RogueBibleScholar

Just because a passage has a mythological-sounding basis does not except it from having a historical basis. The cyclops never existed, but apparently derived from elephant skulls people had seen. There is no telling how many characters from mythology started with earthly, ordinary kings and other heroes.

One notable attempt to remove apparent mythology from the NT was the Jefferson Bible; created by the 2^nd president of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson. He attempted to interpret NT stories as naturalistic events, and retell them on a naturalistic basis. While others might come up with different naturalistic interpretations of the Christian scriptures, it is far to simplistic to say that nothing after Mk. 1:9 in Mk. can possibly have a naturalistic basis.

Well, Lk. has the infancy narratives, which one might attempt to interpret naturalisticly. We might suppose a priest had prophesied the coming of the Messiah, and that a baby was born. Later, the child might have been rather clever and/or knowledgeable when talking with the priests, and that mushroomed into Lk. 2:46. In v. 51, the family returns to Nazareth; so there's your Jesus of Nazareth in between infancy and ministry.

Much better grounds to criticize the Gospel narratives on concern matters such as that Nazareth is not ever mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, nor in Josephus' histories; although he was governor of Galilee and gave extensive descriptions of the cities in Galilee in his histories. Most of the times it mentions Jesus of Nazareth in English, in Gk., the Gospels read, "Jesus the Nazaraean." This is a phrase which Josephus uses to refer to certain types of rebels from Roman authority. Much can be said to criticize the historicity of Jesus, but the assertions you are making here don't seem especially well founded. If you really want to challenge the historicity of Jesus, I recommend you read Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, Joseph Wheless' Forgery in Christianity and/or Wheless' first book. Perhaps others might be able to suggest some more good ones? There certainly are a number of others. (BTW: I tend to discount most of Archia's work, and the Piso theory; as well as the Mushroom and the Cross guy - since these people either hardly reference their sources at all, or attempt to press facts into proving things they cannot be used to prove.)

aa5874

Well, please tell me what is the basis for the "HOLY GHOST"? I don't think the HOLY GHOST ever existed.

After Jesus got the hocus-pocus HOLY GHOST at the Baptism he started to WALK on water, transfigured and he told people he would resurrect on the third day.

And he did it in Mark 16.6.

The hocus-pocus Holy Ghost at Baptism made Jesus into a Holy Super-Duper man.

The same thing happened in Acts of the Apostles.

The Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost made the apostles into Holy-Super-Duper-men.

The ordinary baptism of an ordinary UNKNOWN man who did NOTHING for 30 years in Nazareth is the most unlikely basis for the Jesus stories in the NT Canon.

aa5874

Somebody needs to explain the "historical Jesus" because I just don't get it.

If we use gMark and superimpose an obscure unknown ordinary nobody who could not forgive sin, could not heal incurable diseases with SPIT, could not walk on water, could not transfigure, could not resurrect and whose disciples ABANDONED him then we have no story.

What is the real benefit for an "historical Jesus" in gMark?

What did the "historical Jesus" do in gMark that warranted all the hocus-pocus stories?

It must have crossed people's mind that the fundamental story of Jesus in gMark does NOT require a figure of history.


1. No one could have seen the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus like a dove.

2. No one could have seen Jesus cursed the fig tree that soon died from it roots.

3.No one could have seen Jesus walking on water.

4.No one could have seen Jesus transfiguring.

5.No one could have seen Jesus healing blind, the deaf and the dumb with SPIT.

6.No one could have seen Jesus alive after his dead body vanished.

What role did the "historical Jesus" play in the development of Christianity?

Are HJers just arguing that Jesus existed and that he died?

Who needs a story that an obscure man existed and was crucified?

The historical Jesus is a disaster.

HJ did nothing like in the NT but people just decided to lie about him because they wanted people to know they were lying??? And they wrote FOUR versions of fiction???

Is that the role of the historical Jesus???

GakuseiDon

Tim O'Neill on the Rational Skeps board called aa's posts "dalek-like rants". Reread them using a dalek voice. Good fun!

Solo

Sure it does: here is doctor Kraepelin's description of historical people cca 1920 in his care who were suffering from delusional mania:

Consider it possible that Mark was a therapeut using the story of Jesus to control phantasies, and focus his Jesus-sick brothers on their issues by showing them that although the holy Ghost that descended on them was real and God was pleased with them also, they needed to let go of themselves as Jesus and become instead a community witness of him.

Jiri

aa5874

This is exactly what I expected. You are not really in a rational discussion you are on a propaganda mission.

It is most remarkable that people who claim to be Christians refuse to tolerate any opposition to their beliefs in the 21 st century.

The very Christians who were being persecuted just for their name have now turned the table.

Well, HJ is going down, my friend. I promise you. You can kiss HJ good bye.

Please deal with the OP.

The Historical Jesus is a disaster that is the discussion.

Let us examine gMatthew.

Although we have Elaborate genealogies, birth narratives, baptism story, and temptation story in gMatthew we still have virtually the same information of Jesus up until he was baptized by John.

NOTHING. For the supposed 30 years of the life of Jesus in Nazareth we know nothing of Jesus until he met John the Baptist.

1.The Jews did NOT know where CHRIST was to be born in Bethlehem.

2. The Jews did not know exactly when CHRIST would have been born.

3. Jews did NOT know the baby CHRIST fled to Egypt.

4. The Jews did NOT know that the baby CHRIST was in Nazareth after King Herod died.

5. The Jews did NOT know that CHRIST was baptized by John.

6. The Jews believed Jesus was a prophet.

7. The Jesus did want the Jews to be Converted so he spoke in parables.

8. Jesus demanded that the disciples tell NO man he was Christ.

9. Jesus gave NO sign to the Jews of the Apocalypse.

10. Jesus claimed publicly he was CHRIST on the very day he died.

In gMatthew, Jesus played NO role in the developing any new religion in Judea if we remove all the hocus-pocus Holy Ghost stories.

If Jesus was an ordinary man in gMatthew then he would not have been the Son of God as declared by Peter with the ability to REMIT Sins. He would NOT have been known as Christ.

Jesus would have been a NOBODY.

The Gospels are NOT history, they are myth fables no different to the myth fables of the Greeks and Romans as suggested by Justin Martyr.

"First Apology" XXI