maryhelena

Tom, one can exercise caution when crossing the street - the possibility of danger is there for all to see. Exercising caution when crossing a street devoid of traffic is not warranted.
Inserted ‘the gospel JC’ ? Get real here Tom - there is no other JC. There always was and always will be only the gospel JC - however much one reconstructs that figure to ones own imagination. Shifting the goal posts - that’s the tactic of the historicists! Let me repeat - there is no other JC apart from the one within the pages of the gospel story. Trying to change the focus here will not wash with me...There is not a real JC and a gospel JC - there is only the gospel JC.
Yes, Tom, it’s very black and white. There is no gray area here at all - that’s in the imagination of the historicists who want to have their cake and eat it too! That the gospel JC is fictional does not negate the possibility of a historical figure being relevant to the writers of the gospel story. Re-read what I wrote above: There is no way to equate a historical figure with the gospel JC. No way. And, interestingly, you have made no attempt to do so. All you are doing is making assumptions.
Oh, my - I’ll quite happily throw that one back at you....:Cheeky:
Tom, what you have done is come here and tell people to “use more cautious language and be less assertive” when discussing the historicist/ahistoricst issue regarding the gospel JC. My response to that has been ‘nonsense’. You don’t have any credible evidence that would stand up in a court of law - you have nothing of value to offer in this debate. All you are doing is admonishing members of this forum to be ‘cautious’. For heavens sake, Tom, we are all grown ups here and are quite willing, and prepared, to take it on the chin from anyone who can present a logical argument against the ahistoricists position.

Nonsense. What it gives them is imagination run wild. Wishful thinking about what could have been, what could be. Sorry, but that sort of thinking is not using any logic whatsoever. Could be, maybe - and pigs might fly tomorrow. igsfly:

Tom, re-read what I wrote earlier. There is no way to move from a historical figure that might have been inspirational for the gospel writers - to equating such a historical figure with the gospel JC. There is no way to do this. That you don’t like my use of the term ‘gospel JC’ only serves to confirm that your on a sticky wicket here. You want to separate the gospel JC into two - the mythological/theological figure and the normal man figure. Can’t be done. That’s cherry-picking and betrays desperation not logic. Check out what we do know from history and historical figures.
Tom, but you are making such an assertion. You are putting across the possibility that a real figure is behind, underneath, the gospel JC figure. I am coming back at you and saying it’s impossible, even if such a carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, was crucified under Pilate, to equate such a figure with the gospel JC. Even if there was independent historical evidence that a carpenter from Nazareth, named Jesus, was crucified under Pilate - there is no way to equate such a figure with the gospel JC. How many people did Pilate allow to be crucified, how many were named Jesus? All you have is the gospel JC story. To move from that story to history cannot be done. You have nothing specific that you can salvage from that gospel JC story that would enable you to identify a historical figure relevant to that gospel JC figure.

Caution - that’s the call of those who have much to lose not the call of those who want to move forward.

neilgodfrey

Actually, removing the mythological elements and theological elements from the Genesis portrayal of Adam and Eve gives the reader something quite human.

Actually, removing the mythological elements and theological elements from the Numbers portrayal of Balaam's ass gives the reader something quite assinine.

jakejonesiv

+1

Solo

Well put, Tom. There is just simply no good evidence to argue that the figure of the gospel narratives, did not originate as post-mortem lionizing and mythologizing of a historical person.

Though I don't agree with the 'take the mythology out of the gospels and you have a historical person' view that you appear to uphold, it seems far more probable than not that Jesus (later believed to have been) of Nazareth was a historical figure. Mythological figures do not generate controversies. If something is a myth, everyone knows it is a myth, and everyone knows what the substance of the myth is. If the origin of Jesus is mythical, he is a single specimen for a class of mythical figures that were born in arguments about the importance of them being killed.

Best,
Jiri

jakejonesiv

Where are there whole nations of Holy Ghosts! You tell me!

maryhelena

Lots of things are possible. The important question is whether "post-mortem lionizing and mythologizing of a historical person" would pass muster with a Jewish audience. As far as I can gather, that idea did not sell two thousand years ago - and is still not selling today.....
That a historical figure was relevant to the gospel writers is indeed possible. The problem for the JC historicists relates to linking the gospel JC to such a figure. What are the identifying features of the gospel JC that can be linked to a known historical figure? If a link cannot be demonstrated between a known historical figure and the gospel JC figure - then all the wishful thinking in the world; all the convoluted arguments and interpretations, are not going to settle the matter of the supposed historicity of the gospel JC.

aa5874

Just ANSWER your own question and stop wasting time.

I KNOW in the NT Jesus was a Ghost Child who WALKED on the sea and Transfigured.

Tell me was Jesus a Jew?

You know the answer!!!!

Solo

You are right about the idea not selling with the Jewish mainstream which traditionally deplored, disdained and discounted sectarian ecstatics among whom the Jesus lore was hatched. This seems to be as true of the Talmudic/Mishnaic reactions to Jesus, as it is of the ones to Zebbatai Zvi, or the shtetl Hasidism of the Lubavitcher. The warning of rabbi Abbahu addresses all of those: 'If a man says to you, I am God, he is a liar. If he says, I am the Son of Man, people will in the end laugh at him, and if he says I will go to heaven, he will not manage, though he say it'.

One of the extremely interesting things about the early Christians is that some of the communities were acutely aware of the negative impression that the unbridled phantasism was creating. Mark is bluntly frank about Jesus' family considering him gone off the deep end. And though I do not believe this is a genuine historical reminiscence, the idea behind it - if he was thought insane, why not us ? - was solidly built into all four gospels. Paul deplored the excesses of the ecstatics as did GThomas (13 - "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling sping which I have measured out"). Once the church became established, and it became clear that the unruly prophetic spirit and the living at the edge of time ran counter to its pastoral and political agenda, the spirit was declared ceased, the same way as the wise Jewish rabbis had declared prophets to have been God's finished business.

The historical figure was relevant, but the argument was highly technical. Mark's Jesus historically is overshadowed by Paul's risen Christ walking on earth, to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to grant that any of the events as portrayed were historically grounded. Even more so, as Mark might be saying (and to me he does) in 4:11, that everything (in his gospel) is in parables. Matthew's principal goal was to eviscerate Mark as the authoritative gospel, but to do it in a way which would secure most of his believer base. It was he who had the ingenious idea to harmonize Peter and Paul, by asserting mark's Jesus as historical vis-a-vis his teachings and deeds.

So as Tom said initially, that the JC of the gospels is by all appearances mythical, does not in any way touch the likelihood that the myth was spun around an historical individual.

Best,
Jiri

Horatio Parker

A "figure" of Jesus is vague. If you mean a mythical or literary figure, yes. Historical is less likely, tho possible. Obviously, no one can authoritatively make a claim one way or the other about a HJ.

The point is, the gospels as evidence are stronger for MJ than HJ. That is aa's point and it's a good one. And it's counter-intuitive. Since the Enlightenment, the assumption has been that fictional supernatural events have been attached to a historical figure.

maryhelena

Or two or three - multiple historical figures could have influenced the gospel writers in their storytelling re their JC figure.

Even Earl Doherty acknowledges that much:
The problem is not related to historical figures being relevant, inspirational, for the gospel writers. The problem for the gospel JC historicists is to establish a link between a specific historical figure and the figure of the gospel JC. That is the problem here - and it's a problem that the JC historicists cannot resolve.
They cannot resolve this problem because the gospel JC is a composite figure reflecting more than one historical figure. ie there is no possibility for a simple equation - gospel JC = historical figure X.

(and lets not try splitting hairs as to what constitutes a gospel JC - whether one wants the fully clothed gospel JC with all his mythological and theological finery - or one wants the semi-naked gospel JC minus his grand coat of many colours - it is still the gospel JC that one is dealing with. There is no other).