avi

Hi Atheos,
Many thanks for this well organized, and well presented, informative schema. Nice.

Are we entitled to draw conclusions about character xyz, based on analysis of fictional beings a, b, and c? I don't think so.

I do not apply what I imagine that I know, about the fictional character Jesus, to an assessment of the character of Paul Bunyan. Both fictional characters possess
but, in my opinion, the claims of one myth can have no influence on our assessment of the other fictional character.

avi

avi

There are, in my opinion, only two possible explanations for Jesus:

a. He was a real person;

b. He was a fictional character.

There is not, so far as I am concerned, any third alternative.

If, in any field of endeavor, one has two competing hypotheses, one of which requires evidence to attain credibility, then, by definition, in the absence of such evidence, the alternative hypothesis, passes through the sieve, and is deemed correct.

Either one can convert Lead into Gold, or one cannot. There is no third way.

Absent evidence that one can refute the laws of physics, the hypothesis that Lead cannot be converted into Gold prevails.

Those who claim to the contrary, that one is indeed able to convert ordinary, plentiful lead into gold, without evidence, are charlatans.

avi

Toto

I think that most people here know much more about this than you seem to. Yes, some scholars believe that they can retrieve Josephus' original words from beneath the Christian forgery. Others point out that once you admit that a passage is the result of forgery, you can never be sure what the original said.

Christian writings are suspect. Abe's favorite scholar has just published a book called Forged (or via: amazon.co.uk). Forgery has been a characteristic of Christian literature since the beginning.

What does this have to do with evolution denial? Are you turning into a Christian forgery denier?

blastula

The third way is the evidence supports neither.

blastula

What is a good argument for it in this example? What do you know about the Mark writer that tells you he would have wrote Jesus was baptized and was embarrassed about it?

Sheshbazzar

Zip

hjalti

And others point out that the TF doesn't fit in the context.

I think the TF tells us more about modern Nt-scholarship than it tells us about Jesus

aa5874

Actually in the HJ/MJ argument the lack of credible historical data from antiquity for HJ must help the MJ argument.

If Jesus did NOT exist then one would NOT expect to find any credible historical evidence from antiquity for his existence and that is PRECISELY the case.

If Jesus was just a Myth then one would expect Jesus to be described as a MYTH, that he ACTED as a MYTH and that his purpose on earth was to achieve some mythological goal and that is PRECISELY the case.

1.The birth of Jesus is MYTH. See Matthew 1.18

2. Jesus ACTED as a MYTH. See Mark 6.48-49, 9.2 and 16.6

3. Jesus ACHIEVE his Goal on earth by his Mythological Resurrection. Marh 16.6

Jesus was a PERFECT MYTH is a PROPER theory since the fundamental criteria for MYTH has been secured.

The description of Jesus by "Paul" and the Gospel writers makes it ALMOST mandatory that Jesus Christ would have been DEBATED among Romans and Jews.

But, we have complete SILENCE about the MOST SIGNIFICANT character, theologically and politically, in the Roman Empire.

The claim by "Paul", a Pharisee, all over the Roman Empire that Jesus a dead Jewish man was the "END of the LAW" and could REMIT the Sins of ALL MANKIND by his resurrection should have been known and DEBATED by Philo and Josephus.

But, we have SILENCE.

The claim by "Paul", a Pharisee, all over the Roman Empire, that the NAME of a DEAD Jewish man, Jesus Christ, was ABOVE every name on EARTH and that EVERY ONE should BOW the the name of Jesus should have been KNOWN and DEBATED by Roman writers like Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

But, We have SILENCE.

Jesus Christ as a dead Jewish man should have been the MOST unlikely candidate to considered a God which is BLASPHEMY and punishable by death.

In the NT, Jesus was executed for blasphemy and his disciples went into hiding. It was the RESURRECTION that changed the story. See the Pauline wrirtings for the post-resurrection Jesus story.
.

It is clear we have a MYTH on our hands.

Jesus Christ was a PERFECT MYTH even a contemporary of the supposed Jesus was DELIGHTED to tell the world that he REALLY saw the resurrected Jesus, NOT Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion, and traveled ALL over the Roman Empire with the GOOD NEWS of the resurrection.

Juststeve

Toto:

Scholars who have concluded that Josephus originally made reference to Jesus and those references were later embellished by Christians include but are by no means limited to Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, Paul Winter E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Christians Jews and secular people. Fredrikson has written that that is a near consensus position among scholars. She is no doubt excluding self published folk on the internet. You can trot those out if you wish.

Steve

aa5874

There are a lot more Scholars. Just don't give the names of the Scholars that support your position.

Give us the ACTUAL list of ALL the Scholars in the WORLD who argue for authenticity and those argue against authenticity of the Josephus references of Jesus Christ.

It is a COMPLETE fallacy that ALL Scholars claim the Josephus references to Jesus Christ are authentic.

Please give us the LIST for your claims. And we need to see the actual evidence of antiquity that can corroborates those who claim the Josephus references are authentic.

There is NO credible historical source of antiquity that can corroborate that there was a man named Jesus as found in the NT.