Loomis

But I am not claiming that history shows the name Jesus was acquired through some act or achievement. I am claiming that fiction shows it was acquired through some act or achievement. In the context of the fiction that embodies the claim.

Now do you see what I mean?

Do you understand the difference?

It’s not much different from the claim that Superman earned the title Superman after he was rocketed to Earth as an infant by his father.

gurugeorge

Sure, may do - but you haven't given me a reason to believe so.

"Fictitious"? Well in a broad sense of "fictitious", perhaps - but there are many possible ways that something can be fictitious in that sense (imaginary, not real) without having literally been fictitious - i.e. made up deliberately (as in a lie).

You can only get that by dismissing the entire tradition's self-ascription of history, etc. I'm not willing to do that JUST on the basis that some facts (e.g. no human or god-man Jesus) aren't true.

Again, "fiction" is a distinct category of literature and you'd have to do a ton more work to prove that.

Sure. But curiously, in the "Paul" writings, there's not a hint of any of the people he talks about (the Jerusalem people) including Cephas, having known personally (far less been the disciple of) any entity called Jesus. How's that for absence of evidence?

There's no evidence of such, sure - but that has to be weighed against us having some texts that say there was.

No, but subsequent writers might have been mistaken in interpreting the Peter he's talking about as being the same as a later, fictitious Peter who is supposed to have known this Jesus entity personally and been his personal disciple.

There are numerous possibilities that you aren't even looking at, because you're fixated on the concept of lying.

No (although that passage might be an interpolation - e.g. it's not in the Marcion Galations IIRC), but what if "Jesus believers" existed, but weren't people who had known personally the cult figure, and later traditions were mistaken in believing that they were?

Do you see that that IF it were thus (as opposed to it being a later fiction), that reality would also be compatible with the same evidence?

No, they are incoherencies that require explanation - "lies" is one possible explanation, but you need to do a bit more work to establish clear cases of lying. We need some ancillary reasoning that you're not providing, why these are, specifically, lies.

But what am I saying? You're not even canvassing all the possible options in the first place. You seem to live in a queer binary universe in which either people speak the truth or they're lying.

Not quite. There's some sense in what you're saying, but it's vitiated by your obsession with the concept of lying.

With this blunt approach, you get a theory that's coherent, but not very likely to be true (since this is not a queer binary universe in which either people speak the truth or they're deliberately lying).

I think your investigations are good and interesting, and I admire your insistence that the story of Jesus Christ we have is a plain myth on the face of it. But you're limiting your own investigation by relying solely on the concept of lying in your explanations for the existence of these incoherencies and untruths.

Just realise that there are other ways of repeating or reporting untruths than lying, and that the real history is likely to be more complex than "a pack of lies" - there will be some lies in there, no doubt - mixed with superstition, mixed with mistakes, mixed with reports of visionary experiences, mixed with theological meanderings, etc., etc., etc.

aa5874

The Bible God did not make the name Jesus above any other name before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Philo and Josephus made no such claim about the name of Jesus.

aa5874

What year did Superman rocket to Earth?

Loomis

Where does the NT say that?

And what difference does it make anyhow? The issue is if Jewish/ Christian literature treats the word Jesus as some sort of honorary title. And in some places it certainly does.

Loomis

What difference does it make?

The fact that Superman is fiction does not negate the fact that his character became Superman only after he rocketed to Earth.

Do you understand that?

aa5874

You are confusing facts with fiction.

What you claimed about Superman has never factually happened. It is just a story written at a particular time by an author.

And similarly, the name Jesus was not above any other name until some writer wrote those words perhaps sometime time after the middle of the second century.

Loomis

No. I am not. We can make factual claims about literary characters in the context of the stories that define them.

Right. Nevertheless Superman (the character) became Superman after his dad rocketed him to Earth.

That is the way the story goes. That is a fact. Are you denying it?

Loomis

Nope. Get a load of Sirach 46:1 (150 BC)

Jesus the son a Nave was valiant in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies, who according to his name was made great for the saving of the elect of God, and taking vengeance of the enemies that rose up against them, that he might set Israel in their inheritance.

See?

Now where does your argument stand?

Stay focused. Just answer honestly.

Loomis

Get a load of this post on another forum.

I Had A Ride Out With Superman Today!
Evidently Shakey’s son changed his real-life name from Jordan to Superman.

In this case we have a real-life person who is named after a fictitious hero.

The real-life (historical) Jesuses are not much different (except that they were probably named by their parents). They are named after the fictitious hero in Jewish folklore.