mountainman

But as I have pointed out, the original statements of these heretics were burnt, their preservers executed, and we are reading the texts of their refutations, written by their political enemies.

I am raising the question that the original statements of these people, prior to the censorship, might reveal to us that these people had the idea that Jesus did not exist.

outhouse

jesus existed as man and myth, none of the people you listed said one thing about a real Galilian jew not existing.

You do understand that there were many different definitions of jesus divinity, hell let your imagination fly, and only a few schools of thoughts were compiled in the end to what we are left with.


because there were competing views that placed mythical jesus with a different amount of divinity means nothing and has nothing to do with the jew from Galilee

mountainman

I'd agree with all this, but must point out that the advances in science have been made by critically examining and questioning our most fundamental postulates or hypothesis. This is all I am doing here. Religious theories and hypotheses are OTOH not in the domain of science but ancient history.

(Many people mistake my motivations)


In ancient history there are two antithetical hypotheses or alternatives: Jesus existed or he didn't.

If Jesus existed, then Ehrman and mainstream and anyone who hypothesizes a positive fagment of historicity for jesus would be right. If this is the case, congratulations.

OTOH, what if Jesus did not exist? How can this be HISTORICALLY explained. Earl Doherty has published one such explanation.

Another explanation is that a "Big Lie" was published at Nicaea, there was a massive controversy where everyone said "Bullshit", but they were silenced, and the writings from that epoch were burnt, doctored, censored, etc.

The facts are quite evident, from my review, that there were masses of writings from heretics (and a Roman Emperor), which were so destroyed. The evidence of the 4th century also discloses the attestation of mass executions for those who disagreed with the emperor on "religious beliefs". All this is exceedingly suspicious.


Let me state that none of this PROVES the claim that this Nicaean population and their immediate descendants had the idea that Jesus did not exist.

However the evidence appears to be consistent with this explanation.



I tend to agree. I thought it seemed a disprovable claim.


On the surface it appears to be true, but it may be assuming a conclusion.




I have nothing personal against anyone, Ehrman included.

I'm a student of ancient history, and I do not think that Christian origins is any older than Bullneck's Bible. The debate on the existence of Jesus was conducted at Nicaea, and while the legendary 318 Nicaean Fathers agreed with Bullneck, three dissenters, including Arius of Alexandria, disagreed.

When Ammianus resumes transmission of history in 350 CE, the first attested Christian inquisitions are moving into full swing, and the upper classes are being tortured and executed. The unbelief in a historical Jesus provides some measure towards understanding the persecution and intolerance of the 4th and 5th (and subsequent SO-CALLED) Christians. They had an incentive to stamp out such unbelief. It was not good for business, as Cyril noted.

mountainman

In order to make use of this claim in COMBINATION with the description of the belief of the docetists, he must rely implicitly upon the writings of the victorious heresiological orthodoxy, who burnt the original claims and opinions of these so-called ANTICHRISTIAN DOCETAE, and left for posterity's purposes, their own pseudo-historical polemic against these heretics.

Therefore in order to make such a claim he would have to make the hypothesis that these victorious heresiological orthodox sources are reliable and integrous. He is quite entitled to make this additional hypothesis in support of his claim, but I would not make it.

Perhaps, Perhaps not. We have only the church to ask, with only a few independent sources being recently discovered, such as the NHC. The authors of the NHC do not present as ghost story publishers, and yet their is a good dose of docetism within the NHC.

Therefore, alternatively, the docetae could have been people who refused to believe that Jesus was historical. This was not an acceptable opinion to be preserved for posterity, because as Cyril said, such LIES were effecting the business and prestige of the One True Monotheistic 4th and 5th century Church. So they only SEEMED to be saying Jesus didn't exist. They were not informed, or connected, with the orthodox belief. Therefore they were anathemetized, just like the Nicaean council did to the opinions of Arius.




,

mountainman

Thanks Vork and Earl. I will have a look at this as # 5

mountainman

The version that I am using is the version taken from the earliest Nicaean Creeds (Rufinius of Aqueila; Socrates Scholasticus). I may have separated out each of the five claims.


No Don. I think Arius's opinions have been buried so deep in the inextricable chains of centuries of anathemas, that when they finally come to light nobody will recognise them for what they represent. My research guides me to see Arius as a Platonic theologian rather than a Christian presbyter.

Roger some time ago published a fragment of a history of Philip of Side, providing fresh evidence about Arius and the Arian philosophers at the Council of Nicaea. Yet not one person here seemed interested in discussing the new evidence. The mainstream views are old and stultified is they cannot address new evidence.

mountainman

Or just fiction.



We dont have the originals.
The Christians burnt them.

We dont know what they really said.

We assume and hypothecize (from the evidence) what they may have said.

Mainstream make certain assumptions and hypotheses.


I am putting forward some alternative ones.

andrewcriddle

IIUC Earl Doherty regards passages such as Trallians 9 as directed against those who did not regard the crucifixion as occurring on earth in the time of Pontius Pilate.

The most one can say is that, if one knew on other grounds that there were people holding such views, then Ignatius might have been opposing them here.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse

the jesus myth hypothesis has almost the same credibility as the young earth creation.


It's not just a few historians that back HJ. All but a small small handfull back the myth. As a matter of fact you one real scholar and thats Price. [my opinion only]






thats fine and dandy, if we dont question on opposite spectrums we dont learn now do we. Thats why im here


I love probing just to see how or if it can play out. Its why im working on a tax zealot version of jesus. So far no one can shut that down, nor give a good reason that he wouldnt have been that way.


after all, as you stated, they burned all the other info about his reality. AND all we have is what amounts to what would be jesus blood enemies version of jesus. so go figure.

aa5874

There would be no need to CREATE another Jesus if historians have already found HJ.

You are in a most contradictory position. You are a CREATONIST. Your created Jesus is a dime a dozen.