Julio

Fascinating debate, gentlemen. Much appreciated, so far.
"But some doubted" was a reasonable statement in those days, in view of how much is doubted today by so many!
To me, it indicates the insecurity of the gospel.
Paul writes in Galatians about HIS own doubts on the same matters, when he demands that HIS gospel is to be the true one; otherwise, let the opposition be anathema [twice - chapter one]!

kcdad

I'm not concerned about veracity, only accuracy.

Precisely. Anyone can stare at eh strange markings on the paper and come up with some meaning for it.
Jurors? Don't even try to bring that "jury of peers" nonsense into this. THE WORST for of justice comes from juries.

Justin Martyr and his writings mean nothing to me. What are the "Memoirs of the Apostles"? Have you seen it? or them? Could he possibly mean something other than The Gospels accounts? If so where are they?


You don't have to be an expert to voice an opinion on anything... you are right.

spamandham

If this is the extent of your analysis, I don't see how you can possibly draw any conclusions as to whether Jesus was real or not.

Why are you concentrating on just the NT writings?

The Gospels *are* biographies. But the type of biography is one in which the purpose is to explain the foundations of a religion rather than to accurately record history. Acts is also there to provide a foundational story, but one involving the legendary early church leaders. The epistles are completely different.

Yes, and Clement 1/2, most of Justyn Martyr, some of Irenaeus, The Octavius, a scattering of other texts from other 2nd century writers, and about half of Josephus...

In what way do you think that gThomas supports a historical Jesus?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your opinion is. On the one hand you seem to be saying Jesus was historical as evidenced by the mere existence of texts, and on the other hand you are arguing that those writings are not in any way intended to record reality. I don't see how the first follows from the latter.

kcdad

I obviously don't.

then they are obviously fiction because the 4 biographries differ in crucial factual points...

because it refers to him...
ok. That's cool.
I am saying Jesus (or more accurately, Joshua or Y'shua) was a historical figure, that the writers of the NT referred to, exaggerated, enhanced and mythicized. Their descriptions of him are not necessarily "historical".

spamandham

That's irrelevant. Ancient biographies of the type the gospels fall under were not attempts to dutifully record reality. Their purpose was to provide a foundational story and to settle doctrinal issues. To the extent they contain real history, it's somewhat incidental.

...so? Are you saying that gThomas is actually a record of conversations with Jesus? If not, then in what way does a collection of mystical sayings and discussions of hidden things being revealed and attributed to a legendary figure demonstrate the real historical existence of that figure?

I'll go back to the question I've asked twice and you've twice ignored.

Under your premise for the gospels, why did Mark refer to Jesus as the artisan, but Matthew, who used Mark to compose his own text (or they shared a common source), referred to Jesus as the son of the artisan? If the early church knew Jesus was historical and they were just adding some magic trim to him, why does it matter?

aa5874

So, you don't want to hear about Justin Martyr, Tertullian or the Memoirs of the Apostles but you want to tell me that Jesus was a figure of history.

You have no basis to even claim Jesus was a figure of history when you have no credible source to rely on.

Once you admit that your sources of Jesus were not necessarily historical, then your argument for the historicity of Jesus has totally failed.

A myth is directly based on information that is NOT necessarily historical.

kcdad

How does it matter? I am the son of my father... he was the son of his father... my great grandfather was a cabinetmaker... my grandfather was a teacher (who was also a carpenter), my father is an engineer (who is also a carpenter) and I am a teacher (who is also a rather less talented and skilled carpenter)... If someone wants to call me the son of a carpenter or a carpenter doesn't matter to me one lick.

Are you trying to imply that "artisan" is a reference to God the creator?

kcdad

Do you not understand the difference between history and reality? There is little historicity about Jesus because there are too many differing accounts... that those accounts exist is evidence that they are about a real person. Normally, myths about non-real people (Lancelot, Paul Bunyon... etc) tend to have a symmetry about them. Myths about real people (Davey Crockett, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, et al,) tend to range far and wide...

If you can't tell the difference between stories about Lancelot and stories about George Washington and are not able to figure out which ones the stories about Jesus most resemble... then I can't help you. What I find interesting is that the "original" stories about Jesus differ greatly from the later stories... the first stories seem more like exaggeration and the later ones like mythology...

aa5874

Please name the far and wide myths about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Davey Crockett, so that we can compare them with the non-historical accounts of Jesus.

How was George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Davey Crockett conceived?

Was not Jesus conceived through the Holy Ghost of God?

Did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Davey Crockett destroy a tree by simply talking to the tree?

Did not Jesus destroy a tree by simple talking to it?

By what means did Washington, Crockett and Lincoln travel on the sea?

Did not Jesus walk on water during a storm at sea?


Were Washington, Crockett and Lincoln ever seen talking with men dead hundreds of years earlier?

Was not Jesus seen with the resurrected Moses and Elijah when he transfigured?

Did Washington, Crockett and Lincoln resurrect and seen by their close associates.

Did not the close associates of Jesus see him in a resurrected state?

Did Washington, Crockett and Lincoln ascend though clouds and witnessed by people who knew them.

Was not the disciples present when Jesus went through the clouds?

Please tell me of the far and wide myths of Washington, Crockett and Lincoln.

You mean that Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome, did really attempt to walk to Jesus the water-walker?

You seem to be implying that there is very little truth to the Jesus stories. What are your corroborative sources of antiquity for the truth about Jesus?

spamandham

It matters because the author of Matthew has altered the quote, and since the author of Matthew uses a written Mark (or a common written source), and since it is not a simple grammatical/copyist error, the author of Matthew did it with intent. Why?

From my perspective, where the gospels are *not* intended to be historical in any sense, but are instead allegorical origins stories constructed from the Jewish scriptures, mystical Christ concepts, Josephus, and other contemporary 'pagan' ideas, the change from Mark to Matthew reflects a different theological perspective.

Mark reflects the Pauline concept where creation was made through Christ (Christ is "the artisan"). Matthew is later and reflects the trend toward historicizing Jesus, so Jesus now becomes the son of the creator with.

So my position holds consistency even with details that are otherwise difficult to explain.

Your position requires handwaving these types of details away, and is thus more complex rather than simpler.