Vinnie

An HJ was constructed by the end of the first century. If we have a whole period of time (100-200 years?) where an HJ was normative and no relic-ing or relic-ers there is nothing more to add to your and Doherty's nonsense that is plainly refuted. I hope you don't expect critical thinkers here to actually let you use such double standards. Face the implication the silence has for your own argument.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

It took time for HJ to take root. It was not accepted without opposition. I am sure I don't need to educate you about beliefs people held in the 'Roman world' in the first 2.5 centuries.

Toto

Moderator's note: A few intemperate posts were deleted because they violated my notice to stay on topic. Please relate the discussion to Dr. Fredriksen's response to Doherty.

Vinnie

I don't see how my last post to JA was off topic. The one to spin yeah.

Educate away. Many Christians believed in an HJ in the late firsy century. Many more Christians believed in an HJ by the mid 2d century. Many Christians believed in an HJ at the end of the 2d century. Many Christians believed in an HJ by the mid 3rd century and so on.

When exactly do the relic-ing and site-veneration begin?

Vinnie

Layman

What is the evidence of this opposition? I'm unaware of any internal clashes within Christianity about whether Jesus existed or not? I suppose the closest thing would be Marcion. But Marcion believed Jesus existed here on earth and did miracles and taught things. He just rejected the idea that Jesus was fully human.

http://www.didjesusexist.com/marcion.html

The Marcionite Controversy provides a good example of what we might expect if there was such "opposition" to the HJ taking root. What do you consider the best examples of this dispute? Where, for example, are the equivelants of Tertullians arguments against Marcion for those who claimed Jesus never came to earth at all but only existed in a lower celestial realm?

Steven Carr

LAYMAN
I'm unaware of any internal clashes within Christianity about whether Jesus existed or not?

CARR
1 John 4:2 '2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.'

2 John 1:7 'Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.


Preusmably there were people who did not acknowledge that Jesus had come in the flesh.

rlogan

Layman, Vinnie, GD, and others...


You guys have been getting away with this far too long.

The extant canon beliefs were not established and widespread until long after your implied propaganda.

That there were late 2nd century Christians who did not believe Christ was even crucified until very old age is evidenced by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies":

"Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."

now this was something like 175-185 A.D.

You have no census of Christians in total, let alone the various sub-strains. We don't even have all of the various gospels we think existed. It is difficult to make out a coherency from this mess of redactions, interpolations, and inconsistent strains.

What you guys are doing is pretending that even if there were a proportion of "HJ'ers" that they all believed in Luke or Mark, or the extant canon anyway. Not true.

No, the onus is on the HJers like Fredriksen to provide positive evidence of existence rather than to expect Mythicists to give the exact date widespread consistent traditions would evolve from a hopeless cornucopia of mutually inconsistent substrains of Christianity.

Vinnie

First all, my argument doesn't require everyone believed exactly the same thing. You have articulated baseless propoganda. I never said all the beliefs were unanimous or that they were in perfect agreement. You are knocking down a straw man. Let me requote it for you:

Many Christians believed in an HJ in the late firsy century. Many more Christians believed in an HJ by the mid 2d century. Many Christians believed in an HJ at the end of the 2d century. Many Christians believed in an HJ by the mid 3rd century and so on.

When exactly do the relic-ing and site-veneration begin?

If you are looking to point out contradictions in the Bible or between various Christian cells throughout the first three centuries, find someone who wants to do apologetics with you. I'm doing my best to do history. You counter with apologetical nonsense which caricatures and straw man's my position and you have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda while doing it?

The point is that countless Christians from ca 70 C.E. through 300 C.E. believed in an historical Jesus whop died for the sins of thw world, was this great deity, was God's Son or whatever high christological title you want to supply the man.

Why is their no relic-ing or veneration during this period? The onus of proof is on you to explain this as your objection assumes "belief in such an Hj leads inevitable to relic-ing anf venation". By all means, defend your assertions.

Vinnie

Layman

Marcion didn't think Jesus came in the flesh either. But he believed Jesus came.

But just to be clear, are you arguing that 1 and 2 John attests to a belief in a historical, human Jesus?

rlogan

Because it was a myth.

Countless? Give me the number. This is not a trivial point. The strength of an early movement is many times exaggerated to lend an air of legitimacy. There's no positive evidence of "countless". Late in that period, large numbers.

I would say that feeding five thousand with a box of twinkies and a dead man appearing before 500 people are evidence of exaggerations. Having pilate turn to a crowd for a death penalty decision on a fabricated passover tradition is an exaggeration.

But tell me the number of Christians or proportion of the population believing in an HJ empty tomb scenario even in 150 A.D., that had any idea where it would be.

After you've done that, demonstrate how easy it is to pull off a stunt of the "jesus buried here" magnitude. Walk me through that.

I do not understand how you have any point whatsoever. Is there some literature out there giving a set of case studies on this sort of thing?

Page 59 of historical determination manual: "Should no widespread veneration of made-up thing appear by unknown number of followers that disagree with one another on basic premises appear by 100 years then said event is true, so long as at some later date veneration begins."

There is a place called North Pole, Alaska. Letters to Santa Clause are delivered there to a place called the Santa Claus House, and they are answered. People visit there every summer and have their photo taken with Santa. This tradition started centuries after the first myths arose.

Now, by your standard Santa is real because the intervening time is too long between the establishment of the myth and this tradition. The people who fully believe in him are tricked by stories of magic and promises of reward. Said people trust the storytellers as sincere because they are authority figures and all of their cohorts are under the same delusion. Fabricated literature forms a pseudo-historical basis. Etc.

In this case we might have a Bishop named Nicolas in the 4th century, but we cannot tell. Evidence is lacking and some of the assertions - such as attending Nicea, are not backed up by evidence. Regardless - there is absolutely no santa claus. If there was a Bishop of Myra then he bears no resemblance to the sleigh riding, elf tending fat man.

What is important is that the principals did no homage or veneration. That is evidence, especially where I've shown an express tradition of Jewish veneration for dead righteous people.

After that point it would be difficult to say when such a thing would begin.

You've made no point whatever.