MCalavera

Occam's razor favors those with the least new assumptions. Mythicists make too many of them.

Toto

I don't think this is true. Mythicists take the gospels as what they appear to be - theological writings by anonymous persons, not entitled to be treated as objective reporting. Historicists assume that there is some kernal of history that can be extracted if some of the texts are taken as historical but others are rejected.

How many assumptions do you think that mythicists make?

MCalavera

Depends on the mythicist position.

I've shown this in my Nazareth post here a few pages back.

Mythicists have to mkae more assumptions that are not in line with what the texts state.

Toto

No, you didn't. Besides, the question of Nazareth is separate from the existence of a historical Jesus. There are historicists who think that Nazareth might not have existed, and mythicists who think that it did.

Are you assuming that the text should be treated as a historical document? Isn't that a major assumption involving a massive leap of faith?

J-D

I'm not sure in what sense you're using the word 'theological'. I haven't read much theology, but the gospels don't strike me as falling into that category as I think of it. What would you think of as being typical examples of 'theological writings', apart from the gospels?

MCalavera

Let's skip this vicious circle and get to what matters.

Do you have a simpler explanation for the Messiah being from Nazareth which adds less assumptions and doesn't ignore what the evidence we have access to state?

mountainman

Hey MCalavera,

You appear to be avoiding the question of listing your own assumptions, postulates and hypotheses. Some of your responses here seem to indicate that these things remain essentially unexamined by your own position.

What evidence is there for an HJ and what are the postulates required to resurrect an HJ from history? I will list some of them, and those supporting the HJ can either agree or disagree ...

(1) The books of the canonical NT are "Early and contain some history".
(2) The "Church History" of Eusebius is essentially true about the New testament transmission.
(3) The Dura-Europos "House-Church" at Yale is evidence of early christians.
(4) Palaeographically dated Oxyrynchus papyri fragments are evidence of early christians.
(5) The Testimonium Flavianum is a genuine attestation to Jesus from Josephus.
(6) There are inscriptions and epigraphic remains as evidence for early christians.
(7) Tacitus and Pliny and other Roman witnesses confirm an HJ
(8) Jewish and Talmudic witnesses confirm an HJ.
(9) Origen the Christian is the source of the text for the Greek translation of the LXX used in the Constantine Bibles.
(10) The books of the NT within the Constantine Bibles were authored before the 4th, 3rd or 2nd century.

(11) The Pope is infallible
(12) The Bible is true
(13) Jesus lives in Frankston, Melbourne, supports Carlton on home games, and personally vouched for historical status.
(14) Feel free to add others ....


Best wishes



Pete

Toto

Why is this decisive?

But I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think your explanation of all the evidence is simpler than the idea that Nazareth is a fictional element based on word play with "Nazarene."

Toto

If, as many scholars agree, the gospels are based on the Hebrew Scriptures, I would call that theological.

I mean "theological" as opposed to literally historical. They are written to demonstrate a point about god (theos).

stephan huller

And unknown to the gospel of the Marcionites.