Doug Shaver

Whether HJ or MJ is the more strained hypothesis might be a judgment call, but I don't see a hint of conspiracy in Doherty's version of mythicism.

aa5874

As early as the 2nd century, Marcion, a christian, developed a very popular religion, claiming that Jesus was mythical. Marcion claimed Jesus was not born but directly came to earth, his life on earth was mythical. Marcion also rejected the entire OT, Matthew, Mark and John.

This information shows that writings about a real Jesus Christ was not necessary to start a religion, all that is needed is a believeable story about Jesus Christ.

The story of Jesus Christ is a simple story based on the popular beliefs relating to gods, and as we see, no effort was made in terms of accuracy. The underlying theme of the Gospels is that Jesus Christ was divine and lived in the flesh and died for the sins of the world and ascended into heaven, that is what is to be believed, nothing else matters.

Marcion as early as the 2nd century, challenged that stance and rejected almost all the Gospels except parts of Luke, teaching that there is no historical Jesus, and was successful by his large following.

funinspace

"Voted in '04 for HJ, and still think Jesus was entirely/mostly historical" -- Well, I stuck to the same answer, but the question seamed to shift. If you want to measure changes, it would be better to stick to the same wording unless there is a good reason for changing it. I don't care for the words "entirely/mostly" above. The below matches well what I think, and the above…well would have caused me to consider the insufficient category instead.

"Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus."

GakuseiDon

That's because of: a failure of imagination; you're unable to think outside the box; you are stuck using dictionary definition of words; you know that historicist view is correct but are afraid to address it; or you don't know the historicist view is correct because you refuse to look into it.

It is the amount of conspiracy thinking in most mythicist views that should set alarm bells ringing. I agree there is less in Earl's version, but you don't have to read far to see hints of it.

mountainman

How does Earl's theory countenance (emperor) Julian's invectives
against the Galilaeans, or are these invectives "too far outside the
square"? Any online references?




Pete Brown

Toto

You're just throwing terms back at mythicists that Doherty has used, but there is no substance to your charges.

Conspiracy theorists need to explain everything by secret conspiracies of behind the scene manipulators because they don't understand evolution or how social movements develop. I don't see any hint of that sort of thinking in Doherty's work.

Sheshbazzar

Yahwhistic view, "J C" is mythical, the fulfillment of the predicted anti-messiah, the Son of Perdition, The Lie and deceiver of the nations.
The counterfit messiah with a counterfit name set forth to decieve all whom are willing to be decieved.
Yahoshua was and is the true Messiah, whose Name alone is the Salvation of Yah, for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved.
His Name is our Shibboleth and it SHALL come to pass that whosoever shall call upon The Name shall be delivered.
By your Word you shall be justified, or by your words you shall be condemned.
Is mouthing a "Sibboleth" acceptable to you?

Amos

I voted for "some degree historical" because Jesus was just so damned bad at being the messiah and fulfilling prophesy. So much of the Jesus story looks like the contortions of someone trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I understand the need if in the core there is just a human being being dressed up as our savior, but not if Jesus is entirely fiction.

mountainman

Evolutionists and social movement theorists are incapable
of providing any form of rational explanation for the behaviour
and results of supreme imperial mafia thug dictators, who
do as they please in accordance to the maxim:

"Power tends to corrupt but
absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Eusebius would have us believe in the inference of a continous
cannon of historical truth directly from the new and stange
testament, through the Testimonium Flavianum, through a
mass of non-integrous literature 100-300CE, to Nicaea.

He would have us believe a grand dawning continuity.
Whereas there exists evidence of a grand yawning discontinuity
centered on the life and times of "BASILICA MAN CONSTANTINE".

Conspiracy theories are not in all cases inappropriate Toto.
One must bear this in mind, in generalisations.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Chris Weimer

Hello Joe,

While we both agree on the existence of an historical Jesus, I will have to disagree with your analysis on Mark and Paul.

I agree with 1, 2, sort of 5. The problem, I suppose, is the idea of MJ, or how you use it. Impossible Jesus? Only by modern, scientific standards. It wasn't impossible to Paul, nor mythic(al) either. I suppose the proper dichotomy should be terrestrial Jesus v. celestial Jesus. While James and Cephas (Peter?) and John were the pillars of Christianity, undoubtedly connected to the real man behind the movement, Paul had an epiphany/revelation/seizure and decided that what Jesus did on earth was not as near as important as a God-son dying for the sins of mankind.

I've seen this reaction before in people. I've talked to people who have been totally changed by the concept of Christianity, drank the Kool-Aid so to speak. And they also claimed that they have met him. In fact, we had several in EoG who claimed just that as "proof for God". If it can happen in our advanced society, surely it can happen then.

It doesn't necessarily have to do with "selling" or "competition", and certainly Paul knew no living Jesus.

I think there is too much correlation between the traditions for Mark's to be entirely fictional. It's a very valid point that the disciples are down-played in Mark, and it does focus on the death/suffering of Jesus as well as the Messianic secret. Is Mark a reaction? Likely, but we are unsure of what he was reacting to. More likely, it was subscribing to a new orthodoxy founded in Rome from Pauline thought. At 70 CE, it's not too terribly likely that Mark had access to the five or six original epistles, but if Romans is correctly named, then probably you could find one in there, and perhaps the earlier 1st Thessalonians as well.

But for the content of Mark, I think one could extract valid early Christian tradition from the book having been reworded/recontextualised for Mark's audience. It depends really on Mark's interaction with the other traditions, like Thomas, Q, or John.