Chili

The Ultimate Truth forces Apostolic Succession so that 'greater things' can be retained under the umbrella structure of Truth itself. The Gnostics were just rebels with a mind of their own, which may be good for them but not for society as a whole.

aa5874

But, the hypothesis is valid until you PROVE that the juice is for another party.

Similarly, the hypothesis that Jesus had not been physical initially is always valid until it can be proven otherwise.

Solitary Man

I'm sorry, I don't speak English well enough to know what "evidence that points "wise"" means. Prithee, tell me the meaning of this elusive phrase, oh discerning one!

And if you say that it means positive evidence for, perhaps you'd like to act as mindreader and let me know what he meant by that as well. I can't see anything.

bopot

See, you understood him perfectly well. :thumbs:

What part of "positive evidence for [HJ]" don't you understand?

patcleaver

From a fictional Jesus point of view, Mark was writing something for the entertainment of his family and friends.

Mark would need a messiah that would really face danger and humiliation; so that we could empathize with his danger and humiliation; so we would have sympathy for him; and so his triumphant resurrection would have significant catharsis.

Just as Heracles had to be vulnerable, Prometheus had to be vulnerable, or superman had to be vulnerable, Jesus had to be vulnerable for the story to be interesting, so Jesus had to be human.

mens_sana

Sorry, that kite won't fly. I don't have to prove to you anything about my orange juice. because I have first hand knowledge of the situation. I picked the jug up at the supermarket. I paid for it. I brought it home in the trunk of my (gas-guzzling) car, and I put it in the refrigerator. To you it is a hypothesis. To me it is not. On the other hand, you have no first hand knowledge of physical v. mythical Jesus. Therefore you have to prove your hypothesis to me. (That my orange juice was actually not a hypothesis is irrelevant, you bought it as such.)

By the way, the presence of that jug of Tropicana in my refrigerator is also subtle evidence that I have been instructed to never bring home Minutemaid. :redface:

Solitary Man

I understand it, I didn't see it. And I've rattled on for years the evidence for him: Jesus is multiply attested by Tacitus, Josephus, the Synoptic material, the Johannine material, and Q.

Doug Shaver

If that is relevant to my observation, then I must have misunderstood what it is you're trying to find out. Perhaps you could rephrase your question?

patcleaver

If the mere mention of mythical or otherwise fictional characters in literature was evidence that they existed, then we would have to believe all the ancient gods and heroes and fictional characters which no rational historian believes in.

The evidence for Jesus is not any better or more unique then the evidence of lots of other fictional/mythical characters that we do not believe existed.

For example, the story of William Tell is repeated in hundreds of non-Swiss history books by respected historians as late as 1941, and 60% of the Swiss still believe he was real, but today the consensus of historians is that he never existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell

The historical evidence for Jesus is much less then the evidence for William Tell. Jesus is much less likely than William Tell, and simply should not be believed.

patcleaver

You have knowledge and confidence in that knowledge based on evidence, that nobody else has access to, for your belief that you don't drink orange juice.

You do not have any evidence at all, that the rest of us do not have, for your belief that historical Jesus existed.

Your belief in an historical Jesus just seems like wishful thinking to the rest of us - no different then believing that the stories of magical Santa Clause are evidence for the historical Santa Clause, an eccentric who lived North of New York city, who with the assistance of a dwarf or two, made toys for some deserving boys and girls and delivered them from his ordinary reindeer sleigh around Christmas.

Clement C. Moore surely saw something that morning in New York, but he was exaggerating a little - possibly not quite awake yet. There is nothing extraordinary about a small guy with a sleigh pulled by reindeer in 1860 New York city, and distributing toys to children on Christmas. Reindeer were sometimes used to pull winter slays at that time even in New York. The reindeer could not fly and he probably did not travel through chimneys, but you have no evidence that the rest of the story is not true.

Dr. Moore was an Emeritus Professor of Oriental and Greek Literature in the General Theological Seminary in N.Y., and Moore had a reputation for honesty, and there is no reason to doubt the ordinary portion of this eye-witness account even if your skeptical presuppositions against magic blind you from seeing the magical elements.