dog-on

I haven't produced any. So, about the character, Jesus of the gospels?

The conclusion is what it is, based on what we have.

My assumption is that assuming historicity because people have believed this to be the case has nothing to do with whether or not historicity is the actual case.

Paul gets his gospel from no man. Mark denies the authority of those who would seem to be important only later to be undone by tampering.

What else do we really have?


Paul and Mark.

Around or through and through?

I suppose you could tell me why I should believe that Mark is not a mythical story.

spin

What about it?

Some other lot concludes the opposite from the same data. You are no better off as things stand. Evidence needs to be enunciated, not assumed.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are far too many assumptions flying around. It's better to err on the side of caution than to take meaningless substantive positions. Claiming mythicism to me has that appearance.

I think I've heard this before.

Nothing to make clear judgments.

Don't be vacuous. You are asked for evidence and you merely drop a few names.

As long as you're predigesting the data, you tell me.

And I suppose you could take responsibility for a substantive position you are advocating and provide some evidence. So far, you have as much as your opposition.


spin

The Dagda

Sweet irony is I was almost banned from the Richard Dawkins forum for claiming there was no historicity to Jesus and thus he never existed. Apparently God doesn't exist is derrigeur but not Jesus! :constern01:

spin

We are not talking about suspicion, Steven. We are talking about you, repeat you advocating a substantive position which you, repeat you refuse to justify with evidence.

I don't really understand why you are gushing this rot, when if you'd read anything else I'd written you'd know you were wasting your own breath making ridiculous claims that are overtly wrong.

You are working under a false dilemma. There are not just two position in the area we are supposed to be analyzing. It's not just yes, or not. A reasonable position beside these two is there is not enough evidence to take either position. Answer me this, try please: was Robin Hood a real person?

Umm, did you feel relieved in writing this nonsense? It is of no use to anyone and achieves nothing for you.

I wouldn't know how to answer this last question it assumes what I'm not prepared to.

Is there a reason for you coming on with such daft stuff, or are you just feeling violated because your pet belief is being challenged? You seem to me to believe in your stuff and argue it as staunchly and irrationally as the historicist and/or christian. Like them, when asked for evidence, you provide just as much. Zilch, nada, zippo.


spin

neilgodfrey

Judas is an artificial intrusion into the canonical narratives. He has no reason to be there except to fulfil prophecies and perhaps subliminally malign Jews -- his name of Judah/s, who betrayed Joseph for money; comparing David's betrayal by Ahitophel; Zechariah's silver.

In the gospel narrative his function as betrayer makes no sense. The authorities did not need him to arrest Jesus.

Add to this his late arrival on the narrative scene. If we take 1 Corinthians 15 as Paul's words then there is no room for a lost soul among the twelve before the gospels were written: Jesus reveals himself to all twelve after his resurrection. Ditto in the early and mid-second century: the Gospel of Peter tells a story where all twelve were in mourning after the death of Jesus, so no real room for a lost soul there, either; and Justin Martyr who, while aware of something he calls the "Memoirs of the Apostles" with some points of contact with our gospels, elsewhere always speaks of Jesus appearing to the twelve apostles after his resurrection.

If we rely on external attestation as a guide to when the canonical gospels appear then I don't think see Judas emerge in his artificial, but theologically determined, role until mid second century.

Neil

The Dagda

What about the Gospel of Judas. Where he claims Christ asks him to betray him. Because it was inevitable anyway someone would.

Everyone has their own perspective it seems, including the Gnostics.

dog-on

Of course, I am in the same position when it comes to fairies as well. I guess it sucks to be me...

Can I claim that Zeus is a myth?

Those names come along with luggage.

I don't know if Hillel was actually a historical figure or not, but why do you think that he is a better analogy than, say, Dionysis or Perseus?

What substantive position? To claim that the Jesus of the gospels seems to be a mythical character?

Perhaps if they would have mentioned Pegasus it would have been more clear.

dog-on

Prove that Zeus is a myth.

dog-on

Do you exist?

neilgodfrey

Gospel of Judas is also apparently from around the mid-second century. Irenaeus may be the first to attest of its existence.

But though the National Geographic translation has seized the popular imagination, until I see clear rebuttals of April DeConick's book I remain cautious about accepting this gospel as promoting "a good Judas" set apart from the rest of the bad apostles.

Some time ago I listed the key translation differences between DeConick's and the Nat Geog translation here.

There have also been discussions on the cultural tide that may explain a "good Judas" translation: these bring up the apparent desire to atone for the collective guilt of past anti-semitism.

But even if a "good Judas" was the first Judas in the literature, we still have the late date of his arrival, and as much ("gnostic"-like?) theological import to his existence, being reasons to give just as little credence to his historicity.

Neil