aa5874

There is no evidence for an historical core.

You cannot even explain to me or anyone else how a man who was suicidal, committed suicide, was executed as a blasphemer was eventually confused as a God with the power and authority to forgive when Jews do not worship men as Gods.

If Peter of the NT was a Jew, he would not worship a suicidal blasphemer as a God or confuse a blasphemer for a God and ask him to forgive the sins of the Jews. Jews do not worship men as Gods.

If the letter writer called Paul was a real Jew, he would not worship a suicidal blasphemer as a God, or confuse a blasphemer for a God and ask him to forgive the sins of the Jews while still obeying the Mosaic Laws and the Jewish Temple still standing.

The NT and church writings cannot sustain a suicidal blasphemer as a God during the days of Pilate.

But, don't you realise that your suicidal man is against the teachings of some religions? To many religious people, you are a bias skeptic who has no evidence to even explain your position.

Origen wrote in "De prinicipiis" that the offspring of the Holy Ghost was truly born of a virgin and truly resurrected and ascended.

Origen in De Principiis Why don't you accept Origen's presentation about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union and ascended?

Because you are biased against religion.

I am not biased against religion, it is true that Origen's Jesus was presented as a myth, as TRULY the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin and truly resurrected and ascended.

You are biased against religion so you deny Origen's presentation that Jesus was truly the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the son of a God and claim that Jesus was just a suicidal man.

You are so bias.

Toto

Nice that you admit this.

This is just an assumption. There is no data that you can produce that supports the idea that a historical core is more plausible. There are cases where we know that a real historical person has been mythologized. There are also cases where there is a myth, with no identifiable historical basis.

I think that you are just rejecting the entire idea of mythicism without understanding it, and in the process attributing ineptness and bad motives to your opponents, which is not our preferred method of discussion. When bacht pointed out your apparent lack of understanding, you labeled that an ad hominem. But you feel free to insult everyone else.

You have also hijacked this thread. Watch for a split.

dog-on

You have failed to even begin to point out why you think so, in any way that is relevant to my "theory".
It is not my job to make assumptions, or to answer yours, for that matter. Any evidence, for these particular gems, you would like to present?

Obvious to you, but I need some evidence. Why, exactly do you think that "it is meant to be read as trying to support the belief in a particular messiah"?

How does this add anything to my "theory? The only answers one would come up with would be pure conjecture, unless you would like to present some evidence as to why this would not be the case.

Don't know, but if you would like to present some evidence for a particular position, be my guest. None of these questions effect my "theory", unless you can show reasons why they would.

Do you? Please present your evidence here for examination.
Yet, you cannot even begin to put a dent in it. Once again, please refute the following, with evidence to support your position:

1. Paul makes up a revelation about a god named Jesus Christ.
2. Some time later, a writer, (we'll call Mark, for the sake of this discussion), composes a fictional biography based on Paul's letters, the LXX and maybe some author's writings, like Josephus, for instance.

No Robots

Well, the movement was wholly Jewish at the outset, but was quickly sundered from its Jewish roots. Here is how one Jewish writer puts it:

Christ was the last myth that grew up in Jewish soil. Had the Jews been allowed several more centuries of a total or quasi-independence the Christ myth would have been incorporated into the Jewish Hagiology and perhaps would have utterly changed the essence of Judaism. But history severed Christ from Jews. Uprooted from its native soil, Christianity became a rootless religion. An itinerant creed could not agree with a vagrant nation. It had to find other believers, earth-rooted, rock-bound, who felt in this new, romantic, foreign creed a gospel of freedom and high adventure, the romance of man who became God.--"The romance of man who became God" / Abraham Coralnik. In The Reflex, June 1928, pp. 28-35.

The rediscovery of Christianity's Jewish roots is the only really important development in NT studies over the last century.

GakuseiDon

Isn't this fairly close to the historicist position anyway? Certainly, if we take Paul's letters (the ones generally considered to be original to him) as we have them now[***], there is no reason to think that Paul wasn't talking about (1) an earthly Jesus (2) who was crucified in Jerusalem, and (3) in Paul's near past.

Mark based his Gospel on this Jesus, using new material based on the LXX, or existing material refashioned to conform to the LXX, or both.

It's not a "slam dunk" case for historicity, but isn't this the stronger and more obvious position?

_________________________________________________

[***] Just to repeat: as we have them now

Elijah

There is evidence. The oral tradition alone is evidence. There is no reliable unbiased evidence is what you mean to say.
He wasn’t thought of as a god but a messiah. Do you understand the difference? The language and legend surrounding him gets confused by people who are unfamiliar with a messiah concept and are only familiar with pagan myths type tales. How many people and when it got popular to believe in the god/man version like you do is debatable because you have to show that the writer isn’t speaking with philosophical terms and speaking strictly supernatural crap.
Do you have any idea what Peter believed about Jesus or if he even understood him? I don’t. Jews don’t worship men as gods would be why the Jews rejected him and the gentiles received him. Understanding why Jesus put himself as the image of god requires you to understand some philosophical concepts of the time especially about god being incomprehensible.
He would if he had studied Greek philosophy some and understood God beyond what the casual Jew did. Jesus and Paul represent a time when Greek thought was amalgamating with Jewish thought.
Why cite Origen? Didn’t Eusebius just make him up when he made up the church history?
I’m biased against believing what you want to believe instead of what is reasonable. So that would make me biased against some aspects of some religions yes.
You should have caught on to this by now but… it doesn’t matter how he is presented it matters how he originated.
I’m not biased against religion. I’m rational in my understanding of it. I’m not trying to destroy it, I’m trying to understand it.

Toto

Of course, it's fairly close. The difference between a completely mythical Jesus and a legendary Jesus constructed around a historical core that can't be recovered in any detail is very, very small.

But our friend Elijah sees one position as ideological and in denial of the evidence, while the other is so obvious he can't be bothered to explain why it is so obvious.

Elijah

I don’t know what you theory is, that’s why they are relevant. The questions are asked for me to be able to understand what your theory is exactly.
Well all I think you are going to be able to produce is assumptions/guesses because I don’t think you are going to be able to produce any actual evidence to support your theory. But you should be able to at least imagine what you believe to have happened if you can’t support it.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a messiah? Is that what I need to explain to you?
Because if you don’t have a basic understanding of what the story is about I find it hard to see how you can justify it interpreting it as a story much more explain how that story was somehow confusing to the people to be mistaken for history.
You have a fiction written by an unknown writer, unknown source, unknown distribution, it’s just full of holes.
How would I have evidence for your theory when I don’t even know what your theory is?
My evidence right now is that you have no theory at all. If you can’t see why you being unable to answer basic questions about your theory would be considered holes then I can’t help you.

bacht

I wonder if Christianity would have emerged at all if the Jewish state hadn't been destroyed and the Jews scattered. The notion of "cultural appropriation" may be applicable: Gentiles cherry-picking the scriptures AFTER the Jews had no power to prevent or educate them.

We don't know what would have happened if Constantine and his followers hadn't endorsed Xtianity at the highest level. We don't know that Xtianity would have had the staying power that Judaism showed before and after the fall of the temple. Considering the almost total hostility towards Jews in Europe it's nearly miraculous that they survived the Middle Ages.

Elijah

I sadly kind of pride myself in it actually.
Data? What kind of data is going to address the plausibility of a historical core versus a mythical one? It’s a thought exercise; you lay out the scenario and the elements required to create a myth that gets confused for a man versus the scenario that turns a man into a myth.

The scenario that is required to turn a myth into a man is a difficult and improbable scenario to imagine. While the historical core regarding a messiah when imagined should be expected to be mythicized some. That’s why I feel it is far more probable that a historical core is likely.

We’ve had the discussion about the other myth to man instances and I don’t think it was a very good selection with nothing comparable to what happened with Jesus. But I'm not sure what myth you would present that you're sure lacks a historical core which most resembles the Jesus story? Comparing his story to the myth of Ra doesn't make sense, so I don't know what myth you think is a good example.
I don’t understand it, that’s obvious. I’ve been asking questions and being ignored or told my questions are irrelevant.

I apologize to anyone I insulted, whomever or how many that was.
It was accidental.