Toto

I guess you didn't read the article carefully enough.

As with Jesus, there is not enough evidence to convince anyone beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there are reasonable hypotheses that may explain the evidence. Sometimes it is just an interesting exercise to examine different hypotheses and get out of your mental straightjacket.

See above. I don't know why you think this is obscure, as it was published in a magazine of fairly wide circulation.

No Robots

The interesting thing here is that the author, Charlotte Allen, is a vociferous conservative Christian. I wonder if she would be so blithe about mythicism applied to Christ as she is about it applied to Confucius.

aa5874

Well, why do you refuse to accept that Jesus was described as a God and that Gods are myths. Do you not read the NT and the church writings? They claimed it is true that Jesus was a God on earth n the days of Tiberius.

Such a claim is outrageously false. There was no such character on earth during that time.

I am looking for or investigating the claims of the authors of the NT AND THE CHURCH WRITERS.

If I want the description of Achilles I read Homer. I do not invent some other Achilles and then claim my Achilles probably existed

The Jesus of the NT IS FICTION, A MYTH.

I do not manufacturer my own Jesus and then claim that my fabricated Jesus probably lived.

Your Jesus comes out of your imagination. Your Jesus is a strawman.

You reject the Jesus of the NT and fabricate your own..

I do not investigate or look for strawmen.

Toto

Read her book, The Human Christ. She does not believe that the historical Jesus can be separated from the Christian fleshy part of the trinity.

Elijah

I was asking if you had any actual evidence to support the hypothesis oh him being mythical beyond what was in the article. What is the reasonable hypothesis of what evidence?

The obscureness has to do with the number of people who believe that Confucius is mythical beyond an author trying to get paid, not in the numbers of distributed copies of the publication in question.

Elijah

Because I don't know the source you are citing or your understanding of "a God".

No you misunderstand Jesus and the stories surrounding him and then go that's impossible so he couldn't have lived.

Yes it comes from my imagination of what happened based on the evidence and my experience in reality. Your Jesus comes from a child's Sunday school understanding of God and Christ. You don't seem familiar with Christianity under a political or philosophical light and are only capable of a superstitious interpretation of Christ. Your Jesus is the one that is easy to rip apart, it's your Jesus that is the strawman.

No Robots

I have.

Precisely. If she hates the idea of a merely human Christ, how much more would she hate a purely mythical Christ? I guess one could envisage an alliance of Christian traditionalists and mythicists against the idea of a merely human Christ. Maybe that is the future front line of the culture wars.

aa5874

Have you not read the NT and the church writings? Do you not know that Jesus is described as a God who existed before the world was made?

You need to read and get current.

Jesus is described as the son of the God of the Jews who was born of a virgin, did miracles, was tempted by the devil, was baptised by the Holy Ghost like doves, raised, the dead, was transfigured, crucified, resurrected ande ascended to heaven.

I only can only look for the description of Jesus from written text.

And, I know the source for your Jesus, it is your imagination. You will never find your Jesus in the NT OR THE CHURCH writings.


I have not mis-understood you at all. You reject the Jesus of the NT and have fobricated your own strawman.

You have already admitted your Jesus comes from your imagination. This is now only time wasting. You do not even know your own strawman.
You are an inventor.
I no longer deal with people's imagination and strawmen.

An investigator needs information or evidence, not a vivid imagination.

Elijah

Good job being able to support your position.

bacht

You should have learned by now Elijah that almost no-one posting here believes in the Sunday-school picture of Jesus. You should give credit where it's due: aa and others here have studied the primary and secondary material, and many have rejected the traditional orthodox view of Jesus as a Galilean prophet resurrected by God and proclaimed Saviour by Jewish and Gentile followers.

The problem for historians is that the only "evidence" we have are mss from Christians. No artifacts, no architectural remains, almost no mention from non-Christian contemporaries. "Superstitious" rather than "objective" or "historical" describes the material we have.

Your point about politics is especially a propos the 2nd C situation, when most of the NT was likely written.