aeebee50

Seems they were busy spreading love.

stephan huller

I should read all the posts before opening mouth sorry Jay

blastula

Oh darn. Too bad for me and the comparison that there are no inconsistencies in the stories of Jesus,

Of course, because a literary invention must have inconsistencies.

mountainman

Hi blastula,

It would be interesting to see him make the attempt.

However the way I see it, those who are serious about the comparison between Don Juan and Jesus as fictional entities need to present their own ancient historical metrics by which the HJ of Carlos Eusebius is exposed in plain view. If indeed Jesus was a fiction character in a fiction book, how do we explain the rise of christianity? Did some ancient sorceror spike the drinking water of the Roman Empire with peyote?

Best wishes,



Pete

blastula

How do we explain the rise of Judaism if Yawheh and Moses were fictional?

mountainman

These are valid questions.


Here's one way of answering the question if the Historical Jesus was invented
in the fourth century ....

aa5874

How do we explain the worship of Roman and Greek Gods in antiquity if they were fictional?

How do we explain the worship of Marcion's Phantom when the Phantom the PHANTOM was described WITHOUT birth and WITHOUT flesh?

How do we explain the worship of the God ZEUS if he was fictional?

It can be EXPLAINED rather easily---The very same way HJers BELIEVE Jesus of the NT did exist WITHOUT any credible evidence from antiquity.

Don Juan may be described as human but Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost.

Why are people comparing stories about human characters to Jesus Christ?

Who would even dare compare a Don Juan character to ZEUS, or Serapis?

The stories about Jesus Christ CANNOT be dismissed as IRRELEVANT just like the stories of any Don Juan character cannot be ALTERED or DISMISSED.

No one can CHANGE any version of the Don Juan character even if fictional. Every version of the Don Juan character MUST be left as found.

Why are the Jesus stories ALTERED and DISMISSED and then RE-INVENTED in order to compare to VERSIONS of Don Juan that are LEFT EXACTLY as they were found?

Perhaps one can compare Don Juan with Robin Hood but certainly NOT Jesus the Child of the Ghost.

Marcion's Phantom is comparable to Jesus, the offspring of the Ghost, NOT the versions of the human character Don Juan.

stephan huller

Mountainman

If there were a way you could apply your talent for developing beautiful but utterly worthless graphs, pie charts and tables you'd be set for life. Wait a minute. There is such a place where these skills are deemed invaluable. Being a mid-level manager in a government department. You missed your calling, my friend

avi

I disagree. I find Pete's charts, graphs, and tables very informative, and instructive. I don't always agree with him or with them, e.g. radiocarbon dating, however, on the whole, I would argue that Pete's charts, graphs, and tables, are both relevant, and persuasive. Good effort, Pete!

I wish that you, Stephan, or someone else, would refute Pete's hypothesis, using similarly instructive visual aids, rather than simply writing text:

a. declaring that it is Pete's obligation to prove his point (which may be the norm for the process of legal wrangling, I wouldn't know);

b. simply dismissing the notion that most of what we think of, when we write 'Christianity', evolved in accord with the ascension of political power by the Roman emperor, Constantine.

For example, consider your own favorite topic: Alexandria, circa 200-300 CE. Have you some pie charts, or graphs, or tables to present, which explain why your hypotheses on the evolution (or origin) of Christianity makes more sense than the more widely accepted theory of the domination of the Roman church?

It is my opinion, if no one else's, that to be regarded as "utterly worthless", the charts, tables, and graphs would have to misrepresent the known data.

Is it your contention, then, since you agree with me that the visual aids Pete provides are attractive, that the data presented by Pete, in these informative instructional crutches, is wrong, misleading, erroneous, or improperly collated?

In other words, are his visual aids "utterly worthless" because the content contained within these visual aides is false, biased, distorted, attenuated, or dishonest?

I believe Pete presents his data honestly, without a notable selection bias, and represents his opinion, based in part, at least, on the results obtained by thorough study of the available literature. In my opinion, such representation, while insufficient to prove his thesis, nevertheless offers an unbiased, amateur observer an opportunity to quickly assess Pete's argument, without a requirement to first master four semitic languages, as well as Greek, Latin, and Coptic.

Perhaps you intended to write that you foind his visual aides unpersuasive, rather than "utterly worthless"? In such a circumstance, a more scholarly tradition would offer assistance to Pete, by clarifying with precision, precisely why his xyz chart or table was inaccurate, from your perspective.....

avi

mountainman

stephan huller, my friend,

I find it a good exercise to try and reduce 1000 words to one picture. I spent a decade in such an office and moved on over two decades ago. You might say I have "Been there before".

Thank you avi for your numerous comments here and elsewhere, on various issues, I have been refraining from posting much lately, but I have been reading through the discussions.

To return to the OP I think that it would be an excellent idea to seek some form of "scholarly response" on the issue of the comparsion of Don Juan and Jesus as"historical figures".

Best wishes,


Pete