maryhelena

Yes, quite so Earl - if one is looking for JC - that carpenter from Nazareth (or wherever). But perhaps the point is that ‘reasonable thinking’ does suggest that a human flesh and blood figure was relevant to early Christianity - and it is this ‘reasonable thinking’ that prevents any origin story that denies this to not be taken seriously. The question is not about the gospel JC - it is about history and how people react to real, historical, figures; figures that they deem to be important, inspirational etc.

That’s the way of the world, Earl. Even today. People like celebrities - from rock stars to royalty. People follow people; not always to their benefit of course - but it’s people who are the movers and shakers of this world. Ideas are great and people need ideas - but ideas need ‘legs’, they need a leg up if they are to bring benefits in their implementation. Ideas, of course, can come from pure imagination and thus will be difficult to convince other people of their value. A battle of visions is a quagmire of frustration and despair. But ideas that can be substantiated by appeals to evidence, by appeals, in this case, to historical realities, are ideas that will have the ‘legs’ to run that marathon of ‘truth’.

So, Earl, perhaps put ideas of that nobody carpenter from Nazareth (or wherever) aside, and give history a fair hearing. Look for big names, look for celebrities, look for people who had the wherewithal to influence the world of the people around them. Of course, people are all too human and can have their own quota of faults. But people also, if their life is worthy, can become symbols, their life can stand for something in the minds of others. Their existence brought some meaning, something of value to the life of others. From MLK to Diana to Mandela - some people are able to catch that moment of pure symbolism and become more than what they individually are.

Earl, to attempt to reconstruct early Christian origins as though it has bypassed this very human characteristic to find some value, some meaning, some relevance, in the life of another human being - well, what can I say......history is against you here. Such a reconstructed early Christianity would be soulless, lifeless. The gospel JC story, if it’s worth anything at all, is that it’s a clarion call for a hand to hold, a face to see and a heart to hear - in other words, a resounding NO to mysticism in all it’s grand illusions....People matter, human life, in all it’s raw experiences, has to be our primary concern.

OK - I'll get off my soapbox now - have a great day everyone......

stephan huller

Another question I have about this method of exegesis. Given the fact that the miracle at Cana was controversial in the late second century with a number of prominent and learned Christians denying that it ever formed a part of the authentic gospel narrative - why should anyone think that any prominent pagan myths are present in the gospel? I happen to think that the gospel is actually developed from a litany of highly significant narratives from the Jewish writings. The extent of the appropriation makes me doubt that almost any of it was historical. But pagan myths? Where are all these pagan myths that allegedly form the core of the gospel?

I am aware of course that Clement identifies Christianity as the true mysteries' juxtaposing the sacraments with these same pagan myths. But I defy anyone to take the argument that pagan appropriation (if that can be proved at all beyond a few very late inventions which never formed a core part of the gospel narrative anyway - i.e. the miracle at Cana, the raising of Lazarus etc) outweighed the evangelists appropriation from Jewish scriptural sources? Does anyone really argue this? Does anyone claim that there is more pagan myths in the gospel than echoes or conscious attempts to imitate Jewish scripture?

I think only someone who isn't familiar with the original Jewish sources would make an argument this seriously flawed.

DCHindley

I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What kind of things would you expect to see outside of the NT? Just because events were important to early Christians didn't mean it was important to the Roman world. You folks have to get away from the idea that a historical Jesus has to mean a miraculous Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and Acts. This is what drives many modern critics to "demythologize" Jesus, peeling away at the layers of myth to give us a glimpse of what he may have actually been. It's not perfect, as the stripped down Jesus tends to conform to the prejudices of the critic, but this is just as much the case of those who wish to explain him away as entirely a myth.

It still doesn't answer the questions: Why that myth? Why did it emerge at that point in time? So far, JMs haven't come up with a thing to explain why it came to be as we have it. They can only point to raw materials laying about. What JMers should concentrate on is formulating reasonable (not magical) scenarios to demonstrate this development. Rotten meat does not magically generate maggots.

DCH

aa5874

Again, Marcion clearly showed that people of antiquity did BELIEVE in an entity that could NOT have been historical at all.

There could NO trace of the history of Marcion's Phantom by Birth records, geneaologies, and by records of deaths and burials yet CHRISTIANS BELIEVED the PHANTOM was a figure of history.

There is no need for the Jesus story to be inspired by any character when it could be also inspired by an EVENT.

Actually only ONE EVENT was supposedly predicted accurately by Jesus and it was the Fall of the Temple because it had ALREADY happened.

The Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God was an EVENT that created a theological and political catastrophy for the Jews and it was because the Jews supposedly rejected Jesus of the NT as the Messiah.

It was most likely the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God that INSPIRED the Jesus story.

stephan huller

The truth is that I have never understood who the 'they' are in the conspiracy to create a completely ahistorical event in 26 CE. Are 'they' Jewish? Are 'they' pagans? What was 'their' literary purpose? I assume from the comments over the months that 'they' lived in the second century - probably late second century. But what was it about the late second century environment that led to renewed interest in the cause of the destruction of the temple - an interest that apparently led 'them' to invent a false historical explanation. Again, I am not asking this in a confrontational way. I am interested in finding out what the consensus is among people who espouse this interpretation.

dog-on

I doubt that there was any conspiracy, per se. My view is simply that certain things, eventually, came to be believed due to Mark's little story, (and what a good little story it was).

Nothing more sinister than that... (at least until the Byzantines )

aa5874

It is HJers who are ATTEMPTING to PERFORM Magic. They are attempting to PRODUCE a man from magic.

The NT as it STANDS is full of Magic and HJers do NOT ACCEPT that it is all Magic but think some parts are real.

Only a Magician can PERFORM Magic tricks.

Jesus was described as MAGIC from conception to ascension.

Any character derived from Magic books, the NT, will most likely be ILLUSIONS.

MJers have NO mandate to explain why a MAGIC story was written. MJers ONLY need to show that there is EVIDENCE for MYTH JESUS.

Why did Marcion INVENT a PHANTOM without birth and without Flesh? We may never know.

ALL we know Marcion's PHANTOM is a PERFECT example that people of antiquity did NOT and historical figure to INVENT Myths.

HJers themselves CANNOT answer the questions: Why HJ? Why did "Paul" claim a mere man was the Creator of heaven and earth? Why did the Gospel writers claim Jesus was the Child of a Ghost when they could have just said he was the child of a man and EASILY resolve the genealogy problems?

Why would supposed HONEST Christians who kew Jesus was just a man LIE and claimed he WALKED on water, that he was transfigured and was RAISED from the dead?

MYTH JESUS answered the same questions that Marcion Phantom answered.

People of antiquity did NOT need a human Jesus to INVENT a story about a Child of the Holy Ghost.

Doug Shaver

The earliest Christians we know about were during the first century. What events in Jesus' life were important to them, and how do we know that?

Doug Shaver

Nobody whose opinion I care about is claiming any conspiracy. Neither are we claiming that any phony history was created. What we're claiming is that the stories about Jesus of Nazareth were written originally as fiction and subsequently misconstrued as history.

aa5874

We DON'T KNOW anything about 1st century Christians who believed the Jesus story. We simply have NO credible evidence from which to DERIVE knowledge of any Christian who believed the Jesus story in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

It must NOT be forgotten that there were people called Christians who did NOT BELIEVE the Jesus story.

There were CHRISTIANS that BELIEVED in GOD ONLY and BELIEF in GODS Predate the Jesus story by HUNDREDS of YEARS.