aa5874

Again, may I remind us all that there is an on-going QUEST for an Historical Jesus for the last 250 years.

It has ALREADY been admitted that the Jesus of the NT was a DIVINE Jesus--in effect a Myth.

People are looking for their Jesus after having REJECTED NT Jesus.

Now, the Myth Jesus theory is based on the ACTUAL EXISTING evidence that has survived--See ALL the Codices.

In Existing Codices, not Imagination, Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost, God the Creator that walked on water and Transfigured when supposedly on earth.

The Jesus in Existing Codices was NON-HUMAN not unlike Gabriel the Angel, and Satan the Devil.

The angel Gabriel supposedly was sent by God to Mary and Satan Met Jesus whom he Personally Tempted on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

The abundance of evidence from the Existing Codices and Apologetic sources do show that the Jesus stories are COMPILATION of Myth Fables that were ACCEPTED and believed by superstitious people of antiquity.

EmmaZunz

Maybe not. But it's a MJ with no HJ.

You happy with Hebrews as an early MJ text?

I also suspect Ascension of Isaiah part 3 was a fairly early text before the later HJ interpolations.

Also there are the Pauline Epistles, though they are subject to heavy interpretative debate.

Then there is what I perceive to be a whole separate MJ tradition: we had Pauline/Hebrews/Ascension sacrificial MJ on the one hand, and then the Platonic/intermediary/messenger/Son-of-God MJ represented in say Epistle to Diognetus on the other hand.

Diognetus not only lacks HJ, it lacks death, sacrifice, crucifixion, resurrection, etc..

James Brown

Good thought. Is there any evidence for a historical Lucifer? By what criteria do we declare that Lucifer is entirely mythical, entirely historical, or some combination of both, and can we use that same criteria for Jesus?

GakuseiDon

Sure. If there is evidence of early Christian writings that, while apparently showing awareness that there was a historical Jesus, nevertheless have little or nothing about him, then this provides a benchmark for when we examine other early Christian literature.

You wrote that "There are early texts where the historical Jesus idea is only little known or developed, e.g. Epistle of Barnabus, Ignatian Epistles (Trallians 9)". And also that: "they might be Xians who are aware of traditions about a historical Jesus, but don't have much detail because Mark's Gospel is not widely available in written form yet".

You then asked: "How many Xians do you know who would write a whole letter about their faith and never mention the life of Jesus? Can you imagine the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, who is attempting to explain the basis of the Xian faith to a pagan, neglecting to mention anything about the man who founded it? Whose life and resurrection proved the validity of the faith? Maybe one or two such cases would be possible. But case after case after case?"

I looked at the Epistle to Diognetus, and I suggest that this is actually the case: the author was a proto-orthodox Christian who described the Christian faith without referring to historical details of a historical Jesus. My argument is: If you are using "Mark's Gospel is not widely available in written form yet" as a demarkation point (no pun intended!), then doesn't much of NT literature fall into this group? I am floating the possibility that there is indeed case after case after case of this type of literature.

Unfortunately this type of analysis is often hindered by equating "historical Jesus == Gospel Jesus", so that the literature isn't allowed to speak for itself. But if you allow that Barnabas is an example of Christians apparently believing in a historical Jesus without apparently knowing or referring to Gospel details, then it becomes a benchmark by which to examine other early Christian literature.

The next step to my mind is: In your view, what Christian literature was written before Mark's Gospel became widely available in written form? How many cases do we have of writings similar to our benchmark Epistle of Barnabas?

EmmaZunz

Interesting. You think Barnabas has an independent HJ tradition? But if J of N was at the source of Xianity, you would expect lots more like that.

Doesn't Barnabas quote a GMark line about calling sinners not saints, while applying it to the disciples as the worst of sinners? Perhaps a case of hearing a confused echo of GMark?

Edit:

Here we go: "But when He chose His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.""

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

Mk. 2:17


Now is that a case of dependence on Mark, independent convergence, or joint dependence of both on a third source/tradition?

Toto

EmmaZunz: GDon wants to argue that since some early Christians, that he assumes believed in a historial Jesus, did not show any interest in the details of the human side of Jesus, that we cannot use the vast early silence about the human Jesus to argue that there was no human at the center of the myth - even though he can't think of a reason why these early Christians would be so totally uninterested in the human Jesus, unlike every other era of Christians.

I hope that sentence is not too complex. It is a very complex idea, and one that I find totally contrived.

EmmaZunz

Hi. Well it's a possibility, but it doesn't seem likely does it? They had no interest in the guy whose life, death and resurrection started the whole thing?

aa5874

HJers have developed a crude DOUBLE standard. All characters except Jesus of Nazareth described as Myth will retain their Myth status and all myth description of Jesus must be discarded.

It is documented in Existing Codices that Jesus and Satan were together ON TOP of the Jewish Temple.

Matthew 4 Clearly both Satan and Jesus are performing in a Non-historical event.

There is NO credible evidence that the NT Canon is history. The NT matches Myth Fables of antiquity.

The NT is acompilation of Myth Fables about angels, Gods, demons, unclean spirits, evil spirits, the God of the Jews, Beelzebub, Satan, and a Son of a Ghost called Jesus.

MrMacSon

Hi. Being concerned what early Christians might or might not have thought seems fraught with difficulties as it its likely there were many communities with many "thoughts" over many generations - many thought 'needles' in many haystacks!

EmmaZunz

Seems more plausible they would mention HJ if they knew anything about it. Seems to me like onus is on HJers to say why he never gets a mention.

Slightly later Xians mention HJ, e.g. Justin, Irenaeus.