Adonael

neither. I was just commenting on your logic. What you could say is this: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence because if jesus existed, we'd expect to see evidence for Jesus' existence. Since we do not see evidence for jesus' existence, then, in this case, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Adonael

No. You'dneed an expectation that you'd see evidence had they existed.

gurugeorge

I know some people find aa5874's continual harping a bit annoying, but I do think he has a point.

Yes, there's plenty of prima facie evidence of a historical entity - but that entity is a fantastical Jewish superhero.

Why should one immediately then latch on to the hypothesis that "oh there must have been a real guy behind this myth"?

Do we have independent evidence of a real guy living at that time who attracted a following, called "Joshua", who might then form some real-world basis for the Jewish superhero?

To put this another way: the Joshua Messiah Jewish god-man superhero character is obviously a myth with some historical details. Is euhemerism supposed to be the automatic recourse when historians look at myths like that? Surely not, it's just one option among many, and without some kind of independent evidence of a real man who might have been behind the myth, not the most attractive option.

The only reason it seems like the automatic recourse in the case of "Joshua Messiah" is simply tradition, it seems to me. With the rise of rationalism, rational Christians wanted to keep their Churchy cake and eat it. They couldn't bear to believe in a Jewish superhero god-man any more, but thought that a real human being behind the myth might still give the religion some point. But there is no necessary logical connection at all, there's no compelling reason to think that there was a man behind the myth, because myths have "historical" details too, and without that external evidence of a real man, there's no compelling reason why those "historical" details should be considered historical , any more than the mention of New York city in a Spiderman comic means we should look for the "historical Spiderman". (On the other hand, if we know there had been some vigilante who fought crime using Parkour techniques, or something like that, then it might make sense to say "ah yes, he could have been the "historical Spiderman", it seems likely he formed the inspiration for the Spiderman myth".)

Take away that tradition, and "he was a man mythologised" is just a (not very well supported) option, and the more rational explanation is that "Joshua Messiah" was originally a revision of the Messiah concept itself, to whom pseudo-historical details gradually accreted. That seems to fit with the evidence more, and without strain (i.e. without having to explain how someone so obscure there's no contemporary non-cultic evidence of him, and whose words nobody even bothered to record or quote in the earliest texts, somehow gave impulse to a religion in which he was immediately deified, and details about whose life only emerged decades later).

aa5874

Well, you probably missed my post #118. I did do as you suggested before you made your first post #123.

Adonael

i dont need to look at post 118 because i was commenting on the logic of this other claim:

aa5874

You should read all my follow-up posts, so that you remain current. Your post #123 is a reply to my post #110 but my post #118 did address your concerns already.

All my posts are subject to be corrected, amended or discarded with the receipt of new information. My position is not cast in stone.

patcleaver

Amaleq13, are you reading the thread?

Some people can't think, other people can't read, and even more people are not honest enough to admit the obvious to themselves and others.

If there were assemblies then where did they assemble? You are ignoring the obvious or your caught up in wishful thinking.

I am not interested in playing guessing games - if you have a theory then state it. You can invent whatever bizarre theories you want to justify your presuppositions, but what is the point?

Jesus historicalists have the burden of proving that the Jesus story is historical by providing evidence.
You also have the burden of proving that any documents that you claim are reliable are not fictional or forgeries or interpolated.
Fictional books, forgeries and interpolated documents are not evidence.

If there is no evidence for historical Jesus, then that is absolute proof that he never existed, in exactly the same way that if there is no evidence for fairies in my garden, then that is absolute proof that they don't exist.

Jesus is obviously a myth, just like the tens of thousands of other primitive religious myths in the world.

Even if you had any evidence Jesus was a person that was mythologized, then Jesus is still a myth.

The only way that Jesus is historical (not mythologized) is if the Christian story of jesus is essentially true. Is that your position?

patcleaver

Another reason that many historians may be under the impression that Jesus is historical is that they have simply not investigated the evidence.

Most historians specialize in some narrow area, and they are often not aware of historical arguments outside their area of specialization.

For example, there may be a consensus that King Arthur is a myth among experts in medieval English history, but most historians of the middle kingdom of Egypt may believe that the existence of King Arthur is historical - they are simply not aware of the evidence and consensus of the experts in medieval English history.

Amaleq13

Wherever they could, one would assume. When will you get around to explaining why these assemblies of people should have left archaeological evidence of their existence?

I know you think you are being clever but you should simply speak them into a mirror so as to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Just as you are still, apparently, not interested in seriously thinking about the obviously new information you have been given or, heaven forbid!, doing any genuine research of your own (and, no, google doesn't count) into the subject about which you wish to make bold assertions. :wave:

ETA:
Then shouldn't you have first established that Acts was reliable before you made your assertion about Paul's gentiles? And instead of claiming it was unreliable?:rolling:

Adonael

that's not absolute proof. the best you got is that there is no evidential reason to believe jesus existed or that the invisible fairies exist.