steve_bnk

I have been at odds with some around here over considering a possible HJ. I can't imagine a Roman or Greek author using Jews as a backdrop for an orginal fiction. Given the known religious and polical unrest of the times, there would have certainly been people like the JC of the gospels. Jews always had prophets, and they tended to be badly treated.

It has been discussed on a number of threads. The JC figure is not new in mythology. Union of a god and human who has godlike aspects nd saves the world/tribe/state, dies in the act, and goes to be with his god parent(s).

There ws an interview with an islander after the last Indonesian tsunami. When he saw the water at the shore receding he headed for high ground. There was an old tribal myth that periodcally god swept away the world, meaning the island, with a great flood and the world is reborn. Part of the myth was if you see water receeding from the shore, head for high ground. Melding of myth and reality over time.

Then there is the flood tale in Gilgamesh which was changed and adpated as it passed from one cultrure to the other. By the time the Noah story was written, flood stories were already around.

In the above context, the embelishment of the tales of a Jewish rabai with the supernatural is hardley surpising. Greece and Rome had literature and fiction.

Accoording to my Oxford Commentary the gospels fit a literary form and style of the times. It is how they are in part dated. It is an adventure in two parts. The gospel stories followed by the Acts.

In short, the gospels make sense in the times and the human scale types of events depicted. As to the witneses, that is the single crux of Christianity. Without them you have no modern faith in the ressurection. In a literary sense, they have to be there.

The gospels are really different stories adapted by differnt authors in different places at different times. JC ranges from the wise cracking gadfly to the serene Sermon On The Mount. Taken as one person across all four gospels today we'd say bipolar or schitzophrenic, no humor intended. A manic temple episode to the spiritual 'what you do to the least you do to me'.

You are not going to make headway here any more than I would on a Christian forum.

The only thing that matters is if you have foiund that Christian peace.

anethema

Does anybody here remember that Thomas Jefferson attempted the same thing Adam is proposing? The result of which was of course excoriation from both sides of the debate. TJ of course was an HJer but he was reviled as an atheist from the federalist side. Although it is incorrect to argue from analogy, the situation visavis Alexander and the Siwa oasis comes to mind. Did he believe he was God ? No one knows for sure, but but there are a lot dead trees and electrons (cribbed from Carrier) as a result of arguing the point. I think aa is on to something, im not sure what but arguing from actual texts and what they actually say is a good beginning to understanding. IMO

Horatio Parker

TJ knew Greek and Latin. IIRC he read Josephus.

He believed that God never interfered with the workings of the world, a theologically consistent position IMO, unlike some Christians who believe that history is a theological matter.

anethema

What TJ "believed" is ridiculous. My point is i think that one of the leading scholars of his own time was excoriated for examining evidence and coming up with a logical conclusion ie. supernatural "jesus" did not exist.

Horatio Parker

Yes I got that the first time.

FWIW, much of the heat TJ received was due to his being in politics.

My point: history and theology need not be joined at the hip.

anethema

Therefore if i have aa's argument right the dated and accepted texts do not support anything but a naturalism point of view. This is all about historical context and world view. Again I hate to use analogy but I will According to all biographers Alexander tried to create a syncretisation of greek and persian culture. For this he was condemned byhis own soldiers. This attempted combining of cultures was still evident in the first century second temple judaism. This paroxysm of mores is the cauldron of the "jesus" stories. Ahh facts not in evidence?, read some real roman & greek history. Or just read 4Maccabees.

anethema

Believe me Im in TJ's camp. Notwithstandind what fundies say about him and the rest of the founders, He believed in an absolute wall of seperation. The problem is the combining in any sort of political way.

steve_bnk

Jefferson believed in an afterlife. He is identified as a deist as opposed to a Christian. He opposed mixing religion and politics. As much a hot button then as now.

anethema

What TJ "believed" is absolutely moot to the conversation. The real problem is the mixing of studies. In actual studies of 1st century history you cant find HJ. But all those writers presuppose HJ. Its almost akin to brainwashing before the fact. Stephen Gould put it this way "there nonoverlapping magisteria", but the hj's wont accept that. Thats just the way it is. I'll never find out if Alexandar thought he was god and I'll never know if HJ is true. The one true thing is whatever my mindset is its based on evidence not wish thinking, presupposition, circular reasoning, or a host of other logical fallacies. For want of a better theory, I'll go with aa's. Its all theology anyway.

Horatio Parker

TJ wasn't trying to do the same thing as Adam. Adam is trying to build a case for HJ which includes the miraculous, or at least the possibility thereof. TJ rejected the miraculous on religious, not historical grounds. Yet he was a theist.

I wouldn't call that moot.