Atheos

None of which addresses why anyone should assume a historical person. First of all you don't see much in the way of the Romans deifying anyone except their Emperors. What you do see is them absorbing the myths of cultures they subdued. Greek Zeus becomes Roman Jupiter. Aphrodite becomes Venus, Hermes becomes Mercury, etc. Quite a number of those adopted myths began their "mythic hero" saga in poverty, not the least of which was Perseus, one of the most beloved god-man figures of all. Quite the opposite of the criterion of embarrassment, myth-makers routinely exploited the appealing nature of a hero coming from humble origins to rise to greatness. The more insurmountable the odds, the greater the hero. After all, that's what makes a hero a hero.

Your approach belies what appears to be an unwillingness to consider the gestational period of these stories. They weren't cut from whole cloth by Roman editors circa 75 A.D., that's for certain. The stories circulated and developed via oral tradition for decades before being formally redacted into prose. The skeleton story of a hero-god / Jewish messiah who made a sacrifice to save the world is what we see in the earlier writings. The manger scene, the baby massacre and the tax/census relocation don't appear until decades later.

My point is that by the time any of these aforementioned Romans came along to "deify" Jesus (whatever that means) the campfire tales had done their job. There was already abundant source material about Jesus the Magic Jew. Whoever codified these tales into prose didn't have the option of starting over from scratch with some nobleman. They took what was there and made an interesting tale with it.

Was there a historical nugget underneath it all? Who knows? There certainly could have been and personally I don't really care. If such a person existed he bore about as much resemblance to the one described in the resultant stories as George Washington bears to the flame-throwing pitcher that could toss a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

The criterion of embarrassment may apply in some cases. I've never seen a presentation of it to date that makes any sense to me with regard to the HJ/MJ controversy.

And by the way, Perseus mythically founded Persia, which was eventually beaten down by who? The Greeks, who deified him.

Sheshbazzar

And they have no more evidence for that claim than you do.

The Pope, Oral Roberts, and Benny Hind preach to the poor, and have recited those same stories.
Is that any indication that they themselves live in poverty??
'For the poor you always have with you, but Me....' does not suggest that he ever considered himself as being one of the poverty stricken poor.
As the TEXTS do not state one way or another, this is a claim for something of which you have no way of knowing.

But the TEXT do clearly state that they did have money.
And indicate that he could use his abilities to easily access more as needed.

No one needs more wealth on hand than what is needed for immediate use.
If he needed to feed five thousand, he didn't need to go the bank, or arrange for a loan. Just put his hands to work then and there.

The STORY is what it is, and there is no evidence for any other story that you might wish to fabricate.

But no more mythical than your totally unsupported and imaginary scenario.
But miraculously, they had a bag of it.

That's quite the revision of the Biblical tale you have there.


Because there is no known 'historical Jebus' to separate him from.

HJers have been seeking for a 'historical Jeebus' for hundreds of years, and still cannot produce any such character, so just have to make up a lot of shit about what they think he may have been like.

Yes, it is another story. The one that you are busy with making up.

outhouse

false

I have only supplied the tip of the iceberg, just one opinion in no random order to validity or credibility fo rthe historisity of jesus.



Are you trying to teach me about how biblical jesus was added to?

Sorry im covered, not only that I have a very strong grasp of oral tradition and teh illiteracy rates in the area. ;
e

all the evidence points that way.

its why mythers are not taken seriously by anyone with knowledge on the subject.


I do like Carrier's safety net he has built himself playing the middle, but I dont need the safety net


let it be known, Im a minimalist in his historicty, im very lean on what has historicty and what doesnt.

I agree whole hearted



yes and yahweh belonged to the shasu tribe before israeli's, and it evolved in other cultures as well before the hebrew version stuck around.

outhouse

you ignore to much

jessus says give up all you have and travel pennyless with him, and we know he didnt change for his health care

and we know he went town to town for dinner scraps.


ALSO jesus is quite the hybrid tax zealot, even one of his apostles was said to be a zealot.

the majority of anti roman taxation was redacted out but the whole NT wreaks of taxation and jesus hatred of money. But more then anything, the lack of it due to the roman infection in gods house.



could be heavily debated, by context of each statement made at that point.


says who



and the myther version is weaker.



sorry the majority of scholars do follow this versiona s well.

crossan and his cultural anthropologist buddy green, I do like Green's work

Atheos

Outhouse, your arguments thus far are weak. All I'm seeing is criterion of embarrassment and speculation based on elements of the story. Everything you've presented so far fits a completely mythical character as well as it fits a historical one. Evidence that doesn't actually tilt either way doesn't do anything to bolster your case, and thus far that's all I've ever seen on the subject.

I've followed the MJ/HJ debate for several years now myself, so I'll thank you not to patronize me as if I hadn't actually looked at any of the evidence. So far I remain unpersuaded in either direction.

Making blanket statements like:

... is an excellent way to lose credibility. If all the evidence pointed that way I'd be a confirmed historicist. I have no objection to accepting the evidence. The evidence is inconclusive at best. An excellent case can be made for the historical development of a wide variety of mythical characters, and I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can argue with a straight face that there aren't considerable similarities between the biography of Jesus and that of Hercules.

Yes, the evidence we have right now fits nicely with a historical Jesus.

Problem is it fits just as nicely with an entirely mythical one.

outhouse

fair enough, great tips. and you do make perfect sense.

ill adjust.


with that said, alot of this is matters of opinions, rarely do scholars agree and all given subjects, most of the time your lucky to get a few things they dont argue about.

few would ever argue that there wasnt a traveling teacher/healer of judaism that taveled Galilee preaching the kingdom of god, that was baptised by John and took over where he left off after his death. this teacher was put to death on a cross after he ticked of the romans due to a incident in the temple on passover.


beyond that it gets real dicey

EarlDoherty

Nonsense. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of a 1st century text as judged by a 21st century reader's standard of what a "plain reading" would be. That's the height of presumption. Have any of you read my posting on the subject on another thread? I'll quote most of it here:

Earl Doherty

aa5874

What NICE evidence is that??? Which book mentions an human Jesus in the 1st century and before the reign of Aretas??

There is NO NICE evidence or evidence that fits nicely with an historical Jesus or else EHRMAN would have PLASTERED the NICE evidence all over his book.

Ehrman, the Historian, has PROVEN once and for all that an historical Jesus is NOT a nice thing to defend.

It is all over for HJ. That's nice.

EarlDoherty

I can’t believe that anyone is still taking the outdated and obviously erroneous understanding from 2 Cor. 5:16. The “human point of view” describes the act of regarding, not the nature of the thing being regarded. This verse tells us nothing about the nature of the Christ which Paul once regarded “from a human point of view” (the very woolly phrase kata sarka). At least half the translations I have seen, in NTs and among scholars, understand this verse correctly.

If nothing else, the context (preceding clause) should tell us. “Therefore from now on, we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way…” So Paul is saying that we no longer are going to regard our fellow human beings as human beings?

O foolish mystes! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Attis was publicly portrayed as castrating himself under the pine tree?

Salvation myths can act very powerfully on the mind, whether they are real or mythical. The entire mystery cult phenomenon in the ancient world is evidence of that. Stigmata induced by contemplating Jesus’ allegedly real crucifixion on earth is no more powerful than the Galli priests of Attis taking the knife to their genitals and cutting them off in homage to Attis’ self-castration. Does that make the Attis myth “real and historical”?

One suffers persecution not for the mythical act itself but for believing in it, whether it took place on earth or in the mythical heavens. The establishment always persecutes any new beliefs that threaten their own, whether mythical or not. And it is very short-sighted to apply our standards to the ancients, or to make the term “mythical” imply that it never happened. In the ancient mind, an event happening in the heavens was just as ‘real’ as one taking place on earth, so the point implied here is totally invalid.

No wonder it is so difficult to get some people to entertain the mythicist case. They are adamantly mired in their own modern outlooks, scientific prejudices and an abysmal understanding of the ancient thought-world.

I don’t know where you are getting all this. Paul is simply saying that when he first came to the Corinthians, he resolved to focus entirely on the essential element of his gospel: Jesus Christ crucified. This, by the way, he says (v.1) was “the attested truth of God” and “…so that your faith might be built not upon human wisdom [i.e., the beliefs and expectations of others outside the faith] but upon the power of God (v.5).” These remarks refer to scripture, God’s revelation of Christ therein, with no appeal to history. Does Paul wax on the historical earthly scene of Jesus’ crucifixion? Nowhere. He knows of no such thing.

Earl Doherty

thief of fire

Groan. Im sure that if you repost it Rick will see the light and change his mind.