spamandham

Don't most scholars believe the birth story was a later add on?

So someone figures out their fictional Galilean Messiah character came from the wrong city, doh! Let's invent a birth story that has him coming from the right city.

I'm not saying this is the case, but it doesn't require much to make it fit the MJ position, which means it is not conclusive evidence for HJ.

Vorkosigan

Simple: the Jesus Myth isn't about an ultra secret, Church-wide conspiracy. Most mythers argue for an evolutionary view of one sort or another. A tiny minority has other views. No mythicist believes in a "very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus."

Michael

RAFH

bold mine

And what if there wasn't an HJ in actual fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he ever did exist are equally worthless!

So, what's your point? Any rhetorical hypothesis is as meaningless as its direct opposite without supporting evidence.

Didymus

That is not a "fact" at all, let alone an obvious one.

The existence of an "Oral Tradition" regarding Jesus' sayings is an assumption, not a fact. And even if such a tradition existed somewhere - in the Diaspora? In Palestine? - We have no way of knowing - there's simply no way to ascertain its accuracy.

So even if Jesus existed, there's no independent evidence that the gospel authors were privy to his actual words. On the other hand, there's abundant evidence, including the Septuagint itself, that the gospel authors had access to other sources for "all those things" they attributed to Jesus.

Thus you have independent evidence of numerous non-Jesus sources and no independent evidence that a single individual named Jesus said "all those things."

Yes, I would doubt the existence of Einstein if the only "evidence" of his existence were quotations that could be found in Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell and Lorentz.

Didymus

aa5874

Meaningless jargon. There are no prophecies in the OT related to any character in the NT. The Gospels is riddled with all out of context text, sometimes edited, to fabricate prophecies.

It is beyond me that two contradictory accounts of a character's birth, which would put anyone's historicity in doubt, would provide you with reason for historicity.

Yor are not providing any information about Jesus, you are only refuting others' arguments. If the HJ position was the only view, you would still need evidence to support it.

These are recycled arguments, if Einstein exist, then Jesus exist. Even if Einstein never existed, you will still have to prove Jesus exist.

No one can disprove an existence, however if there is no proof of existence, then the entity is deemed to be non-existent.
No-one has proven Jesus existed, therefore Jesus is deemed to be non-existent.
No-one has proven a unicorn exist, therefore a unicorn is deemed to be non-existent.

I am of the opinion that if Paul was a real person, he would have known that no-one could have been resurrected from the dead after three days.


You have not provided one iota of evidence, to support yor view, just imaginative what ifs. Your statements have no substance whatsoever. HJ is an evidence based position, not one of speculation and imagination.

rlogan

Yes there was - and precisely so.

Matthew 4: 12-16

This is straight out of Isaiah ch 9:


One of the tiring things about dealing with "historicists" is that these demonstrations are so exact - so perfect - requiring absolutely ZERO interpretation, but a historicist will run with the faintest of evidence like "kata sarka" or whatever to "prove" that it really means they are talking about a historical person.

There is nothing of significance about Jesus that comes outside Hebrew Bible dumpster diving - and some of it very sloppy indeed.

His coming "out of Egypt" is mined from Hosea 11:1. His birth in Bethlehem is mined from Micah 5:2.

The story to get him to be born in Bethlehem requires a lie about the census. The story getting him into Egypt requires a lie about the slaughter of the innocents, which is just recycled Moses trash.

Demonstratable lies. And there are so many of them.

And so what do we do? Oh, we ignore them all and pretend there is some "kernel" beneath it all.

But there is nothing left once you remove all the dumpster diving midrash.

EarlOfLade

I can tell you that you are my favorite juror in the case I would be accused of first degree murder because you would have faith in me when I say that i didn't kill anyone, wouldn't you?

Taking something that is not provable as the ultimate truth makes you look rather foolish.

When it comes to JM, I think it was necessary to redesign jesus into a physical person. All the claims that the NT makes about the origin of jesus is totally illogical and totally contrary to anything we know today. And not to mention that there is ZERO evidence for the life and existance of NT's Jesus, it has become more and more evident to me over the years that Jesus was never a real person.

gstafleu

As to that kernel, one of the better formulations of that was when someone said he believed there was a Historical Jesus, but that that person need not necessarily have been called Jesus. I think this is a useful thesis, and I'd like to slightly extend it. Jesus may not have had just one precursor, but several, not unlikely syncretism-wise. After all, we all stand on each other's shoulders and all that. Furthermore, these precursors, or kernels, need not all have been called Jesus.

Hence I would like to present my
I think we can all agree on that.

Gerard

seeker

Even supposing an HJ is it even likely that much of what is attributed to him isn't myth? The first Gospels don't even show up unti early in the second century AD and are full of geographical errors as well as historical ones.

It's a little like the George Washington story. Sure he existed but the cherry tree story is pure myth that was created by Mason Weems shortly after he died.

Similarly we can see that popular myths like the virgin birth, resurection, healing, raising the dead etc were not only told about Jesus but about Pythagoras, Julius Ceasar and a host of mystery gods. Even supposing HJ existed he was probably nothing like the portrayal of him.

In a way it doesn't matter if he existed.

RAFH

Earl, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe aa5874 was not making a statement of his personal beliefs but that of the typical HJer. He was saying a HJer would ignore the lack of evidence and simply rely on their faith as the basis for their position on the existence of HJ. Like I said, I may be wrong about this, perhaps aa5874 can clear that up.