Ben C Smith

Earl, who (if anyone) is on your list of mythicists (whether of the Pauline, the logos, or whatever type) who had encountered the emerging historicist juggernaut (your term) and rejected it?

Ben.

GakuseiDon

And even if Celsus and Origen hadn't encountered Christians who didn't believe in a HJ, wouldn't they both have heard about gods acting in a "spiritual realm" from the pagans? Surely that didn't die out at the same time that it died out of Christianity. But there doesn't appear to be any discussion one way or the other -- Celsus doesn't say that pagans have a higher understanding about the gods, Origen neither defends nor use as ammo a Christ who hadn't acted in a "spiritual realm".

This is what Celsus had heard about Jesus:

[Celsus's Jewish protaganist] accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

No hint even remotely approaching something like "Christians have foolishly historicized a god who acted in a spiritual realm, which is where reasonable people believe the gods acted".

I don't think we've got into that area at all, Earl, at least on the pagan side of the equation. I raised a thread a while back about whether there was evidence that pagans thought that their gods acted in a "spiritual realm", and IIRC no-one came up with anything. Carrier thought that Plutarch discussed Osiris in such terms, but (IMHO) I showed that this was not so. Pretty much all we have is your interpretation of Paul and the AoI. Looking at it from the pagan side, there just doesn't appear to be anything to support you. But, as usual, any time someone raises questions about your theory that go beyond the usual HJ comments in Paul, mythicists seem uninterested. They just say "read Doherty's book -- it's all explained there".

Perhaps the solution that Celsus didn't bring up anything about gods acting in a "spiritual realm", and Origen didn't feel he had to respond to prevailing beliefs about gods acting in a "spiritual realm" (whether either thought Jesus did or not), was because the concept simply didn't exist at that time, and it is something that you and those who have read your book have retrojected back into the thinking of that time.

Anyway, it's a thought.

spamandham

Probably, if he knew it.

If Mark was written shortly after 70 CE, as is generally accepted, and if it had the influence it is generally thought to have had, then we would expect pretty much everyone after that point to believe Jesus had been a historical figure - whether they were Christian or not.

This is why I see little value to anything written much after that, in regards to the HJ discussion. The gospel message took off like wildfire. Everything regarding Jesus would have been influenced by it after that.

gnosis92

Given the factious nature of CHristian heresy hunting, how did the mythicist get swept away without a wimper in the record?

gnosis92

Maybe there's an authentic core in Josepheus that was later interpolated. Maybe the reason Celsus did not meet any Christ-mythicists Christians were that they were none. I'd like to point out even if Celsus did not personally meet Christ-mythicist Christians, he did come to meet many diverse Christian groups, including Marcion, and Jewish groups, and evidentally none of his contacts included Christ-mythicists.

If Paul was a Christ-mythicist, we would expect Paulinists to have continued this, but neither Marcion nor NT seem to have understood Paul as Doherty does, and this is premised on the idea of a fleshy sublunar realm was part of the culture that has now disappeared.

We can agree that if Celsus thought Jesus might not exist, he would have mentioned it. So the fact he does not mention it is something that needs to be explained for the Christ-mythicist.

gnosis92

good question

gnosis92

Well exactly. Maybe the reason Celsus did not meet any Christ-mythicists Christians were that they were none. I'd like to point out even if Celsus did not personally meet Christ-mythicist Christians, he did come to meet many diverse Christian groups, including Marcion, and Jewish groups, and evidentally none of their contacts included Christ-mythicists.

If Paul was a Christ-mythicist, we would expect Paulinists to have continued this, but neither Marcion nor NT seem to have understood Paul as Doherty does, and this is premised on the idea of a fleshy sublunar realm was part of the culture that has now disappeared.

We can agree that if Celsus thought Jesus might not exist, he would have mentioned it. So the fact he does not mention it is something that needs to be explained for the Christ-mythicist.

It is true we have fragments of the True Word quoted in Origin, just as we have the Testimonium Flavum,

but the fragments that are preserved show that Celsus showed no knoweldge or, or possibly rejected Christ-mythicism in favor of Jesus was born of a whore and educated by Egyptian magician theory about 120 years after the fact, and that his virgin birth has parallels to Greek myth, and then gives a normal prosaic historical account.

If Jesus did not exist, and Celsus knew this, he have mentioned it.


Celsus did not mention Jesus non-existence.
Either Celsus did not know Jesus non-existence, or
Celsus knew Jesus existed.

Koyaanisqatsi

And if he did exist and were god incarnate would he have mentioned that as well? No? Yes? I would assume, "Yes" if he had any proof.

Because he probably was? What that has to do with claims of god incarnate or any other "divine" attributes escapes me.

You're not asking if a man existed, you're asking if a God existed, yes?

Mentioned what? That a god incarnated into flesh or that a guy name Yeshua existed?

Must this actually be pointed out every fucking time?

It's endlessly astounding to me that theists, especially, assume an atheist's critical assessment of mystical claims during a time when no atheists were being consulted on the matter. You think any author of any myth was an atheist? I do too, but just the NT .

Apply the same logic and you will have no intellectually honest choice but to affirm that the whole concept of a god is nothing more than primitive, superstitious, childish bullshit.

:huh:

gnosis92

Celsus anti-Christ credentials are firmly established. He's as anti-Christian here as anyone else here.

I want to thank GakuseiDon for this quote

This is what Celsus had heard about Jesus:
[Celsus's Jewish protaganist] accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."


Obviously for Celsus, who lived 120 years after Jesus, in the same geotemporal culture, Jesus not only was historical, supplemented information not found in the gospels, but that the story of Jesus has contextual credibility -- these things happen all the time.

Celsus anti-Christian polemic tells us a lot of how he understood Jesus as a figure of history, in the context of his own time and place

The existence of Syrian tradition of divine human is clearly attested by Celsus (late second century). Origen agrees with the existence of the phenomenon, but disagrees with Celsus in his evaluation of divine humans. Celsus complains that in Palestine and Syria there are many:

who go begging both inside and outside temples, some of them gathering crowds and frequenting cities of camps, and these men are of course urged to prophesy. It is routine for them to be ready with 'I am god', or 'a son of a god' or 'a divine spirit'; and 'I have come, for the universe is already perishing, and you, men, will die because of your wrongdoing, But I want to save you, and you shall see me once again returning with heavenly power. Happy is the man who has worshipped me on this occasion. Against all the rest, in town and country alike, I shall cast eternal fire. And men who are unaware of the impending punishment will repent in vain and wail, but those I have persuaded I shall protect forever.(34)




While some of Celsus' of statements are clearly meant to denigrate Jesus of Nazareth, he does that by comparing him to wandering ascetics of Syria. I believe that Celsus has done his homework well. His purpose is to slander, but he does that as a well informed observer.

http://www.misericordia.edu/users/da...s/johnthom.htm

In othewords, Celsus is saying Jesus is like all the other wandering ascetics who promise the way to God, that are present in his own day and age.

Koyaanisqatsi

Describe someone from 1887 in sufficient detail that you know their "nature."