EarlDoherty

Clearly, the "original movement" didn't think Jesus had said anything, performed miracles, made prophecies of the end-time, did anything in his life which was worth preserving, since none of it was passed on. Or was it all trapped in a time bubble which the outside world could not penetrate?

You are creating a doubly irrational rationalization here. The standard 'explanation' for the epistolary silence is that these writers and circles (like Paul) had no interest in Jesus' life on earth and what he might have said and did. If they had no knowledge or interest in such things, what in heaven's name led them to deify and launch a faith movement over someone who was such a non-entity to them? This explanation never made any sense and never will.

But to this irrational rationalization, you have added yet another nonsensical dimension. Not only did this 'outer' response to Jesus possess no knowledge and interest (and made no attempt to acquire any), it was completely isolated from a now-postulated 'inner' response on the part of some "original movement" that you invent in order to invest it with the possibility that it DID have knowledge and interest in words and deeds of Jesus. Yet somehow, none of that leaked out to our 'outer' response, but died in infancy and never resurfaced. It was left to later generations (of the evangelists) to actually invent a whole new series of words and deeds to make up for the void that existed after the original movement passed away.

This is mind-boggling. What depths of convolution, double-think, twisted reasoning, totally unsupportable invention based on nothing but wishful thinking, is required these days to cling to some historical figure of less substance than a fog in the morning! Why do you do it? Why is mythicism so much more unthinkable and undesirable, desperately to be rejected no matter what, than this will-o-the-wisp which requires such contortions and compromises of logic and scholarly integrity?

I've never gotten an answer.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I'd be open to changing my position if I saw evidence, or heard good argument, that required it. (Why don't YOU provide that evidence and argument?)

And if you think I undertook 25 years of research, for which I've hardly gotten financially reimbursed more than a pittance for all that work, just to sell books you are more hopelessly prejudiced against mythicism than I thought.

Earl Doherty

James The Least

Perhaps there was no original Jerusalem group. That would at least help explain why the secondary and tertiary movements had no resemblance to the original group.

Godfrey

I do NOT think that. I'm not impugning your motives or character, only saying that you have a lot to lose, in a very public way, by changing your position.

Given this, you're in no position to hint at secret motives of other people.

Logical

I start with a hypothesis, and then try to see if the data is consistent with it. Among the many hypotheses of Jesus, the apocalyptic historical figure seems to explain everything. It explains the lack of historical documentation in most of the first century from disinterested sources. It explains the apparent ignorance of many things, later attributed to Jesus, among the early sources, such as Paul.

Everything the mythical Jesus proponents have presented, can be explained under that hypothesis and is consistent with it. It may be consistent with other hypotheses, but it's also consistent with it.

Now is the opposite true? Is the "born of a woman" or "Lord's brother" phrase consistent with a mythical Jesus? I don't think so. In fact, it seems to take a lot more imagination to reconcile them with a mythical Jesus, and zero effort to see that they fit naturally into the historical Jesus hypothesis.

I think I'm being fair. I'm studying "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" and still looking for that piece of information that will demolish the HJ hypothesis, and I'm not finding it.

P.S. I'm not dismissing the very possibility that Paul didn't think Jesus was a man. Apparently some Gnostics thought so too.

Toto

Sorry - how does the apocalyptic model explain a lack of evidence?

And how do you get from a nobody failed prophet to later followers?

outhouse

I would agree

But, I think we can get a slight idea about the original movement using cultural anthropology to give us a idea what life was like and then use the tidbits in the bible that reflect that life in that exact time.

Its how we know jesus was a handworker not a carpenter.

allthough taxs were common knowledge the NT is still full of this talk, and we know Galilee was a zealot haven, and there is no reason the poor peasants wouldnt follow this hatred of romans. we know jesus was peaceful and tried to do what he could against taxation by non violent methods and having no possessions to tax. we know he was upset with the Saducees as all zealots were due to the money table event and violence there when he lost his cool.


I see jesus as a intelligent teacher healer/healer who thought he figured a peacefulway to beat the romans at their own game while preaching the kingdom of god, and by not following his own methods got himself killed, but martyred and remembered. he only had a small group of 3 disciples, his inner circle he traveled with. these were illiterate fisherman so its not hard to figure out what they may have taught.

what affected their lives the most? roman oppression and taxation, and following JtB teachings of the coming kingdom of god. JtB also fitted in that same poor desperate class of people below poverty.

so then after jesus death it gets murky as to what they may have taught, I think the temple incident changed their teachings somewhat but they surely didnt invent the theology paul did. I think they rode the popularity of the event surrounding his death. we know they didnt change much of their teachings since the movement failed rather quickly in judaism.

outhouse

good question really.

I often wonder if "the kingdom of god" was a metaphor for the war brewing with the romans. Jews knew it was suicide to go against the romans and knew death was certain, and they knew this was coming and iminent.

We also know jesus movement was in galilee and of the 4 main sects of judaism, zealots were home in Galilee and was the main sect in that area. we also know jesus followed many anti tax patterns and preached to tax collecters and called them sinners as he got ole Zacc to give back some of his rapings. Zealots were well aware they had no life expectancy and death was better then starvation and disease. thus god was coming soon.

then of course the romans perverted the whole movement to fit their needs.




failed profit part is easy. passsover the temple was full up with up to 400,000 people there. Its what made jesus famous, simular to a shooting star in judaism. he fought against the corrup roman infection in the temple with almost half a million possible witnesses and was martyered for it being put on a cross at a entry way for all to see. legends of how he stood up against the saducees corruption made him popular, but with the fall of thetemple his popularity was short lived in judaism.

anethema

All the talk of what people "knew" from Ehrman to outhouse is very tiresome. The Jews "knew?" this the Jews "knew?" that from nosuffering messiah to rebelling against Rome was suicide. Remindsme of the wandering suicide squads from the "Life of Brian". Wait a minute were Monty Python on to something historically defensible?

outhouse

so you deny the tax war during jesus childhood in Galilee?

and the tax war that fell the temple shortly after his death ??