Doug Shaver

If you'd care to cite a specific instance that is, in your judgment, relevantly analogous, then we can discuss just how similar they really are.

Sheshbazzar

How many itinerant Jewish preachers were there in Judea between the years of say 20 CE and 40CE?

Like to make a guess? 2520? 1260? 252? 105? 15? 7?

Now, aa5874 How many of these itierant Jewish preachers can you give us the names of?

and corroborate from non-apologetic sources of antiquity?

aa5874

Jesus Christ was NOT a minor figure in the Gospels at all. You know that so I don't understand why you are making such blatant erroneous statement that Jesus was a minor figure.

A Jewish Messiah is a Most Significant Jew which is equivalent to a King of the Jews.

There should have been 4 BOOKS written about the BIOGRAPHY of Jesus during the 1st century.

What Minor figure of history has 4 BIOGRAPHIES?

There should have been the PAULINE writings in the 1st century.

Since 37-40 CE, Paul himself with others should have PREACHED about Jesus Christ in MAJOR Cities all OVER the Roman Empire before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Paul should have claimed Jesus Christ had a NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME on Earth, above the DEIFIED Emperors, for ABOUT 20 years

Philippians 2 What minor figure are you talking about?

Please don't use such claim anymore. It is EASILY and READILY DEBUNKED.

You know it is claimed that EVERY RACE of man throughout the habitable world heard about Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Jesus Christ was an EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT FIGURE based on Paul and the Gospels.

Jesus Christ simply cannot be accounted for in any credible non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

fatpie42

You've just drastically changed tact since saying that no one asides from particularly orthodox figures would question it. :S *scratches head*

Just to remind you:
That the accounts of Jesus are mythological was my claim. Surely you agree that this is not controversial. Still, I pose it as a problem for HJ solely because the more of the account that is ahistorical, the less anyone can use to point to a historical figure behind that account.

You'll have to be a bit more specific. What is confusing you?

Naturally I thought that position seemed bizarre and convoluted. I would note, however, that any figure who was crucified would have to have been crucified by Pilate since he was the Roman authority in charge. With all of the elements mentioned in that account it would seem that the moderately significant cult movement would have to be the branch of Judaism that evolved into Christianity.

Naturally the whole point of this hypothetical example was to consider plausibility.

I meant it solely for the purposes of comparison. Surely using evidence from a similar era isn't begging the question? So long as its only used for the purpose of speculation and not as positive evidence for HJ, of course.

To be fair, the term "myth" doesn't mean "untrue". HJ is not ruled out by the gospels being mythical. But yes, I meant its not controversial from a Biblical criticism standpoint and I'm sure there is plenty that is taken for granted in Biblical criticism that would be greatly upsetting for conservative Christians.

You mean the world inside their heads?

When considering history we quite regularly accept that figures like Dionysus, Theseus, Perseus, Heracles, etc. might not have been real people. If told that the evidence was as little as we have for Jesus, we'd have no problem accepting it at all. That is the world we live in.

However, the world also contains people for whom evidence is not a bit factor when considering this issue. For whom the historicity of Jesus is a matter of ideology. But my specific claim relied on "considering the level of evidence we have". Something I think more conservative figures are often failing to take into account.

Ok hang on. I thought you were siding with the MJ position. Doesn't it pose a problem for ahistoricity? Doesn't it pose a problem for the mythological position.

I suppose my issue here is that I don't think historicists can argue that the only true statement is that "Pilate did it". I don't know how they could possibly justify such a position. If they can, that seems like a big victory on their side of the argument.

But if all disciples know is that "some guy called Jesus" was crucified isn't that rather trivial? After all, lots of people were crucified and Jesus was a common name. It's almost certainly true that "some guy called Jesus" was crucified so if that all the HJ proponents need, it seems to me that they inevitably win.

Well yeah, that's what I said.

Sorry but that is nonsense. If Christians had no reason to think Pilate did it, the gospels would not contain the ridiculous propaganda about Pilate washing his hands of Jesus' death. (Unless you mean that early Christians only knew that Jesus was crucified, so this wasn't a problem until the gospel writers constructed a narrative where responsibility had to be attached.)

It seems to me that the original stories weren't even set in a time or place. It's not until the gospels are written that the stories are collected and shoved into a historical narrative.

If you think the gospel writers didn't view their stories as historical (if not "factual history") then I might have some qualms about that. But earlier than the gospels I'd agree absolutely.

Oh I see. So the reason for the apologia for Pilate might be nothing to do with the crucifixion and everything to do with him being the inevitable bad guy as the representative of Rome in a Rome-occupied and Rome-controlled area. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

fatpie42

Unfortunately that amount can be reasonably characterised as "bugger all".

fatpie42

I don't know what the 3 BCE inscriptions say or what that implies.

Considering that Buddhism's origins are substantially prior to 1 CE, I'm presuming that's seen as evidence in the negative for his existence?

That there are many Buddhas and that we are all Buddhas both seem to mean the same thing. Buddha is, as I understand it, a title received once one gains enlightenment. I was of the impression that it was understood this way in both theravada and mahayana circles.

Certainly I'd agree that the historicity of the Buddha is not such a big issue for Buddhists as the historicity of Jesus is for Christians. However, I was just comparing Buddha as a similar sort of figure.

It would seem to me that all religions feature some level of philosophy and often inevitably develop their own metaphysics. Accepting Buddhism appears to require that we accept reincarnation as part of its initial premises, so it strikes me as very much a religious philosophy, but naturally this is all a separate debate.

To be fair, Buddha's flesh doesn't play a big part in Buddhist theology. Jesus' flesh is a major part of Christian theology. There is a suggestion that those who are not on the path to enlightenment are under the influence of Maya, but yeah, it's not cultish in the way that Christianity's understanding of Satan became.

Interestingly it is arguable that Satan - as in 'Lord of Darkness' - is not only nowhere in the OT, but isn't really found in the NT either. It's quite possible that the "devil" figure in the NT is no different from the Satan figure in Job i.e. an agent of Yahweh, testing human beings. ("Satan" means "adversary" and it seems quite clear that Satan in the book of Job is an adversary to humans, not an adversary to God. Possibly the earliest use of the term "Satan" in the Bible is in reference to the Angel of Yahweh acting as a Satan to Balaam - during that whole 'talking donkey' event.)

Solo

That all depends, I think. The incarnation theological debate does not exist in Buddhism, AFAIK. But the carnal vs spiritual was very much at the heart of the dharma teachings with as sharp contrast as in Christianity.

Immediately after illumination Buddha is tempted by Mara who represents evil sensual impulses which were to cause the sage to remain imprisoned in the Samsara. Very much parallel to the temptation of Jesus, though more focused on carnal desires than princely grandeur that prince Gautama left behind.

Maya is the name of Buddha's mother; Mara is the tempting demon. I am not sure what you mean by 'cultish'. There are some analogies between the early church and Buddhism, e.g. with regard to women. Both regarded women with certain amount of suspicion as distraction from men's spiritual purpose. The monastic movements of both preferred segregation of sexes. The Buddhist mistrust goes back to a legendary death-bed instruction by Buddha to Ananda:

-'How are we to conduct ourselves, Lord, with respect to women ?'

- 'Do not see them, Ananda !'

- 'But if we should see them, what are we to do ?'

- 'Abstain from speech !'

- 'But if they speak to us, Lord, what are we to do ?

- 'Keep wide awake, Ananda !'


Best,
Jiri

archibald

I'm wondering what leads you to think the original stories weren't set in time or place?

When I think about it, I think, first, there appear to have been expectations in certain quarters that when the messiah came, it would herald the end of the world, or something on a par. Second, for early Christians, including the earliest on record, including Paul, the end of the world was about as nigh as it could be, if it hadn't already started. There is surely a connection between these two things which stories about a messiah from 'any old time sometime long ago' would not account for?

aa5874

You are not actually making much sense or seem to have little knowledge of the earliest so-called Gospels.

May I remind you that in gMark that Jesus was NOT know as Christ to the Jews, did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ, did NOT want any one to know he was Christ, wanted the Jews to remain in Sin and died WITHOUT being accepted as Christ.

There is a serious CONFLICT between gMark and the Pauline writings.

In gMark, Jesus died and was NOT known or accepted as Christ yet Paul claimed Jesus Christ had a name above every other name.

On the day Jesus died in the earliest Jesus story in the Canon there was NO expectation that any apocalypse was nigh.

The disciples had abandoned Jesus and Peter had ALREADY denied Jesus.

It was at around c 70 CE that it is documented by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus that a Jewsh Messiah was expected.

There is ZERO corroboration for any character called Paul before the Fall of the Temple and the writings under the name of Paul, P 46. are NOT dated by paleogeraphy to the 1st century or before the Fall of the Temple.

judge

An example of another "prophet from around that time would be the one josephus called "the egyptian".
According to one account in Josephus he got 30,000 men together.

Here is a commentary on him. The exact details are suspect but we dont assume he is an invention of christian scribes or that he didnt exist in some form.