archibald

Is this 'having divine qualities' not the norm for 'special persons', eg. numerous messianic claimants, and to some lesser extent anyone supposedly capable of a miracle, or special powers, including seeing/hearing ghosts and doing prophecies?

Also, I sometimes think 'entity' is a questionable word. It's not as if he was thought of as having been a supernatural cloud or as having 10 tentacles and 45 eyes. :]

Figure that seemed human, maybe?

Anyhow, the point, surely, is not what the form or make-up of his constitution was variously interpreted as, but the apparent belief that he was believed to have had an earthly, humanlike existence.

George, do you not think that if no one at the time, as far as we can reasonably tell, appeared to think he hadn't existed, that this might be something usually taken to be somewhat in favour of the likelihood of his existence, given that they were all a heck of a lot closer to purported events than we are?

maryhelena

Well now, I’ve been a ahistorict/mythicist for around 30 years and I’ve never found it necessary to propose such an unnecessary and such an implausible idea....People can believe many strange and wonderful things that they imagine will happen to them when they die. Ideas by the dozen and nothing that anyone can do to stop the imagination running wild. But that’s the downfall of ideas - they last only until the next big visionary pops up with his new claims to even bigger and brighter things in that after-world. In other words - for the Christian ideas to have found a foothold in reality, in the here and now, they had to have some reference point in history.

We can debate and argue just what that reference point was - but, methinks, to deny a historical grounding to the gospel JC story is to be denying reality any relevance to human thought. Flights of fancy come and go - but without our intellect seeking a base, a connection, in reality, within our physical environment, our flights of intellectual fantasy will ultimately let us down.

And no, none of the above suggests that the gospel JC was a historical figure. What it does suggest is that history was necessary for the creation of the gospel JC story. The gospel JC story is a prophetic reflection upon a specific historical time period; ie. history has been viewed through a prophetic lens - and the picture that was seen is the gospel JC story.

Stringbean

Implausible maybe the very ground work that HJers are basing their argument on.

maryhelena

If your remarks relate to my above post - then please qualify what you find "implausible" in my post - otherwise your post is meaningless.

As to the historical Jesus assumption - yes, the JC historicists are very wrong re a historical gospel JC - of whatever variety they dream up. But they are not wrong to maintain, to hold to, a historical core or component to the gospel storyline.

Yes, a prophetic lens will distort history, it will allow interpretations, meaning and salvation theories all to distort history - but what a prophetic lens cannot do is remove the object of it's focus - history. So, if we want to get to ground zero re early christian origins - we have to put the prophetic lens aside - and check out the actual history. That really is the only way - we have to get in front of that prophetic lens - rather than continue to be looking through it.

archibald

Maryhelena,

You might think my scenario unnecessary, but many do not. I have heard of reasons for said switch, for example.

Btw, I thought you were doing very well......up until the last paragraph.

At that point you converted the character to literature, without having any good reason, since the indicators are that he was not thought of as such.

maryhelena

Oh, come now archibald - must I call in aa5874 for his great talent for kicking any idea re a historical gospel JC to the rubbish heap........

Sheshbazzar

A visit to any fundamentalist church will net a dozen or more cock-and-bull 'miraculous' religious stories that the claimants are willing to swear to be absolutely true accounts of their personal religious experiences. But what does that have to do with reality or with actual history other than displaying a group reinforced mental aberration?
Am I to believe and give credence to the those tales told to me by old Jacob, of Jebus Christ sitting down beside him on a stump and conversing with him while he was out hunting?
Or believe and repeat as being a 'historical' fact that Jebus Christ miraculously appeared and levitated old Jake out of a river, thus saving him from drowning?
Or that a living, physical Jebus Christ did actually materialize and take over the steering wheel of old Jake's automobile, yet again saving old Jake's hide?
('course they still hit a tree....apparently Jebus Christ wasn't much better of a driver than old Jake)

Seriously, these are samples of the type of Christian 'testimonies' that I have heard first hand from a believer that I have known all of my life, and whom having repeated them so often, quite succeeded in convincing himself that his accounts are exactly what happened.
When I read 'Paul's' stories it all comes across as equally hokey 'witnessing', although somewhat 'doctored up' by his continuators for mass consumption.

I don't-cannot- accept or believe these 'testimonies' by old Jake (and his ilk)
Why should I give any credence to the religious claims of 'Paul' (or those pseudo-'Paul's' who invented additional tales in his name)???
'Paul' according to his own accounts in the NT, never once met or even laid eyes any flesh and blood living Jebus the Christ, only 'visions' and claims of holding conversations with an dead and long departed stranger, and 'miracle' stories that are the basis of all of 'Paul's' 'testimonies'.
'Paul' has no more credibility than old Jake or any other religiously infected person who invents such tales and convinces himself of them.

archibald

I'm not sure what you mean. aa5874 (what does that code mean, btw?) doesn't scare me.

First off, I'm not restricting myself to the gospels.

Second, aa5874's oft repeated claim that because Jesus was (his choice of phrase, not mine) described as mythical therein has very little bearing on whether there was or was not a grain of sand at the centre of the oyster, that is to say that the gospels embellished an historical character rather than a non-historical one. I think there are sufficient indicators that the 'historicity trail' goes back to before the gospels, and as such the story does not appear to be a 'prophetic reflection upon a specific historical time period'. I'm not even sure I know what that is. Sounds a bit retro-fitted.:]

The point being, I would be more inclined to think 'prophetic reflection' if the man had not be so overwhelmingly described as having provided astounding evidence for what was being promised. Resurrection.

maryhelena

Glad to hear that... code no idea - but what do that say - a rose by any other name!

Now that is good news....

So - the 'historical trail' goes back to before the gospels - obviously, the gospel JC story was an idea before it became a written, recorded, idea. That history still needs a prophetic lens for it to a salvation JC story. As to time period - don't get sidesteped by a literal reading of gLuke's 15th year of Tiberius. gLuke has referenced historical figures - including Lysanias of Abilene - who ruled in 40 b.c. - Thus, gLuke's historical time slot runs from 40 b.c. to 29/30 c.e. ie. 70 years.

What was promised was a Jewish messiah figure - thought to be promised re OT interpretations. Notions of resurrection are part and parcel of that prophetic lens - as, of course, is the interpretation of that Jewish messiah figure. So? Prophetic lens from start up to the grand other-worldly finale...

archibald - looking through a prophetic lens will not get one to history. It is history that has the potential for laying bare the historical canvas from which that prophetic lens has taken it's gospel JC story/picture.

gurugeorge

I did - I think Mormonism was initially a product of visions, then subsequently of fraud. You are aware that the Smiths were occultists? It often happens that people sincerely believe their own shit, but will indulge in fraud when it comes to public tests (such as the plates). Cognitive dissonance, but what they hey, we all have it sometimes.

You can't be sure the other way either, but in view of the fact that visions, mystical experiences, are fairly common, and in view of the fact that there are plausible non-pathological explanations for such phenomena (as well as sometimes pathological ones) and in view of the fact that nearly every mother******g religion or religious movement or cult on Earth has some sort of claimed visionary or mystical experience at its beginnings, fraud need not be the default explanation, even for rationalists.

Check out William James.