Doug Shaver

Because you asserted a dogma that was endorsed, if not invented, by Plato. The dogma isn't true just because Plato taught it. Neither is it true just because you say it is.

What I want is beside the point. You made the assertion. Its defense is up to you. If you think it will take a whole thread to present your argument, you can start it.

Very well. I will revise my claim as follows.

Except for one crackpot freelance writer, nobody suggests that the actual author simply imagined a playwright by the name of William Shakespeare and put that name on the plays.

spamandham

That comes across to me as hand waving. You've done the same thing Elijah is doing; inventing a speculation to resolve what is fundamentally a problem.

Elijah

Scripture with no interpretation is kind of worthless. It’s ok to use scripture to support your position once it’s established but I can’t tell your understanding of Christ as God from these passages. The whole point was so that I don’t assume you have a cartoon understanding of what is going on so your interpretation is what is important in this discussion.

Don’t see “through Jesus Christ” as him being God.
Don’t see it with “mystery of god”
No idea the reference.
Why is the title of son of god meant to mean he was an actual god in the flesh and not just a title of honor?
What does “form of god” mean to you?
Same thing with the image of the invisible god. Again it is your interpretation here that is important for me to understand your POV.
Well I’m going with the text so work with me in order to see my point of view so the debate doesn’t keep regressing.
Insane to use no evidence as evidence when none should be expected. Certifiably insane.
I still want to know the answer to the question if that’s cool.

spamandham

If Paul says he thinks he was chosen by god, why should I not understand that to mean Paul thinks he was chosen by god? If Paul says he had a vision of going to heaven, why should I not take that to mean Paul thinks he had a vision of going to heaven (perhaps in a dream)? If Paul says he got his gospel not from men, but from scripture, why should I not understand that to mean he derived it from scripture rather than from men?

What you are doing, is simply layering onto Paul what you wish he had said. That isn't valid. You have to draw your conclusions from the text, not the other way around.

Because your position is derived from the assumption they were recording an oral history. They were not.

It's more than a mere interpretation. If you understood the genre you would know that. These types of biographies were typically written long after the fact to settle doctrinal disputes. The authors wrote whatever they wanted to support their preferred position. They weren't recording tradition, they were inventing it.

I am arguing *AGAINST YOUR METHODOLOGY* not against a historical core. I think we're at the same point we were on your absurd claim that there was a historical core to Adam. You've taken an unsupportable position, refuse to support it, or to budge from it.

Elijah

What is the responsibility for arguing against a nonexistent theory?

You mean like a skeptic hoping/praying/wishing for no historical Christ so he has something to use against believers? A skeptic who believes in the improbable because it makes being a skeptic more rational even though they have absolutely no evidence to support the position? Like that kind of attractive?
A prophet you are.

It’s not that I have none it’s just none that you will accept is credible by your own personal subjective predetermined standards.
If you really fail to see why Caesar and Jesus is a poor comparison when asking for evidence then I really can’t help you with anything.
Recognize the irrational expectations you have in your understanding of scripture.


“You’re crapping on with no evidence to support your ravings” as well. My theory is based on evidence just no evidence you find credible enough to acknowledge as evidence. I’m crapping out on convincing anyone that they should take anything as credible, that’s entirely on you on how you want to view history but don’t be surprised when someone just goes with what is likely.
I guess until you get the idea that I don’t care because I don’t expect any .
Another nice spin comparison.
Common sense is used in conjunction with evidence if not then it’s not common sense.
Why do you want me to get over it? What does it matter if I think of him as historical or fictional?

That doesn’t answer my question on how you understand his revelation.


Another winner.
Those two paragraphs contradict each other from my POV. How could he believe in a Jesus that could die on the cross but wasn’t historical?
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder in these cases I guess.
Repeating the druggie analogy is admitting you have no point.
It makes you asking for it insane because its impossible. Crazy.
The evidence is different, but another super great comparison. A guy considered historic vs a guy considered fictional.

Elijah

Was this for or against a cartoon understanding? No idea why you are having problems with Paul’s claims about how he came to believe in Christ.
I’m layering what? What conclusion should I be trying to draw out right now?
So you believe the gospels were written by eye witnesses or are you begging the question that its fiction?
And what point do you think this author was trying to make about this historical figure? That he was the promised messiah?
I need a reason to budge from my position. I’m lazy like that. You not liking my methodology matters little to me, I’m comfortable with my level of reasoning.

No Robots

As I said, I think that, while Plato certainly grappled with this issue, it is Spinoza that resolves it in a manner thoroughly compatible with contemporary science.

This is compatible with my view of Christ-mythicism, ie. except for a few crackpot freelance writers, nobody suggests that the actual author simply imagined a preacher by the name of Jesus and put that name in the Gospels.

Toto

You seem to feel free to come to these boards and proclaim that your opinion is the only rational one - without actually investigating the question? You seem to be familiar enough with the debate to throw around the borderline insult "myther," so I find it hard to actually believe that you have the simplistic view of the quest for the historical Jesus that you seem to have.

I don't do copy and paste. The case for the origins of Christianity lying in a mythical Jesus is a complicated case, and is still evolving.

I don't feel any need to convince you of anything. If you want to believe that there is a historical core to the obvious mythology in the NT, nothing can stop you. But please don't pretend that your choice is the only rational one.

But just to advance the conversation, here is an outline of the case for mythicism:

If there was a Jesus of history, he is lost to us. There is no remaining physical or contemporary literary evidence. The question is, what is the best explanation of the indirect evidence that we do have? One explanation is that there was a historical Galilean preacher who was executed by Pilate. But there are many problems with this story - many elements that just do not make sense. And there is some difficulty in explaining how Christianity started around 30 AD, left no trace, and only in the second century produced a story of its origins.

The alternative explanation is that Christianity arose after the Jewish War of 70 CE as a reaction to the destruction of the Temple and the failure of the Jewish military resistance to the world's superpower. The gospels were written after that and obviously refer to events after that War; the letters of Paul are usually dated to the first century, but there is no record of them before the second. The gospel stories were obviously constructed from events in the Hebrew Scriptures.

All this theory requires is that you accept the idea that people can invent a history for themselves, and you can see that happening around you. So the mythicism hypothesis is a simpler and better explanation of the evidence.

eheffa

This is a very coherent and concise summary. Thanks Toto.

-evan

Elijah

Being called a myther is an insult? OK then.

I do try to keep it simple.
Well you should have the evidence on the ready for this discussion Toto, instead of claiming it’s a complicated case that’s still evolving. Why shouldn’t I wait for it to stop evolving and make some sense before I take it seriously.
Why isn’t it rational given the information we have? What is rational about the myther postion? What reasoning are they using to come to their conclusion.
Are you in the same school as spin in thinking Jesus should have left Caesar level of evidence in order to be considered historic? It makes no sense for apparently educated people to think that way.
What is the evidence that the story arose after the Jewish war and not before? Again this is not much of a theory. Doesn’t explain who was writing what or why or how it was confused for history. It’s a huge theory requiring large groups of people confused on what is going on but still pushing Jesus as the messiah. In my mind your theory should of left way way more evidence of its occurrence then a nobody guy getting stuck on a cross did.

Just a very open/empty theory you got there maybe some more detail would help.
Accept that they can invent history? What history invention are you talking about?

There is no way I see the myther position as simpler since you just said it was complicated and still evolving.