Solo

Oh, the legal argument, is it ? But we are talking historical evidence: Tacitus had some information which he considered credible enough to spread around with his name on it. So, if you really are a dyed-in-the-wool mythicist, the best bet would be the interpolation theory AFAICS. At any rate, the max you can get out of Tacitus is "inconclusive" witness. You can't argue, as s_n_m does that Tacitus writing is evidence for mere beliefs about Jesus by Christians. That is an assumption in want of a proof.

Jiri

ercatli

G'day Don, thanks for joining in.

I don't know where everyone here is coming from, so first I'd better clarify. I have taken just two excerpts from your comments. The only way I can make sense of them is that, yes, there were people around who thought Jesus was a spiritual, non-material, being, but that the author of 1 John was stating that this wasn't the truth (in his view).

Is that what you meant? That would still leave my statement correct, wouldn't it? Or have I misunderstood you?

spin

^{[Oh dear.]}

Not really my interest.

I do not.

How about "a traditional narrative which embodies/explains a religious concept/ritual"? You know, something like that which people like Hooke and Campbell who have been writing about mythology for a century understand by the term?? You remember the joke that myth is someone else's religion.

The pair of mythical & historical is not a binary taxonomy, a problem I alluded to when I said 'MJ is only one alternative to HJ (unless you overgeneralize the usage of "mythical" to mean "not historical")'. There are other positions, such as those duffers who want it to be deliberately fictional. Ebion doesn't fit into any of these three categories, ie he's not mythical, nor historical, nor even deliberately fictional.

Your discussion about myth had nothing to do with the main content of my post which was aimed at your reaction to the 0% option, which you reject our of hand (and which I don't advocate). Will you now care to explain how you can assume that at least some of the content of the gospels must be based on fact when there is no necessity to make such an assumption?

A task of the historian is not to assume anything they can be aware of assuming.


spin

storytime

What does it matter anyway when the story itself tells us that Jesus wasn't sent to non-Jews[Gentiles]? That his Jewishness alone prohibited him from extending the kingdom of God to any people who refused to commit themselves to the same tradition as the Jews?

I fail to see the use for argument after Jesus says: "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the House of Israel." Whatever church history of an historical Jesus one might think there is, Jesus statement denies Christianity it's "proof".

ercatli

If you check Kapyong's original comment, to which I responded, you will note that he/she did not say "there is no archeology which mentions Jesus" , but rather said "there is NO archeology to support the existance of Jesus." I suggested that when archaeology, sometimes unexpectedly, supports the historical veracity of a document, that document's credibility is enhanced (just as its credibility would be reduced by mistakes). I that sense, archeology does indeed "support" the existence of Jesus indirectly by supporting the credibility of the gospels - and that is what I said.

Perhaps you would like to summarise what these volumes are and how you would establish that line of argument, please?

Thanks.

GakuseiDon

I think the writings in the NT support an early belief in docetism. So I think we do see that belief in the NT, though indirectly. (This is in response to your earlier question -- not sure what statement you are referring to, I'm afraid.)

ercatli

I am aware of them. Bibles clearly label them as being doubtful, and I think some Bibles do not include them. I'm not sure anything can be made out of those two that hasn't been known for a long time.

Presumably, if he can distinguish these changes, he is able to identify both the early (genuine) and late (modified) teachings. And, I guess, thus recover genuine historical information about Jesus. I wonder if you could give an example please?

Thanks.

PS Do you think our discussion is going anywhere? I've got the feeling it's a little bogged down in minutiae. Is there a particular matter you'd like to raise which you feel would challenge my current beliefs? None of the above seem to do that, but that maybe just because you haven't explained them to me.

GakuseiDon

I'm not saying it proves that Jesus existed, merely that such an early declaration for a historical Jesus is evidence.

Toto

You have shown up and taken positions that have been thoroughly discussed, deconstructed, and examined from every point of view in the past number of years here.

You continue to bring up Grant. I have explained why Grant is not helpful. I gave you links. You show no indication of having read the links, you have no response to the points made there, so why continue?

You quote some writers who claim that there is a historical core to the gospels that can be recovered. Yes, there are people with PhD's who claim that, but they haven't come up with a clear method of recovering that historical core, and they don't agree on the results. You show no indication that you are aware of the problems in extracting history from theological documents, which go well beyond the idea that some details might be inaccurate. Are you aware of the massive problems of the "criteria of embarrassment" or the other so-called tools that they use? Again, why continue?

aa5874

Well, let's examine the NT. The Jesus of the NT is clearly a mythological creature, both God and man, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

Matthew 1.18 - Luke 1:35 - Joh 1: - Matthew 14.25-26 Mark 9.2-4Mr 16:6 - Lu 24:51 - Galatians 1:1 - In the NT, Jesus was a mythological creature, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

Now, let us look at the Church writings.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ 18.

Again, based on the Church writing Jesus was of the seed of God.

Now, let's look at Tacitus' Annals 15.44.

1. The word Jesus is missing from the passage.

2. No Church writer used Annals 15.44, not even Eusebius, to show that Christus was Jesus of Nazareth.

3. Jesus was not known as Christus when he lived according to the NT and he forbade his disciples to call him Christ.

4. Based on the NT, the authors claimed many persons will claim to be Christ.

5. Based on the Gospel of Mark, there was another person who used the name of Jesus or Christ when Jesus of Nazareth supposedly lived.

6. Based on Justin Martyr, it was not necessary to believe in Jesus to be called a Christian since the days of Claudius. People who believe in the magician Simon Magus were called Christians.

7. The passage in Annals 15.44 with the word Christus may be a forgery, since, up to the start of the 5th century, references were made of Nero's persecution of Christians but no mention at all of Christus.


Let's look Josephus Antiquities of Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

1. In the TF, AJ 18.3.3, it is claimed Jesus resurrected. The Jesus in the TF was not human, and the passage appears to be a forgery.

2. In AJ 20.9.1. some character called James, it is claimed, had a brother Jesus who was called Christ, now if this Jesus was the same Jesus in the forged TF, THEN he was mythological. Humans do not resurrect. In the NT, Jesus had a mother named MARY but no earthly father, his seed was from God.

3. In the writings of Jerome, a Church writer, it was later claimed Jesus of the NT did NOT have any brother called James.

All the sources that you made reference to show a mythological creature, a God/man called Jesus or made no mention of his name.

There is NO external historical sources for JESUS only forgeries.

And finally for now, this is Origen in the Preface of De Principiis There is no abundance of evidence anywhere that Jesus was a mere man, it is the complete reverse.

There are only two extant forged passages with the name Jesus.

The abundance of evidence or information of antiquity shows that Jesus was considered a God who became incarnate, a mythological creature, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.