Chili

Interesting question and my first reaction is to say no!!!!!!! . . . but that would only be true for Luke and for John where Pilate called Jesus the man while in Matthew and Mark he never said such a thing but treated and dealth with him as Jesus the Jew. This means that Jesus was a Jew and sinner indeed to be crucified by Jewish law etc. I am sure there is more details to make this clear and so is why back to Galilee he went but only in Matthew and Mark.

What this really means is that in Mark and Matthew the 'house of Jesus' was not empty or now swept clean who so was not beyond theology and is why he/they wailed that God had forsaken him now on the cross and is sure to die in Galilee where he will spend the next 40 years, as Jew once again.

Mark is the intelligent Gospel but he does no have a clue what makes humans tick and of course was vacant to set the pace for Luke as the foreshadow for John which was the Catholic gospel for the new religion to come.

Horatio Parker

It seems to me that aa is saying that scripture is evidence for a mythical Jesus, but not a historical one. Reading HJ into scripture is unsupported by any other evidence. The case for MJ is self evident. After all, the significance of Jesus is his being the son of God. I don't know how one can be more mythic than that(and I mean "mythic" in the best sense of the word, not the trivial true/false sense).

That's not to say there was no historical Jesus, but there is no evidence of one.

aa's style is eccentric, but he is very familiar with the source material and he's consistent. I for one am glad he's here, though I have at times found him frustrating to communicate with.

maryhelena

This is nonsense, Tom. Nonsense. One does not have to sit on the fence re whether or not the gospel JC was historical. There are no half measures here. Either the gospel JC was historical or he was not historical. Not enough evidence to decide either way - so one can sit on the fence and play nicely with the historicists and keep a foot in the ahistorical camp? Nonsense. There is no way to establish historicity for the gospel JC - whatever ones version of that figure might be. Cherry-pick all one likes - discard all the mythological or theological elements - and one has nothing at all that would identify such a figure historically. Nothing. That is the bottom line here - nothing by which to identify that gospel JC as a historical figure. So - hope, wish, believe - that is all that the historicists can do. - apart that is from taking pot shots at the ahistoricists.

Real figures can be mythologized. Real figures can also be inspirational and inspire others to greater things. Did such an historical inspirational figure live during the gospel time frame. More likely than not. But to equate such a historical figure with the gospel JC is a step too far for the historicists. Why? Because such a development - the mythologizing and elevating of a normal human man would not be something that would find favour with Jewish monotheism. However, there was a way out of this Jewish reluctance to turn a man into a mythological/theological god type figure or construct: A gospel JC that represented not one human figure but two major historical figures. A dual personality gospel JC - or even a multiple personality type JC. No man is able to embody all the elements of the gospel JC figure: Revolutionary, Wisdom Sage, Prophet of Social Change; Apocalyptic Prophet, Savior; Man of the Spirit. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html)

The gospel JC figure is not a historical figure - sitting on the fence with this issue is not the way forward. Nothing can be gained by such a position. Yes, forward thinking can sometimes lack the niceties of scholarship - but is it not true of all intellectual advances - the finer details come later. Breakthroughs don’t find value in some supposed scholarly consensus; thats a dead-end approach that only serves to impede rationality and freethought.

Pussy-footing around this historicist/ahistoricist issue is not indicative of a lack of evidence to decide either way - it’s indicative of a lack of intellectual courage to face the reality of the issue - there is no way, no historical way, no historical ‘method’ that will establish historicity for the gospel JC. Zero. Thats the fact that has to be faced - face that fact and move on to the more important questions - a search for the origins, the roots, the Jewish roots, of early Christianity.

dog-on

I only wonder if those Jewish roots happened to reside within a Greco/Roman vase.

Chili

But Paul was a gnostic and they do not hallucinate but can just write and let the reader scramble for evidence, which is not his concern at this point.

Mohammed had his angels mixed up as Gabriel is the wrong angel to get knoweldge and insigths from. He was just a reformer like Moses who led Jewish people astray except that Mohammed was for real. Oh OK, a forerunner of Joseph Smith maybe? Or Luther or Calvin? and Hitler as well who also had a jail-house conversion to empower him and get the job done.

There is a philosophical truth that must add up before right is right and this is where Paul was different than Mohammed and so is where Muslims are wrong still today and no matter how pious they are.

maryhelena

Sure - one can uproot stuff and plant it elsewhere. I'm no Horticulturist - but methinks those in the know are aware of where things originate....

dog-on

Perhaps Paul was.

aa5874

Your suggestion is WHOLLY absurd and baseless.

Why should people here be CONSTRAINED with your LIMITED knowledge of the subject?

You put forward a most ridiculous notion--"only what Tom knows can be known".

I REJECT your suggestion as it is WHOLLY illogical.

There is ENOUGH information to show that the MYTH JESUS theory is BASED on WRITTEN statements FOUND in Extant Codices.

Examine Matthew 1.18-20--Jesus is the Child of a Ghost.

Examine Luke 1.26-35---Jesus is the Child of a Ghost.

Examine John 1.---Jesus is God and the Creator.

Examine Mark 1.10---A Holy Ghost Bird lights upon Jesus.

Examine Mark 1.8---Jesus is predicted to Baptize with a Ghost.

Examine Matthew 4.5---Jesus and SATAN are on top of the Jewish Temple.

Examine ALL the Gospels---The miracles of Jesus are IMPLAUSIBLE.

Examine Mark 6.49---Jesus WALKS on the sea.

Examine Mark 9.2---Jesus Transfigures.

Examine Mark 16.6---Jesus is claimed to be Resurrected.

Examine Luke 24---Jesus Resurrects and EATS food in the presence of the disciples.

Examine Acts 1.9---Jesus Ascends in a cloud.

Examine 1 Cor.15---It is claimed OVER 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus.

Examine Galatians 1-12---A Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man and did NOT get his gospel from man but from the revelation of the Resurrected Jesus.

The MYTH JESUS theory is BASED on WRITTEN EVIDENCE in the EXTANT Codices.

HJ is UN-EVIDENCED and was ALWAYS UN-EVIDENCED since Celsus wrote "TRUE DISCOURSE" over 1800 years ago based on "Against Celsus".

aa5874

I told you already to answer your own questions. I can only SHOW you what is written.

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 and was God and the Creator in John 1.

I don't know the answer to your question.

All I know Jesus was a GHOST child in the NT.

John 1:1-3 - Now answer me was JESUS a JEW?

You KNOW the answer.

Matthew 1.18-21 Jesus was a Ghost Child in the NT.

Now, you tell me his NATIONALITY. Please. You know the answer. Tell me, please.

jakejonesiv

Only on his mother's side.