in the dim and distant past' made the myth-to-historical switch as quickly as Jesus is alleged to have done. All we can say is that we have no evidence that they did. Or maybe, there are exceptions? I am really open to being shot down.

Bed time in any case. Night night all.

Toto

There are other possible, even probable explanations. Paul had a vision, and Mark created the back story.

Toto

We don't because we have other evidence of their historicity.

We actually have no hard evidence of a Jesus movement in the first century. The earliest evidence dates to the second century.

Why is it that the mythicist case needs positive evidence, but the historicist case is based on an obscure figure for whom no evidence is expected or required?

Stringbean

That would be kind of hard don't you think? The word "christian" was not invented until some 40 years after his death. It's beyond me how christians can claim a man that never even heard the word "christian" as their founder. Jesus did not found anything

spin

I just take it as one of the many reasons why the appearances passage in 1 Cor 15 are bogus--from the second half of the second century.

J-D

I am not suggesting that you discuss every possible question. Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that you define clearly the one question that you want to discuss. You still have not done this. That's what causes confusion, because it fosters branching out of the discussion into various questions and lack of clarity about what is really supposed to be being discussed.

J-D

There were authoritarians before the word 'authoritarian' was first invented. There were zealots before the word 'zealot' was first invented. There were radicals before the word 'radical' was first invented. There were inventors before the word 'inventor' was first invented. More likely than not there were Christians before the word 'Christian' was first invented. People more often invent words to describe things which already exist.

Stringbean

That was the answer I thought I would get which is why it don't surprise me any. One thing about religious discussion you can always count on some one will come up with something to make an excuse for something else..Beats the hell out of me....oh well on with the show.

aa5874

There is NO data to show that Mark created a back story and further "Paul" claimed he was LAST to witness the resurrected myth.

The data for Myth Jesus has been already documented in the Extant Codices. There is no need to invent stories about myth Jesus.

The data for an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth is completely missing so HJers are at a loss from the very start and are engaged in Logical fallacies, absurdities, presumptions,and are using forgeries and admitted unreliable sources for their HJ of Nazareth.

All WE know is that Jesus Christ was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God in the NT.

Those who know of another Jesus MUST provide their sources of antiquity.

What is the source for HJ of Nazareth?

Is it Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, John 1.1, or Galatians 1.1?

If NOT, then HJers need to provide their sources.

The HJ/MJ argument is among the Church and HJers.

The Church claimed Jesus Christ was God Incarnate as found in their Extant Codices and HJers are claiming it is FALSE or that Jesus was just an ordinary man.

Both the Church and HJers are also claiming that "Antiquities of the Jews" is AUTHENTIC the only external source with the name Jesus Christ.

The Church has PRESENTED the Extant Codices and ALL their Church wtitings as EVIDENCE.

HJers come EMPTY-HANDED or use logical fallacies, and absurdities.

HJers assert "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the Church claim they have a WITNESS for their resurrected Jesus. They have "Paul".

The Church have PRESENTED Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15. where a supposed contemporary AND over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

HJers are at a loss for sources for HJ of Nazareth.