fatpie42

What for? You do realise that one of the problems with the gospel narrative is that there doesn't appear to be any reason to arrest Jesus in the first place? Apparently the witnesses at the trial are paid to bear false witness, but that doesn't explain why they wanted Jesus arrested in the first place. Jesus' debates with the pharisees are no different from the kinds of arguments they had with one another and, in any case, they weren't the ones who eventually had him killed.

If Jesus was going to do whatever it took to be killed by the establishment, you'd expect him to try a lot harder than that. That said, why propose that he wants the religious authorities to take him down anyway? You seem to think you know an awful lot about this historical Jesus figure considering that you only have a mythical account to go on...

Dude, this is all highly speculative. You don't have any good reason to believe any of this.

What are you trying to say here? John the Baptist left no writings, but he is found within external sources like Josephus so we know that he existed. Socrates similarly left no writings, but there is evidence from a variety of sources that he existed. Jesus has only mythical accounts written decades after his death which somehow manage to all be:
inconsistent with known historical facts
inconsistent with one another
near word-for-word identical at certain points

Do these sound like reliable documents for assessing historical fact?

Uh-huh. So, like I said, the comparison Paul makes with Jesus would be mythical.

So what historical event is rising into heaven after having resurrected from the dead meant to represent? Let's face it, this isn't a symbol of a historical event. It's clearly mythological. It's relating a spiritual belief, not a historical event.

I don't really know how I can get you to understand this. The idea that a person's death provides eternal life is not a historical belief. It is a mythical belief. The idea that a person died might be a historical belief, but the idea that the death then provides eternal life is most certainly not.

Separate to that issue we have the other point I have made several times before. Even though Paul feels that he needs Jesus' death to be historical, Paul never met Jesus and cannot verify whether it was a real person who died.

I don't have a clue what you are on about here and I'm not sure you do either.

I'm sorry but this complete cr*p. You are trying to affirm your historical Jesus by making him unfalsifiable.

I have compared Jesus to Socrates and John the Baptist too, yet for some reason comparing him with Dionysos seems to annoy you. Why? After all, Jesus was a man-god, so why not compare him with a man-god? I fully admit that the context will be different in both cases, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable comparison.

What historical core?

So you are going to stick with your theory based on a bunch of holes in place of a theory based on a bunch of holes. The difference between my theory and your theory is that I fully admit the holes are there and leave them where they are, while you feel the need to plug the holes with unsubstantiated nonsense. You have no reason to propose a historical Jesus.

Well you clearly didn't read it since you seem more confused than ever as to what mythological means...

Like I said before: what sacrifice? A non-divine historical Jesus made no sacrifice.

This is such hypocrisy. I'm not simply being sceptical. I have good reasons to take the gospel account to be mythical and so I have followed the evidence where it leads. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no reason to propose that Jesus was historical apart from a 'gut feeling'.

Like, say, conveying that humans have been freed from 'sin' (as if sin were something we 'carried') by a 'perfect human' who acts as a counterbalance to another mythical figure like say 'the first human' (i.e. Adam)?

Seriously, if this isn't symbolism what the f**k is it?

Nope.

The idea that the messiah was meant to be 'ruler of the Jews' is a very simplistic and one-sided account. Actually there were several different ideas of what was expected of a messiah. The dead sea scrolls imagined that there would actually be two messiahs, a son of david to prepare the way and a son of Aaron to actually lead the Jews into battle.

Dionysos does not appear to fit into your pagan superbaby model. Most likely because, like with your portrayal of the messiah, it is hideously simplified.

So let's get this straight. We know for certain that Jesus was a mythical figure, but unless I can prove that there was never a stage when Jesus wasn't a mythical figure, you expect me to believe that Jesus had historical origins. Why? See I only imagine that Jesus went from being mythical to being mythical. You expect me to imagine that Jesus was once historical in spite of a complete absence of historical evidence for it.

fatpie42

What the hell is that meant to mean?

Most messiahs were claiming to be able to beat Rome in combat and the view that there was no hope of beating Rome in combat seems to have been pretty unpopular when we consider the events which led to the destruction of the Temple.

What a load of nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence that this was what Christianity was about. You are presuming too much and giving too little reason for it.

Lol! Christianity didn't gain real power until Constantine made it the main religion of the empire. His mother, Helena, 'discovered' various relics such as the site of Jesus' death and the 'true cross'.

Then let's remember that Jews are demonised within the gospels. "His blood is on our hands and the hands of our children." Remember that? If Jesus' death was really intended to bring power to the Jews it was a hideous failure. Centuries of persecution against the Jews can be blamed on the religion of Christianity.

We're not the ones with the cartoon understanding of demigods.

The point is that forgiving sins, abolishing the law and faith healing do not demonstrate a historical messiah figure. The messiah figures who we know really existed did not act like the description of Jesus in the gospels. However, performing miraculous feats and doing the whole 'dying and rising' thing is very much in line with those 'pagan superbabies' you wanted us to avoid mentioning. So, what is your criteria again?

Elijah

It was the attention of the people he was drawing. I actually answered this question just the other day with some quotes in this thread. And someone else put this in later for something else but I thought was relative.

Mark 11:18"And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine."

All he needs to do is get the people’s attention to become a threat to the authority.
If he does something too unlawful then the people will see no problem with his execution and the point will be lost.
Which part? The eternal life stuff the authority stuff or the martyrdom angle?
I’m saying that you can be skeptical of everything and everyone’s existence and asking for tangible evidence of someone back then is ridiculous.

What spiritual aspect does Adam or Jesus represent you think?
What do you mean it is clearly mythological? I can understand it being impossible but why not consider it symbolic, a vision or just a legend?
I’m not sure if I get your understanding of mythical here. It’s not a mythical belief IMO if they believe in actual eternal life and an actual resurrection being facilitated by a single man’s actual death and resurrection.

Nope he can’t. Someone else could have made it up and been pulling his leg, but we don’t have any reason to believe that is the case.
From the passage you were referencing: 1 corinthians 15:24 “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

I can’t believe you have never been exposed to the anti authority understanding of Christ. The Pope may disagree but it shouldn’t be foreign to you.

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

No just trying to keep the playing field level. What’s expected of me is expected of you.
If you don’t think Jesus is meant to be understood as a Jewish messiah but a Pagan god then that’s the case you should be trying to make. If “son of god” isn’t a title of a Jewish messiah to you and instead describes the biological offspring of a supernatural genie god then make the case. You may be able to make a solid case for it, I don’t know. I think the messiah angle is pretty clear cut but maybe you see it some other way.
The guy who sacrificed himself and started the line of martyrs.
I don’t know what your theory is, sorry. It appears you don’t believe in a historical core but I’m not exactly sure why.

I must not have because it seemed to be supporting me and a historical core.
How would you know?
The accounts may be mythical in your understanding but the source of the accounts may revolve around a historical figure and his sacrifice.

Altering meme structures. Changing people’s preconceived notions of certain religious concepts as new ideas evolve. Forgiveness from sin comes from understanding that people’s errors come from ignorance not evil.

Any mythical messiahs they were waiting on?
Don’t criticize, demonstrate that awesome understanding of Dionysos.

We know for certain that the narrative about him has impossible claims; if you wish to call them mythical then that is your word choice. You don’t have to prove he had mythical origin to me, you only have to present a complete and coherent theory on what you think happened. If he is and has been considered historical then you need to explain why you think he had mythical origins and what happened for the confusion.
If all you have is how Jesus is presented in the Gospels as evidence of him being mythical then you don’t have enough to make the case. The historical side makes room and expects the legends around a messiah figure they are trying to promote.

Is Jesus a myth that represents a spiritual aspect of the universe or the story of a messiah? If aspect, what aspect?
You know be careful chasing monsters and looking into abysses. Or that the new empire replaces the old empire but the empire always remains.
Yep and the inevitable expected defeat of every messiah that came and would come is why there was the attraction to the ideological messiah. If you can’t beat them with strength, beat them with ideas.
So?
By all means a demonstration is in order then. What is your understanding of the Pagan gods and how does that relate to the son of god concept with Christ and the Jews?
No it doesn’t demonstrate a historical figure but it isn’t limited to divine beings. Any messiah figures we know of that are mythological based or is Jesus the only one?

My criteria for what?

spin

Good, simple, logical question in this situation.

Umm, the evidence for this?...

Falls all over himself with presuppositions that he cannot see, opening more problems for himself that he obfuscates, unable to understand the first thing about what he is supposed to respond.

But it is more reasonable than this:
Said not realizing that using a term like "historical core" requires a certain level of evidence to be held by the user of the term. If someone claims something has a historical core, that someone obviously has evidence to demonstrate the claim, for that's what the use of "historical" implies. Elijah old buddy has strenuously refused to start the process of showing that there is any history at all that he can reclaim from the Jesus traditions.


This is a one trick pony. He cannot show anything to make his hobby horse credible, so once again he tries to shift the burden onto his interlocutor. Yup, we have heard all this before. As I said, "one trick...".


spin

So slow down
And hear this sound
One-trick pony

fatpie42

The problem is that, like claims about huge crowds of followers, this is clearly complete cr*p.

Were the pharisees and high priests illiterate? If not, why did such a major figure with such a huge following fail to get a mention in any of their writings? Also, perhaps more importantly, why didn't the other messiahs (who would also be claiming religious authority) get a similar treatment?

Just claiming to have religious authority isn't enough to get Jesus executed and even within the gospels it is fully admitted that there were many places Jesus went where he was unable to encourage any people to follow him at all.

The claim that the high priests ordered his execution because they felt he was a threat to their authority is not only completely unsubstantiated, but completely implausible.

You've just made your theory completely unfalsifiable. On the one hand you are saying that if there were any reason to think that Jesus did anything wrong, he would have betrayed his cause. Yet, on the other hand if there is no reason to think that Jesus did anything wrong, we are meant to suppose that 'behind the scenes' he was actively attempting to get himself arrested by the authorities.

All of it. You have no basis on which to attach any of it to 'the historical Jesus'. If you believe you have such a basis you probably should have mentioned it about 5 pages back in the discussion.

I'm not sceptical of everything and everyone's existence. I accept that John the Baptist existed, I accept that Pilate existed, I accept that the high priests existed, and I accept that Socrates existed. There is evidence that these people existed, but there isn't any that a historical Jesus existed. As such, it seems clear to me that many of the people of the time can be expected to have historical backing, but Jesus is not one of them.

My understanding of myth is exactly the same as that of Bultmann. If you don't understand Bultmann you won't understand me. Take the kingdom of God for example. Do they actually believe in the kingdom of God? Yes they do. Is this is a historical belief? Well no, it's a spiritual belief. It is eschatological, so it refers to both an end times (which many, if not most, followers will take literally) and to their present reality. The same goes for the understanding of sin which Paul explains through consideration of the figure of Adam and the same also goes for belief in 'eternal life'. These beliefs are eschatological, spiritual and form part of a clearly mythological world view.

Well there's where we clearly differ. I cannot understand how you can see such a view as anything other than mythological.

I don't think you quite understand this. You claim there would have to be a real person otherwise Paul could not have come up with a myth surrounding them. However, all Paul needs to have been told about is a mythical person who he mistakes for a historical one. If I presume that Spin was wrong about Paul being the originator of the myth (as I have generally suspected), Paul came across a mythical character which was being tied in with the Jewish concept of the messiah and then came to the conclusion that this person must have been historical. It was already believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, but Paul, contrary to many of those around him, decides that Jesus' resurrection must have been historical. Does he decide to affirm this by appeal to personal testimony from mulitple sources? No, he decides to find a mythological reason why a historical resurrection is important i.e. because it enables eternal life.

What we are talking about here, of course, is the development of the myth. What we haven't touched upon is where the historical Jesus would come in. What seems particularly implausible to me is that there was a historical Jesus who never rose from the dead who nevertheless managed to encouage a die-hard following. In such a scenario it seems like the historical Jesus would not play much more of a part than a random anecdote about an execution to get the ball rolling when forming the more extravagant myth. In which case, I wonder why we are supposed to presume that the myth had any particular historical case of an execution in mind.

It sounds like your protestant bias in interpretation coming to the fore again. "The ruler of this world" is clearly 'the devil'. If the devil is meant to represent the Roman authorities then that is, once again, mythological. In any case though, criticism of Rome is not the issue I was getting at.

All I was saying was that the use of the concept of 'first fruits' is mythological.

This is a false dichotomy. What we have to go on is the Jesus myth as recorded in the epistles and the gospels. In those books Jesus clearly has elements of both demi-god and messianic status. He cannot be claimed to be entirely one without the other.

So does there have to only one guy, or could it be a variety of guys? Plenty of people were executed in Jerusalem. Can the historical Jesus be several cases of this, or does he have to be a singular individual? You see, I wouldn't take a myth based on real executions to mean that there was a real historical Jesus, but perhaps you are looking at this differently.

The complete lack of historical evidence. I thought I'd made this pretty clear.

How would you know either?

Within the gospels we are told of a man who is arrested and executed. People who are arrested and executed are not sacrificing themselves. They are being murdered formally by the state. Jesus is claimed to have been sacrificing himself because he had the power of God to prevent his execution and refrained from using it. If we are prposing a human historical figure without the power of God then, in the story we see within the NT, he did not sacrifice himself but was simply executed by the state.

Indeed. That would be 'mythology' then....

What exactly do you want me to say. Dionysos, like many mythical figures, is often described as existing within a historical context, interacting with real people, and his actions are believed to have meanings for human beings in the here and now. Where is that drastically different from the Jesus myth?

I don't know that there is any confusion. Dionysos was believed to be real by his followers. Believing that mythical figures were real was quite normal. I could not, for the life of me, find evidence of how the 9/11 conspiracies got started. Thing like this just have a life of their own and the same goes for myths in the first century.

I have a mythological story and you don't think that is enough to assert that Jesus was a myth? Have you given this any thought at all?

In other words a 'mythological messiah'.

arnoldo

Vernard Eller goes into great depth about this concept of "revererse fighting" in his book War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation (or via: amazon.co.uk) which was commented in the following post. Also the following source gives a good interpretation of this concept as well.
Maybe the comment "he spat in peoples [sic]eyes" is meant to be an appeal to ridicule? :huh:

aa5874

What is in the NT is a creature who was conceived through the Holy Ghost and was doing "magic tricks" while at the same time was calling the Jews vipers and agents of the Devil. When the NT is examined carefully Jesus really had no "messianic" status with respect to the Jews, perhaps a prophet, but surely not a Messiah.

There was Simon bar Kokhba who was declared a Messiah. He was not doing "magic tricks". He was defending the Jews against their enemies and plotting to defeat or destroy them.

Elijah should realise by now that Jews do not become Messiahs just by getting crucified. Hundreds of Jews were crucified.

fatpie42

Actually some messiahs would claim that they could perform major 'magic tricks'. The problem was that none of them were successful in doing so. I can't remember which is which, but one claimed to be able to part the waters like Moses while another claimed to be able to make walls collapse like Joshua. I will admit, however, that these Messiahs had a very definite goal with their proposed tricks, not simply symbolic meanings to convey.

aa5874

Moses and Joshua were not referred to as Messiahs.

The word "Messiah" is only found in the book called Daniel, and only twice in Daniel 9

The Messiah was expected sometime after the writings of Daniel, possibly 490 years later.

fatpie42

No, that's not what I was saying.

What I said was that some messiahs around Jesus' time (i.e. failed messiahs of course) claimed that they would perform a huge miracle. One based their miracle on Moses and the other based their miracle on Joshua. I never meant to say that Moses or Joshua were messiahs. My point was that people such as 'the Egyptian' claiming to be the messiah around Jesus' time did claim that they could perform magic tricks of a kind. That's all I was saying.