bacht

There was a thread here recently where someone was trying to argue that the NT texts were not saying what they appear to say. That is, supernaturalism like the resurrection was not really supernatural, it was some kind of code.

I agree that we can project our own ideas into these writings, but don't we have to start with a plain reading of the text first? If the writers were doing philosophy don't we need some clue to this before assuming they don't mean what they seem to mean? Whether we agree or disagree, approve or disapprove, the original message should be the primary focus shouldn't it?

bacht

Ah, you think his whole approach is wrong? Do you recommend other mythicist theorists, or do you prefer either the HJ or agnostic stance?

No Robots

What kind of scholarly community uses pseudonyms and expresses contempt for all scholarship outside of itself?

Elijah

Depends on how plain the reading is I guess. If it’s right out of the cartoons then I don’t think that should count as plain. I think that should count as superstitious or uneducated or something more fitting.

It’s like listening to music; a child may take the lyrics in the song literally when obviously the singer is speaking symbolically. I’m not saying that everything should be understood symbolically just that a plain reading where you make every expression literal to superstitious isn’t going to work that well with religious texts. It’s great to reduce everything in the NT to as magical as you can if you’re trying to argue against it but not if you’re trying to understand it.
I think it’s pretty well known that some of the Jews were mixing the platonic ideas into their own religion at the time of Jesus. Philo is a great example of this and the whole Logos concept that Jesus is personifying is a philosophical concept he talks about. Again what you think they “seem to mean” is just a predisposition towards that interpretation you picked up as a child.
I couldn’t agree with this more. I think if we stopped focusing on this bit or that bit and tried to figure out what exactly they were trying to accomplish with the guy on the cross, regardless if we even see it as fiction or historical, would benefit the global conversation way more than trying to prove or disprove his existence.

Amaleq13

No, I'm pretty sure he doesn't address it. I know he doesn't in his book but there may be something new on his website of which I am not aware.

I think the evidence is, ultimately, too much of a mess to allow for any firm conclusion. I was solidly in the MJ camp when I first joined IIDB*, as a direct result of email discussions with Earl and reading his book, but subsequent research, reading, and argument has resulted in a more "agnostic" position though leaning toward HJ as more credible/likely. I still consider the mythicist position to be entirely viable, however.


ETA: *And even then, the transition between "mythicist" to "historicist" in the development of Christianity seemed somewhat problematic to me. My view then was that the "mythicists" may not have cared if someone depicted their heavenly messiah as a real guy.

aa5874

The Jesus stories were written to be accepted as true, that is, Jesus was presented as the LITERAL son of the God of the Jews who was resurrected and ascended through the clouds as witnessed by the disciples, the multitude of followers, his mother and authorities of the Roman empire.

You cannot just disregard all the evidence or information provided by the authors of the NT and the church writings and claim that these authors did not expect their works to be taken lierally and as true.

The church writers, as early as the 2nd century, denied that Jesus was just human.

You are just trying to re-interpret the NT to fabricate your own straw-man.

This OP is not about doctrinal issues. It is about evidence or lack of evidence for the character called the son of the God of the Jews, Jesus.

There was no man on the cross, the only evidence claimed that he was a God. If you believe that the evidence is false, then the author of the evidence is not credible.If the author is not credible then nothing they wrote can be believed without reference to some other credible source.

It is most naive to think that the NT cannot be fiction and that the words supposedly from the character called Jesus could not have been fabricated .

Elijah

I thought it was written to be fiction? Is it supposed to be literally true or fiction?
In what way did they think he exceeded being human?
You are just interpreting it in a way that is easy to discredit... shouldn't that be the strawman?

I wasn’t responding to the OP I was responding to bacht.
What do you mean by “a god”? What is that to you in your understanding and where are you basing that understanding from?
It could have been there just isn’t much evidence to convince me.

aa5874

You need to read the early church writers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and others to find out who they declared was.

They all declared that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, resurrected and ascended to heaven, as witnessed. They declared it was a LIE that Jesus was only human. That is the evidence or written statements of the NT and church writers.

If you do not accept their declaration, if you think that their evidence is not true, you have no other source that made any other written statement or gave any other evidence about Jesus.

You cannot use your imagination, belief or re-interpret the NT just to satisfy your own resolution.

It is completely false to claim that Jesus of the NT, as described by the evidence, was not to be taken literally in antiquity.

When the author of Acts wrote that the disciples witnessed the ascension of Jesus through the CLOUDS , the author is claiming that Jesus physically was seen going through the air.


It could have been there just isn’t much evidence to convince me.[/QUOTE]

Believers do not need evidence just a plausible story. 2000 years ago, the jesus stories were all plausible, and now today some people just believe only the plausible parts are true the parts that are only humanly possible.

The description of the myth called Achilles is fundamentally no different to Jesus of the NT, both are the son of Gods. Both are myths.

Elijah

What is with people not being willing to answer simple questions? You are unwilling to show evidence that your interpretation is correct or even willing to demonstrate what exactly your understanding of this is.
From Origen on his commentary on Mathew.
I don’t know how they did understand an angel when they did believe but here is an example of a section of Judaism taking it figuratively.
As naïve as thinking it couldn’t be from a historical core?
The story of Jesus wasn’t plausible back then, or now. That is a complete mischaracterization of ancient people to think that was a plausible story then. Strawpeople.

You need to raise the interpretation up some from this son of god stuff into the messiah area.

aa5874

You ask the same question over and over.You seem not to understand what evidence or witness mean.

I repeat again, the authors of the NT and the church writers claimed the disciples WITNESSED Jesus going through the clouds.

Authors of the NT and the church writers wrote that Jesus had no human father, that is the evidence, Mary is the witness. Do you not understand what evidence and witness mean ?



Well you better try to find out.

There are many many plausible theories about the Jesus stories, but they are all irrelevant without evidence.

You show that you have not read or understood anything of antiquity. It is completely erroneous, false and mis-leading to claim that ancients did not think the Jesus stories were plausible.

You are totally lost. Even today, there are people who believe the JESUS STORIES ARE PLAUSIBLE.

You have no idea what Catholics or Protestants believe. They believe Jesus is in heaven right now and can answer prayer.

People of antiquity believed in Pagan Gods, a God called Jesus would not be implausible.

You need to raise the interpretation up some from this son of god stuff into the messiah area.[/QUOTE]

I do not interpret the NT in isolation, or disregard the standard meaning of words to twist the written statements of the authors.

When Homer wrote that Achilles was the son of a sea goddess and the authors of the NT wrote that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the son of the god of the Jews, then Jesus and Achilles MUST mean the same thing. Fiction. Myth.