Amaleq13

How do we know if the similarities aren't simply the result of the eternal common denominator of the human mind?

I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by the fact that human brains across cultures and across time often independently derive similar themes.

How many different ways can a god be described as appearing human?

Chris Weimer

Hey Jake,

Etymology is the study of the origin of words, and history is the study of the origin of earth.

Also, if you had read the entire post, I drop Skeat's Canon 3 for redundancy, so my Canon 5 is his Canon 6. I added an eighth canon then.

Chris

Chris Weimer

That's also a possibility, but that's not what some here have claimed, in particular Malachi151 and BifftheUnclean. They are emphatic that Christianity is a mishmash of other relgions.

Didymus

Do you include among the "fictional Jesus crowd" those like Michael Turton who think the gospels were primarily sourced from the OT?

Yes, it certainly defies logic to claim it all came from Persia, Greece and India when trajectories from the LXX and other Jewish sources are in plain sight. You're right that some historical elements can't be ignored: When crucifixions are a weekly occurrence, you don't need Inanna and Tammuz to imagine a crucifixion. Or, for that matter, a crucified holy man named Jesus. But that (IMO historical) example is the exception, not the rule. There's virtually nothing outside scripture to confirm the historicity of the stories told in the synoptics. Historical elements like Pilate, yes, but not the stories themselves. As you seem to acknowledge, the synoptics contain much material that is almost certainly derivative - not from ancient and exotic sources, but from Judaism itself.

Everyone has their own idea of "scant," I suppose. When you boil it down, the only evidence consists of Paul's few references to a human Jesus and Mark's gospel. As to what was actually known about Jesus' life, I give more credence to Paul than to Mark (see below).

"They" are laying low in Taiwan. Turton's Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, taken as a whole, and taking into account the dependency of Mt and Lk, lays out much serious evidence that the gospels were almost entirely ahistorical. That doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't exist on earth as a human being; it could well mean that the Jesus of the gospels bore little or no resemblance to the obscure man named Jesus who was crucified during the administration of Pontius Pilate.

I say "almost" because I think the synoptic account of crucifixion and a few of the events surrounding it - including the post-crucifixion visions - may have been based on actual events, noting that the Lord's Supper, the crucifixion, the burial and the post-crucifixion appearances were the only historically plausible "Jesus events" mentioned by Paul, the appearances being historically plausible in the sense that people really had dreams or visions that they connected with the crucifixion.

When we talk about a historical Jesus, we're usually talking about someone whose life resembled that described in the gospels. Another "historical Jesus" could merely be the crucified man named Jesus, the circumstances of whose death seemed to fulfill messianic expectations.

Didymus

No Robots

LOL! You do mean Michael "It's a Greek novel" Turton?

Amaleq13

I was adding to your list of possibilities that need to be excluded so as to leave the "mishmash possibility" as the only or most likely explanation.

aa5874

How can you show that Jesus Christ does not contain characteristics of something created purely out of myth. Can you put your information forward so others can examine it?

Chris, that's a very bold statement, I hope you can substantiate it.

It appears to me that all Gods are mythical.
Jesus Christ was classified as a God.
Jesus Christ is mythical.

Some sects of Christianity claim that Jesus Christ is both God and man, that is both myth and historic. This claim is the theme of the NT.

Now, the NT claims that the birth of Jesus Christ was prophesied in the OT, that has been found to be false, there is no prophecy about Jesus Christ in the OT.

The NT stiil claims Jesus Christ was born, one author says before Herod killed 2yr old babies and another says during a census, one one of them is false. His birth cannot be confirmed.

The NT continues, Jesus Christ lived in Egypt after his birth, another says in Nazareth, one of them is false. Where he lived as a child cannot be confirmed.

The NT says Jesus Christ carried out miracle healings and raised the dead in front large multitudes, today we know miracles and the raising of the dead are improbable. No-one saw Jesus Christ do any miracles. The events are false.

The NT writes that Jesus Christ was crucified, however they cannot confirm when or how long he was dead.

The NT claims Saul/Paul, the propagator of the Gospel, was converted by Jesus Christ through mythical circumstances, this cannot be confirmed.

Now these are historical facts, the NT has failed miserably to show that Jesus Christ is both mythical and historic, God and Man. It would appear to me that Jesus Christ is fiction, consistent with mythology.

jgibson000

All gods are mythical.
Augustus and Julius Caesar were classified as Gods.
Augustus and Julius Caesar are mythical.

Hmm.

BTW, I, still waiting foir your answers to these questions:

Ccan you or can you not cite a text from Marcion's hand that documents that he actually described Jesus in the way you claim he did? Yes or no. If yes, let's see it.

Is it or is it not the case, as you have claimed it is, that Muhammed himself wrote documents, with great detail, for his followers? Yes or no. If yes, let's see your evidence for this.

Shall I take your silence on these questions to mean that your claims aboutt Marcion and all great religious founders are bogus and that your knowledge of the things about which you make bold pronouncements is far less than you would have us believe?

Jeffrey Gibson

Didymus

I do wish that people like MC and Richard Carrier would stop pulling the rug out like that. I completely forgot about his "forthcoming" Greek novel theory; I thought it was still in development.

I'm especially annoyed with Carrier. Seems like he's denying Jesus' historicity on the basis that a) the gospels are fiction, and b) Paul's construction of Jesus is similar to the construction of other god myths. Both those things may be true, but neither is sufficient to reject a human Jesus as the impetus to Christianity. Guess nobody has mentioned to him that a Doherty-type MJ is not the only solution to the Jesus puzzle or the Pauline silences.

Didymus

No Robots

I don't know anything about a "'forthcoming' Greek novel theory". I was just referring to all his posts on the subject.