Southern

The problem with the possibility of Jesus existing as an individual is that it does not confirm his divinity, but try telling that to Christians.

There are plenty of people today who make supernatural claims and they really do exist! However does this fact confirm their claims? No.

I personally I'm leaning against the historical existence of Jesus, I said in another thread that he preached some good morality, but taken as a whole his teachings are replete with contradictions..

I also feel the character of Jesus could well be based upon earlier myths, but I'm still looking into this issue and unfortunately don't have a great deal of time to do the research.

GakuseiDon

But how many people actually understand the mythicist case a la Doherty, I wonder? Beyond the sheer point of "there was no historical Jesus", I bet you: not many.

I suspect that most people would understand Doherty as saying that there is a "world of myth", "a dimension overlapping our own reality" or a "sublunar realm" in which fleshy events like Osiris being dismembered took place, without looking into whether these concepts actually existed in Paul's time.

The theme seems to be that "we can't expect the people of those times to be rational, so we can attribute any belief to them". It's very very frustrating. It reminds me of the "crucified resurrected saviour gods were a dime a dozen in ancient times" idea that you sometimes encounter. People just KNOW that it is true. Why would Acharya S or Kersey Graves make it up? But few people look into it themselves.

mikem

Bruce Metzger wrote a superb refutation of the same notion.

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com...ristianity.htm.

I hope I've got that right!

krosero

Yes, it's frustrating to no end. From my perspective, we always hear this defense whenever the subject of the location of the crucifixion is pressed. Mythicists seem often to be the least interested in understanding Doherty's perspective on the location, which is puzzling, because what makes his theory unique from past instances of mythicism (and perhaps others in the present) is the idea of a crucifixion somewhere above the earth. The sublunar crucifixion theory (whether or not it was Doherty who invented it, as he graciously says), will stand or fall based on its unique contribution, which is the unearthly crucifixion, somewhere above the earth. IMO, that's why we have to get serious about where that "somewhere" was.

youngalexander

Since this is a specialty and extreme minor interest topic, I would think that a high percentage of those expressing a MJ position would understand it. MJ is not something you pick up with the morning paper. Most of my friends and acquaintances are non-believers and have come to their position thru careful consideration. Yet mention a MJ and they look at you askance. HJ is just assumed.

Equally we might ask: How many actually understand the HJ case?
Amongst the general populace of believers - bugger all! For the very simple reason that they have never even questioned the notion, let alone examined the evidence. In fact, your average punter (including atheists) would not know where to begin.

I would like to read this, but....
What's with the excerpt format? What is one supposed to do with these isolated pars and footnotes?

Didymus

Regardless of its date (which, BTW, is far from a settled matter), Thomas is a sayings gospel without biographical material, and, as I said, the allegedly biographical material is what's important when we're discussing historicity.

I don't believe there's any textual evidence of the gospel authors having gotten anything directly from Paul. INDIRECTLY, they may have picked up bits and pieces via the grapevine or via other writings that are now lost.

By "valid," I assume you mean that they were words uttered by the historical Jesus, as opposed to the Holy Spirit or God. But in no other instance does Paul use the form "Jesus said..." or otherwise quote Jesus by name, whereas there are hundreds of such quote forms in the gospels. The question becomes, If Paul really believed the historical Jesus to have said all those things, why did he scrupulously avoid attributing teachings to him by name? And why doesn't he give us pericopes or other settings for "the Lord's" teachings? And why didn't he appeal to the sayings of Jesus in his disputes with Peter and with Apollos? Call it an argument from silence if you like, but there's a LOT there to suggest that Paul didn't think he was recapitulating the words of a man who had lived in recent history.

The eucharistic injunction is a highly dubious proposition, since even as early as Paul it takes the form of a ritualistic incantation. There's no sense in Paul's verse that he is quoting a flesh-and-blood human being.

I only mentioned the JS because you did. And to take issue with your contention that the attribution of the sayings constitutes a "big difference" between historicist and mythicist. I had no intention of connecting you with them, heaven forbid!

Paul's crucified-and-risen Christ may have been a historicized god alright, but the genesis of the "kingdom of God" Jesus of Galilee may have been entirely different.

I'd want to hear Doherty speak for himself on this, but I think he acknowledges that were multiple individuals in Galilee and elsewhere who may have served as prototypes for various facets of the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels.

IMO, it's the Pauline depiction of a descending/ascending savior that's almost wholly reliant on an amalgamation of Hebrew scripture, Greek myth and Eastern Mediterranean mystery religions.

Of course, if both those scenarios are correct, the gospels and epistles taken as a body of work constitute writings about myth, not writings about history.

By the way, just to let you know where I stand, I am convinced that Paul did not think of Jesus as a man who had lived in recent history. But I'm still straddling the fence regarding how he did think of him. Although Doherty makes a pretty good argument for a non-earthly Jesus, I still think it's quite possible that Paul considered Jesus to be an ancient figure, an obscure redeemer who had descended to earth as a man and been crucified at some unspecified time in the vague, misty past.

And that makes Christianity seem a lot more Hellenistic than it is Judaic.

Plus, if most early Christians were not Hellenized Jews or Gentiles, if the intended audience for the epistles and gospels were ordinary Jews, why were no epistles or gospels written in Aramaic or Hebrew? Passages and prophesies from Hebrew scriptures seem like ornamental "gap fillers," judiciously placed in order to add veracity and the patina of great age. (Jewish philosophy and literature were highly regarded by the Romans.) I'm starting to think that in its concepts, if not in primary ethnicity, Christianity was in many ways a Gentile religion from the very beginning.

(This, by the way, is a very sketchy and undeveloped hypothesis, and not one that I'm prepared to defend in any depth. But I thought I'd share it for your consideration and comments.)

Didymus

Chris Weimer

Why is the biographical material most important? I disagree with that assessment. Much of the biographical material is outright fiction (Re: Mark). I've stated before and still hold that the most important materials are those that inferred from the earliest Christians. They're undocumented, but through careful reading of left-overs in the gospels, one can pick up their beliefs. None of the early writings were written in a vacuum, so it is only reasonable to assume that ideas from one generation to another were passed on, at least some of it?

Try Michael Turton's evaluation of Mark's use of Paul. I found it convincing, though others here might disagree. However, I find not only plausible but probable that the Eucharist wasn't invented by Paul, but existed as a tradition.

No. By valid I meant valid according to the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. That is, why do you disregard Paul?

I'll take it as the opposite. The farther away from Jesus we go, the more he is quoted. One would think if Paul knew of a Jesus from long ago, then why haven't his sayings developed by then? If Paul thinks Jesus is God, then why the Eucharist at all? As for his dispute with Peter, it was hardly there. Paul has Peter being flimsy with his beliefs, and that is more important. Peter was, according to Paul, in company with Gentiles until James came around.

As for not giving more pericopes, this must be understood in Paul's context. What was more important, what Jesus said or what Jesus did? For Paul, what Jesus did was everything. It was only after a gospel had been written that people focused on the historical Jesus instead of the son of God's crucifiction and resurrection.

Please explain further.

Not that it matters much, but you first mentioned JS here. Regardless, I am not familiar enough with JS nor do I care to be.

Oh yes, this is right. Historicists, as I see, think that there were a real Jesus who said and did certain things, and mythicists think that... Actually, I take all that back. Labels suck.

Sure. I can buy this.

This is the point of contention then, huh?

How recent is recent? Is 100 years still recent?

How so? Judaism at the dawn of the first century was far removed from the events depicted in the Torah.

Why would the epistles or gospels be written in Aramaic or Hebrew? The LXX was used by Jews. Not all Jews could speak Hebrew/Aramaic, and Galilee has no evidence of Hebrew at all.

It's a good start. We have a lot of room to work with. How about a formal debate on the subject? We'd both need to do a little homework first. I'm still hammering out the finer details on my end. Contact me if you're interested.

mens_sana

The sources I listed Crossan dates from 30 to 120, citing Helmut Koester in several cases. However, I do not understand why you would exclude extracanonical sources. While the Church does, why would a historian? Context would determine whether sayings attributed to "the Lord" or "God" were Jesus sayings, although I would likely skip pretty fast passed those coming from "God."

Llyricist

Sorry, forgot you rejected the "brother of the Lord" quote as referring to Paul's Jesus. Why did you do that again? and why can't can't that criteria be applied to anything else he said about about Christ Jesus?

See what above? You haven't placed anything about Jesus Piror to the Crucifiction being presented to Paul by the the "Apostles" What the FUCK are you talking about when you assert:
Why Slim?? you have no REASON to prefer your "X-uh-Jesus' (thanks JW) over Earl's, or anyone else's for that matter. yet you continue to use absolute statements and misleadingly positive pronouncements of the state of the evidence..... I cannot say on this forum what you tactics appeear as.


The evidence points wherever you want it tol

Why do you keep calling your own position....undenyably presented by yourself as a "strawman"? I already busted you on this...but you insist on continuing to make this obviously bogus charge...

I only argue against the positions you present... I could not possibly care less if you are a Christian or a total atheist...your arguments are what I argue against...period.

Sheshbazzar

Earlier in this thread;
:grin: