bacht

mmm, I think that's a bit extreme. I don't see how Jesus mythicists have more to gain than Jesus historicists have to lose in this debate.

But reports of supernatural events would always be suspicious, doesn't matter if it's Jesus or whoever. This has been the problem with the texts we already have: once you remove the miraculous elements there isn't much left.

Let's be honest: Jesus is not just any old person from the 1st C, he's the central figure in our cultural heritage, allegedly a manifestation of divine power. It may still be decades before any sort of objective analysis of his career (if there was one) can be accepted by the mainstream.

ApostateAbe

I don't accept the criterion of falsifiability, but the historical Jesus is falsifiable, and it can be done if the bullshit promoted by Jesus-mythers all over the Internet turns out to be not bullshit. If we have evidence of a dozen ancient mythical godmen preceding Jesus who were baptized, had twelve disciples, was crucified, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven, then all theories of the historical Jesus would crumble in a heaping ruin.

That is a high bar, however, but it can also be done if the mythicist theory promoted by Earl Doherty really fit the evidence. Suppose that Paul truly did not mention anything about a human Jesus who existed on Earth in any of his writings. Suppose there was an early Christian heresy much like the docetists but they believed that Jesus never even seemed human, but he was only a spiritual being who existed in heaven, and these heretics were condemned and ridiculed by Irenaeus. Suppose we had a pattern of other messianic cults who believe in a merely-spiritual messiah. All such evidence would falsify the position of the historical human Jesus, as far as historical theories can be falsified, anyway.

jgoodguy

Why? Lets assume the James Ossuary was authenticated as it nearly was.
What would be the JM response? Hold hands with the HJers and sing kumbaya or argue against the evidence. The main argument would be that all the names are common to Judea and it is circumstantial evidence at best and then attacking the dating. In fact here is an argument made at a time when the James Ossuary was considered credible.

So yes, I am rather pessimistic than any credible evidence would be enough.

jgoodguy

Are you asserting that in the real world, MJers would readily embrace a report of the finding of a birth certificate?

ApostateAbe

I believe that the commitment of Jesus-minimalists exists on a spectrum. They are somewhat uniform in their belief that textual evidence is highly doubtful--they normally claim to hold to the criterion of physical evidence. If we had physical evidence that is conclusively connected to the physical Jesus, like, say, the crucified Jesus buried in a labeled tomb, with DNA that matches the DNA of a blood-signed statement at the last supper by Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, then I think a bunch of mythicists would be convinced. But, of course, the most committed Jesus mythers would not be convinced by the most conclusive physical evidence. They have already shown the extremity of their skepticism--many of them deny the existence of the first-century town of Nazareth, and others give that position serious consideration (Earl Doherty and Robert Price accept Rene Salm as belonging among them), despite the archaeological evidence strongly concurring with the textual evidence with respect to first-century Nazareth. Not all Jesus-minimalists go to that extreme, but it shows how far many of them are willing to go.

jgoodguy

Let me be honest, I would be skeptical of such reports. The dating of 1 first century document would have a range greater than 30 years using C14 testing-a range greater than the alleged lift time of the HJ.
Thus a birth certificate with the appropriate Roman stamps would be questionable.

ApostateAbe

Anyway, the challenge remains open. Tell me what established facts reinforce the belief that Jesus is more like the Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith.

Toto

That is from Acharya S's site, and she is committed to mythicism moreso than most.

But even if that evidence were not a forgery, the connection to Jesus was still problematic.

Toto

No one except fundamentalist literalists thinks that Jesus established the church that claims to follow his teachings. Most scholars seem to think that Jesus intended to reform Judaism and/or announce the apocalypse.

Joseph Smith died and was not resurrected. The Angel Moroni, from the wiki entry, was originally a warrior who died, and then visited Joseph Smith as an angel, much as [Jesus] visited Paul.

aa5874

Jesus Christ in the NT was NOT just divine, not just some kind of angelic being like the angel Gabriel, but Jesus Christ based on "Paul" was the MOST SIGNIFICANT character in the ENTIRE Roman Empire.

1. Jesus Christ was the End of the Law of the Jews. Romans 10.4

2. Jesus Christ died for the Sins of all Jews and people of the Roman Empire. 1 Cor.15.3

3. Jesus Christ had a name ABOVE the Deified Emperors of Rome.Php 2.9

4. Jesus Christ was LORD. Php 2.11

5. Every one in the Roman Empire, including the Deified Emperors, should BOW before the name of Jesus. Php 2.10

It is clear that Jesus Christ of the NT Surpassed the insignificant Joseph Smith both theologically, politically and in divinity by a "million miles".

Jesus of the NT was SIMULTANEOUSLY equivalent to a Jewish Messiah, the Emperor of Rome and the GOD of the Jews based on the Pauline writings.

We can find Joseph Smith who was extremely insignificant yet the Pauline Jesus cannot be located anywhere. Not even those who wrote stories about Jesus Christ ever even claim they were DELIGHTED to have met Jesus Christ of the NT.

"Paul" BOASTED that he SAW Jesus AFTER he was dead.