Gooch's dad

rlogan,

Regarding the "Jesus Christ" bit, I was quite clear in my first post in this thread to say that I was talking about Jesus the man. And I fail to see how adding the title "Christ" to his name suddenly would make a man cease to exist.

And please read my posts again more carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was NOT referring to the Testimonium Flavianum. OK? I even gave the Antiquities 20.9.1 reference. This smaller reference is not generally considered to be an interpolation or forgery.

Cheers,

Kelly

Doctor X

rlogan:

Coy? Moi?

Indeed, this is the problem. As above, I am not impressed with the Josephus forgeries--okay . . . "probable" forgeries--but I have a hard time explaining Paul. Granted, if someone explains that Galatians is a forgery . . . a "pseudoPauline" letter . . . then that takes care of that. Acts could then simply be a response to this forged letter rather than an attempt to "Pauline" Peter and "Petrify" Paul.

Otherwise, it seems a bit of a "conspiracy" for Paul and the Luke-Acts author to "agree" on a James.

The "truth" of this does raise an number of questions. For those who assume the Historical Junior was actually executed--I am not . . . what is the word? . . . implying that it is unreasonable to believe that--they then have to wonder why James and His Merry Band were not hunted down by the rather efficient Romans. It suggests something about who "controversial" the message was.

Of course, "we" rather "assume" that the message preach'd by James and Peter is the same as that by the Historical Junior. Given the development of the texts and the indications that they responded to very different conceptions of "the message" I am not sure we can assum that.

Bottom line, we are left with a valid suggestion that "someone" existed, and we can say nothing certain about what he said or did.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Everyone posting at once. . . .

Gooche's Dad/Kelly:

I can only refer you to my initial reply to Vinnie what the existence of an historical Junior i [No colorful language!--Ed.] mplies.

I would also refer you to my subsequent posts. I would also refer you to rlogan's response. Like it or not, the debate on the existence of a Historical Junior suggests more than that of, say, a historical Julius Caesar or Elvis. Perhaps that should not be that way, but no one asked me to make the rules. If they did, I would not be here, I would be heavily engaged in a torrid affair with Uma Thurmon involving [CENSORED--Ed.] with a garlic press. The use of "Christ" does imply quite a lot whether anyone of us likes it or not--whether scumdog intended it to or not. Thus, rhetoricals such as this:

miss the point of what I have written here.

I am afraid I can only refer you to the posts and writings of those who seek validation of their faith through the existence of a Historical Junior. I cited Schweitzer, and he is a good start. I am not about to post his entire work, nor am I going to repost the posts of individuals cited above.

If an unkind man, I would reiterate that you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. It is well for you that you can discuss the issue so dispassionately. Unfortunately, perhaps, many [Strawmen--Ed.] do not feel that way. Indeed, they rail at the mere suggestion of "myth" attached to the Historical Jesus because it threatens the basis of what they believe. Again, perhaps this is unfortunate, but they did not ask me to make the rules.

--J.D.

rlogan

Gooch - the opening post sets the terms of discussion. I am not putting words in your mouth. I understand exacly what you said. I was trying to point out the you changed the subject. The OP was by scumdog, not by you. Please don't hijack the thread by changing it from Jesus Christ to Jesus, something less than Christ.

JD - your position is reasonable. I really wanted there to be a real Jesus. Maybe not a superman - but at least something solid.

The church has a long history of forgery prior to Jesus and after. So it is also reasonable to suggest Galatians is forged. perhaps you are not of that opinion. I have not reached a decision on it. I do see though the clear difference between the epistles in general and the gospels. (In their approach to flesh & Blood).

So I think you might agree that is not unreasonable for someone to take that position on Galatians. Would you not?

Amaleq13

I'm not convinced the Jesus described in the Gospels was an actual historical figure but I would bet my next paycheck there was a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived in the early first century. It was a pretty common name and not an uncommon career.

I'm tempted to lower my bet with this addition but a lot of folks got crucified by the Romans so I think I'll let it ride.

ScumDog

Indeed, Toto, I am fairly new to biblical history, etc, so I try to play devil's advocate a lot. Thank you for responding fair, and I shall try to read up on the material when I find time.

Doctor X

rlogan:

Just out of curiousity . . . "why" do you wat there to be a real Jesus? I, too, AM SPARTICUS [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . am an atheist, so it would tickle me pink to "prove" that "everything" in the NT is "made-up" and all of that. To be honest, I do not see that the evidence is conclusive. Granted I have not read the "mythicists" work as much--perhaps there is a reasonable "answer" to the Paul evidence.

Regarding Galatians . . . I have to plead ignorance in that I am not competent to "prove" to anyone that it is or is not a "legitimate" letter--I would have to defer to the literature on that. If someone else has an argument against it, I am more than happy to see it.

Amaleq13 states the issue--there may have been "a someone" and all of the subsequent stories are just that . . . stories. I remember reading a book on the quest for a historical Arthur . . . assuming it was valid, it pointed to some "candidates" . . . which looked nothing like the anachronistically armored guy with Excalibur we all know an love! So what does that mean?

Was Beowulf real? Maybe . . . but that does not make Grendel real . . . though I can imagine an apologist making up some poor slob who suffered from a psychiatric disorder being the "real Grendel." It will not explain the dragon. . . .

This is what we are stuck with. As one mentor stated, "all you need for a founding figure is a name and a place." Adherents will supply the rests, and, clearly, the Synoptics and Jn did. Hell, the "real Paul" never claimed to have met Junior--or had him visit--stigmata and all--yet he created a lot of theology about him! Believe Galatians, and he had no problem going against "the group" left by Junior.

Allow me to recommend a fun book: Gore Vidal's Live! From Golgotha. This is a fictional account of the composition of the Gospel of Timothy--see, a hacker has erased traces of the NT and some have channeled back--including Shirley McLain--to try to get Tim to write a text they can hide and discover later. Of course, this means everyone wants to "influence" what he writes. The descriptions of Paul preaching a "religious" message to his flock while maintaining that it is "secular" for James and the rest is rather good.

Timothy, of course, when he sees modern depictions of Junior, wonders why they missed the fact he was so fat and had a lisp. . . .

--J.D.

Toto

Live From Golgotha is out of print but there are some cheap used copies on Amazon.

Amazon reviewer:

Doctor X

Damn! I thought I saw some paperback versions a few years back.

Folks, you may not believe what I write on many [Any--Ed.] matters, but you will enjoy this book--even if you hate Vidal's other work, recent politics, taste in music. . . .

--J.D.

rlogan

JD - in part it is just too awful if every single shred of it is forgery.

If it began with a historical Jesus that got blown out of proportion then it is somewhat more excusable.

I was a gospel singer in my youth. Fellowship of Christian Atheletes. Campus Crusade for Christ. Campus Bible Study. Worked Church camps in summer for kids.

So I think you might understand how one would feel if there wasn't one iota of truth in any of it...