TedM

The expectations and evidence for a real man who was believed to have been the Messiah would be different than the expectations and evidence for a fictional, created Messiah character.

The fictional, created Messiah would be expected to be very similar to the expectations for that Messiah, with few or any deviations. The evidence in the work itself would be the level of deviation: The more deviations from the expectation the less likely that it is a fictional, created Messiah.

The real man would be expected to have similarities to the expected Messiah, but with some significant differences. The evidence again is in the work itself--the more significant differences the more likely that the Messiah presented was based on a real man. In this case each significant difference would carry a lot of weight because the tendency would be to exclude them if they could.

bacht

This is really the key question isn't it: How much of Mark's story could have been true, and how much came from scripture.

For starters, the whole thing supposedly unfolded almost exactly 40 years before the fall of the temple. Coincidence? Or simply authorial license in framing the story a biblical generation before the catastrophic events of the first revolt?

spin

:banghead:

This banal reaction shows why I tried (in vain) to get people to understand the problem of using words like "fictional". Sloppy language to start with leads to more precise usage later. So either you go from loose "fictional" to strict "fictional" (with its assumptions) and lose sense, or you don't understand the alternative to "real", ie "not real", is not simply "fictional". There are more choices, more likely choices, than that weaselly strict "fictional". Was Ebion "fictional"?

Whether Jesus were real or not, whether he came from speculation rather than reality or not, there is no necessary reason that the person passing on the tradition would suspect anything. Read my lips: Tertullian had no problem whatsoever arguing against Ebion. Did Tertullian think that Ebion was not real? If so, how would you know from the evidence?

So, I repeat the issue, "I can see no way for a person to see any difference between real and not real. It's just information in/information out." In so saying I can see no way that you can either.


spin

aa5874

You are just speculating using your imagination. You really have no idea what the author of gMark intended to write or would have written in his Messiah story.

There are versions of gMark and it is not really certain if any version represent the original author's work in total.

But, this view destroys your argument completely. In gMark the Messiah WALKED on water and was TRANSFIGURED. These events do not help to augment the historicity of the Messiah.

Your post is nonsense or logically flawed. A character would be more likely to be considered fictional when there are significant differences to expectation.

It is for that very reason why "Spiderman" is not considered to be based on a REAL specific spider or a REAL specific man. The deviations are too significant.

And, using your FLAWED logic gMatthew's version of the Messiah would then be more plausible than gMark's since the author claimed the Messiah was the offspring of a Ghost of God.

Your drive to believe whatever you speculate is making your arguments illogical.

TedM

I think you are in the minority of being hung up on these words spin. You should go with what most people already understand as the meaning of 'real' vs 'fictional'. It's not near as complicated as you seem to be making it.

Doesn't matter. What matters is what the tradition included. Does that tradition include what would be expected of the Messiah or not? If it doesn't then it very well could include something 'real'.

TedM

See my answer to spin.

aa5874

Again, a completely flawed logic. You arguments have deteriorated.

Such absurdity would mean that biographies of real people would be more likely to be fiction novels and in reverse fictional novels would be far more likely to be considered biographies.

TedM

No, your logic is flawed. My logic means that a story about RobinHood would likely contain elements regarding a real person if it included elements about RobinHood that would be contrary to what one would expect for that RobinHood. Not the best example, but an approximation to illustrate. I fear once again I'll have to stop trying to communicate with you. Our reasoning approaches are too far apart..

aa5874

You give an example that you admit is not the best because your logic is flawed.

Your flawed logic would make Robin Hood a fictitious character and Homer's Achilles a figure of history.

TedM

It's hard to come up with a comparable example to an expected Messiah, but let me give you a simple example to clarify what I'm saying:

Let's say 90% of the Jews were expecting a HERO with the following characteristics, but that all of these expectations were based on scriptures that were subject to interpretation:

1. He would be tall.
2. He would be rich.
3. He would have a tatoo.
4. He would be a great singer.
5. He would have a mole on his left cheek.
6. He would be a great leader.
7. He would be able to predict the weather with great accuracy.
8. He would overcome death.

Now, lets say 2 people wrote a story.

Story #1 was about a person who had all of the above characteristic, and he never even died.

Story #2 was about a person who many people THOUGHT was the HERO, but
who was actually really short, did not lead the people in any political or military way, and he did die. However, he would stand on an elevated platform so he was above his audience when he sang, and on 2 occasions he led great crowds in singing hymns, and some people thought they saw him after his death and others believed he had been risen in spirit.

Which story is most likely to have been inspired by a real person?