dog-on

I think number one would more accurately portray the actual evidence if you said that the gospels portray Jesus as the Son of God. I don't recall ever reading any reference to a Doomsday cult leader, while reading the Gospels.

As far as the evidence is concerned, your argument works better for Paul, or maybe even Peter, then for Jesus.

ApostateAbe

Of course, the gospels don't use the phrase, "doomsday cult leader," but that is the idea that is directly on the face of the gospels. According to the gospels, Jesus was the Son of God, but Jesus also led a cult--a cult of twelve disciples who saw Jesus as their exalted leader (i.e. Matthew 16:16). And, it was reputedly a doomsday cult--Jesus reputedly predicted the calamitous end of the contemporary world order (i.e. Mark 13).

Paul was also a doomsday cult leader according to his own writings, so, yeah, it follows from my argument that Paul existed, too. I am not aware of any direct evidence of myths of Peter being a doomsday cult leader, however, though there probably were such myths, being among the successors of Jesus along with Paul.

dog-on

Your argument assumes it's conclusion. Suppose you are dealing with allegory, how does your argument deal with that?

ApostateAbe

Like the hypothesis that the Jesus accounts were entertaining fiction, my argument is not appropriate for those who think that the Jesus accounts were merely allegory, and a different set of arguments would be needed to show the improbability of that proposal. My argument is appropriate only for those who accept that the early Christian writings reflect early Christian myths that Christians literally believed.

dog-on

I see. So in fact, your argument is really that because early Christians may have believed the stories, therefore Jesus?

Toto

Acts of the Apostles is generally taken to be "Profit with Delight" (or via: amazon.co.uk) as Richard Pervo put it.

The Gospels are generally assumed to include much that is not historical even by mainstream historicist scholars, and were certainly not available to the earliest Christians if you think that Christianity started before 70 CE.

So it seems that Abe's argument depends on a naive reading of the gospels as historical?

dog-on

I have been trying to make that point to him, albeit unsuccessfully, it seems.

ApostateAbe

Yes, sort of. The premise that early Christians literally believed their myths is a very credible prima facie presumption, and it is used for an argument that leads to the conclusion of a historical human Jesus. For those who somehow hold that early Christians did not literally believe their own myths, then different arguments would be required, and my own argument (of patterns of myths of doomsday cult leaders) would not be relevant.

aa5874

Belief has NOTHING at all to do with actual WRITTEN evidence from antiquity for an HJ.

You know that CHRISTIANS of antiquity BELIEVED that Marcion's PHANTOM existed and did COME down to CAPERNAUM directly from heaven even though the Phantom had NO Birth and No Flesh.

Marcion's Phantom has DESTROYED any notion that Jesus MUST be HUMAN for Christians to believe he did exist.

Marcion's Phantom was COMPLETELY Non-historical and could NOT be physically TRACED to any one on earth.

The Phantom had NO earthly Parents.

The Phantom had NO Flesh.

The Phantom was NOT seen anywhere on earth before the 15t year of Tiberius.

The Phantom had NO Childhood, Siblings or Friends

The Phantom was NOT circumcised on the 8th day.

Marcion's Phantom has DESTROYED COMPLETELY the HJ theory.

ALL that was NEEDED was a story that was BELIEVABLE and people BELIEVED that MARCION'S PHANTOM was PLAUSIBLE and RIDICULED those who believed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Justin Martyr ADMITTED that those CHRISTIANS who BELIEVE the PHANTOM existed without birth and Flesh would LAUGH at him who believe Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

"First Apology" LVIII The evidence to SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory is EXTREMELY POWERFUL.

There were ACTUAL CHRISTIANS would BELIEVED Marcion's PHANTOM did EXIST even WITHOUT birth and Flesh which would SIGNIFY that Christians of antiquity did NOT need Jesus Christ to have been human for them to believe he existed.

It is CLEAR that people of antiquity BELIEVED Gods and Sons of Gods existed.

And Justin Martyr CONFIRMS that the Jesus story is just like the MYTH fables of the Greeks and Romans.

"First Apology" XXI The evidence for MYTH Jesus is EXTREMELY POWERFUL.

aa5874

But, then have any Scholar ADMITTED any error in their position. If there are Scholars with OPPOSING positions on Jesus then ONE of them NEED to admit error.

Adults know that The DETRACTORS of all Scholars (whether HJ or MJ) will keep bringing up whatever they assume are egregious errors.

All that is most likely to be true is that some Scholars have made errors and have NOT admitted their errors even when shown the actual written evidence does NOT support their position.

The evidence for MYTH Jesus is ALREADY known and is secure and HJ Scholars have ADMITTED there is very little or NOTHING for HJ.

We know the Scholars who made errors and refuse to admit.

It is the HJ Scholars.

They ADMIT that the NT is historically UNRELIABLE, that there is little or NO evidence for HJ, that there is an abundance of MYTH and legend in the NT about Jesus and still want people to accept their ERROR that HJ was likely which is CONTRARY to their OWN findings.

The HJ theory is by FAR the most erroneous that I have come across where Scholars form an OPINION CONTRARY to their OWN FINDINGS.

This is like a jury finding a man guilty after having DECLARED PUBLICLY that there is NO evidence of guilt.

The HJ theory is ABSOLUTE nonsense.