spamandham

Whose story? Paul's, or someone else?

Excuse me then, trifurcate much?

The only positions you've been exposed to are:
1. Fiction
2. The peasant business
3. Something to do with an oral account
???

Thanks! I appreciate the sentiment in spite of our obvious inability to come to terms.

Elijah

If you sure that horse isn’t dead just keep on whacking it.
Not the same evidence… again and again and again.
You don’t have a viable alternative so you just stick with unreasonable expectations of evidence.
What do you mean by “historical core”?
No truth if you have no point and only nutty little analogies that only you find useful in this discussion.
Playing stupid about the evidence out there is going to eventually convince me that you aren’t playing.
How so? How should I be using it or what am I implying by using it in this instance?


People’s opinions are all that I have. Everyone writes down their opinion and all the evidence we have are the writings that have survived. There is no video tape of him available to prove his existence.
How else should it be understood? Zeus isn’t someplace doing stuff in your myth plane he is a symbolic representation of an aspect of the universe.
I’m not confusing sources I’m just using all the sources available. I don’t know how much of Acts is accurate but see no reason to not think it was meant to be a historical account of the early beginnings of the church.
What if my evidence is that you don’t have a position so you should go with the only position available.
I thought it was pretty self explanatory on how I was using historical core but who knows.
You asking for evidence over and over again when you know there is none is soooooooo tired now. Change the track.
Nice. Telling me to leave because I don’t accept your standards of evidence. Real mature.
Your inability to demonstrate any knowledge about anything at all in this conversation other than to say I have no evidence is also an issue.
That explained nothing.
Is your behavior scholarly? Repeating worthless analogies over and over? Is that scholarly?
Present what? A NT? A link to a church fathers web page? Do you need to be presented that evidence?
Yea you got me. Not a lot of evidence to be had beyond what we have so I’m going to listen to everyone’s opinion of what they think the truth is and then compare that to my experience in reality for what I think is the most probable and go from there with it to the next issue at hand. I see no point to the methodology of waiting for undisputable proof when none should be expected to move on to the next problem. Move on.
A reason to believe in the unlikely is necessary for me to even to start to consider the improbable. You have provided none. You are asking for evidence to prove my position and you won’t even give me a reason to consider yours… because you don’t have a position.

I don’t consider myself committed to Jesus being historical I just think it’s the most likely case scenario. If I’m given some reason or heaven help me evidence that I should reconsider that position I will. Do you understand the logic behind my thinking?

Elijah

Acts mainly.
Only positions on what? I think you are off track on the point you are trying to make here. If you’re not I certainly am.

I really want to know about what you thought the intent of the author was in writing the hero biography. Do you think it was intended to portray him as the messiah or did you have something else in mind?

Toto

I guess everything I wrote went in one ear and out the other.

You don't have to take it seriously - it's your loss if you don't. But if you don't take it seriously, you can't talk about it intelligently.

"Mythers" use normal logic and the historical method. The people who constructed the historical peasant Jesus that you believe in used wishful thinking and rationalization to get to a conclusion that they wanted to be true.

You are misstating the test here. Caesar is clearly historical. But if you assume that your hypothetical Jesus was a mere peasant who did not leave any evidence behind, how can you call him "historical?"

I have yet to see you outline the positive evidence that supports a historical Jesus.

It is the general consensus of mainstream Biblical scholarship that the gospel of Mark was written after the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. Do I need to review that evidence for you?

In what way does the mythicism hypothesis require anyone to be more confused than normal? What evidence would you expect to find that is missing?

The second and third century Christians invented the history of the first century Jesus movement. People invent and reinvent history all the time. Every modern nation has invented a national history, and you would be unbearably naive to believe all the stories about the bravery of the founding fathers, the evils of the enemy nations that they fought in war, and the glory of their national literature. Even now, there are Americans who claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, in the face of all the evidence. Invented history extends to inventing a founding figure - such as William Tell.

The details are complicated, largely because so much history has been lost, and so much false history has been propagated. But the basic idea is a simpler, more economic explanation of the origins of Christianity.

If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you present a case for a historical Jesus? No one has done this very well.

spin

It's difficult to cut through your bs, but maybe you'll eventually get the idea.

What do you know about the evidence, when you haven't expounded evidence for one (Jesus) and admitted you don't know the evidence for the other (Robin Hood)?

Still being the junkie.

A core that has evidence which allows it to be considered as to some degree verified as having happened.

As you've presented no evidence, one must conclude that you don't have any. What, are you embarrassed about it or something?

I dealt with what history means in the post you were responding to.

So I gather once again you have no evidence.

So you think people performed sacrifices to symbolic entities.

You need to deal with what Paul says, rather than avoid it and propose some source of tradition whose date and relevance is unknown.

If you propose that the moon is made of green cheese, do I really have to propose that it's made of red leicester?? Surely it's enough to say you haven't got a leg to stand on.

It was pretty self-evident, in an erroneous manner.

Your lack of reasoning based on no evidence should be clear at this point.

What's real mature is deliberately misrepresenting what you read.

All you need do is to divine from a bunch of traditions, not just that there is a historical core but that you can say basically what that core is. So, what criteria can you use to decide what in a tradition is translatable to a historical datum.

That by using "historical" the way you do you will make less sense? You seem to be able to distinguish between real and historical.

You are merely being selective.

Try by choosing a particular piece of christian tradition and showing that it has some historical support. Your problem is to distinguish in a tradition whether there is any history and if so, what. This is done for example by use of corroborative materials, such as the inscription that mentions Pontius Pilate from Caesarea or a passage by Josephus. That way you can establish that Pilate has a historical core, though his behavior in the gospels doesn't match the character indications in Josephus. However, Pilate is marginal to the gospel narrative. You need to get closer.

Therefore, you'll just stab at something and say that it is historical.

You're apparently prejudicing your analysis by assuming your conclusion. Why is what you believe any more likely than any other theory?

You unashamedly persist in this junkie blunder.

I prefer learned non-committal to non-learned committal.

Yes, you have no reason for thinking what you do other than some attraction that you label for no apparent reason "most likely".

When I mentioned Robin Hood, it was in the hope that you would see that extracting information directly about the real world from a tradition is more difficult than you seem willing to accept. You have provided no means to decide what in the gospel tradition is or is not based on real events. Apparently you never will.


spin

Doug Shaver

I thought I'd already made it clear how I interpret Paul. I interpret him to be saying that Jesus was a god.

I'm going with the text, too. You and I are just interpreting it differently.

I think a significant difference is that your interpretation is based on a presupposition of Jesus' historical existence, and mine is not. I suspect that that makes mine more parsimonious, but I could be mistaken about that.

Doug Shaver

It will be cool after I complete a course I'm currently taking in Plato and Aristotle. We've finished Plato and are doing Aristotle now, and we've got about three more weeks to go.

Elijah

Don’t fight BS with more BS. Try making the point you actually want to make.
Could you be more specific on what you want me to answer?
Still parroting the same junk so you don’t have to put forward your competing theory. This isn’t a game of dodge ball you know.
See that’s where we are having confusion. The historical core I’m speaking of isn’t based on evidence. It’s not a physical thing. It’s a term to describe that at the source of a story is a figure that existed in history. If that word confused you let me know what word you thinks best fits what I am talking about.
Since you presented no alternative theory one must conclude that you don’t have one. What are you embarrassed about it or something?
Missed it.


Like talking to a wall. Boink Boink.
Yea. How do you think they existed? The myth plane? Care to elaborate on that some?
You need to quit picking and choosing what you want to read/find credible and try to make sense of the story.
The disputes around acts or the gospels or Paul’s letters matter little to me.
No but if you are proposing it’s made out of cheese when everyone else thinks it’s made of rock then YOU need to support that position. Not go, “go get me a rock from the moon or you don’t have any evidence. Not one brought back from NASA either because they are just part of the Rock Religion and you can’t trust anything they say.” You need to support your position not me. It’s you who don’t have a leg to stand on that’s why you are propped up against my theory going “no evidence” because your theory is all vapor.
Your utterly insane repetitiveness is the evidence that is clear at this point. Less repetition and more points in what you are saying please.


How so? Examples?
What is historically possible is “translatable”.
I have no idea the point you were trying to make with the real historical thing? If you have one let me know.
You still need to grow -up some.
Still can’t grasp that Jesus was lower class huh?
More nonsense.


What other theories?
Your requirement to provide an alternate theory isn’t going anywhere. Like us seeing a guy in a tree and me going he must of climbed up there and you going “prove it” when there is no other viable option. If there is only one option then that is going to have to be the answer you give.
I prefer working with the evidence we’ve got instead of waiting for the group to say this is what we think for certain before I move on. 10 years from now do you think you will still be tackling this same problem? 20? 50 years?

What is the most common in the world is the most likely to have occurred. Reason.
Well anything that couldn’t have happened in the gospel tradition I don’t consider real events. Anything that could of like a guy executed then unless I see evidence otherwise I go with it.

Robin Hood isn’t a very good example. He was never thought historical and people figure there might be a historical core to him because that is the natural occurrence. No one looks to his stories as historical accounts like they do the gospels. Assuming what is probable like the ebion situation but being wrong is to be expected, but the mass myth to historical figure needs examples in order to believe in or even understood properly.

Elijah

Kind of missing the point of what I was saying there, but that’s typical for me. I’m saying until there is a complete/comprehensive theory to examine, why bother?
That’s a sweeping statement. I’m not speaking of the myther themselves I’m speaking of the position they hold. What is rational about it? From which ever myther position you want to choose from.
Well you have two choices, mythical or historical with the historical one being the most likely in the tradition in which Christianity is set. There is no evidence to support your myth theories and as far as I can tell, it’s just wishful thinking on the part of skeptics until I see something more.

Comparing Caesar’s evidence to the lack of evidence of a son of a carpenter is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
What evidence are you waiting on? Why would you expect that evidence whatever it may be?
Just the evidence that convinced you it was would be nice.
Well it’s confusing in that there is no complete theory out there. It’s a lot of there was some people after the war yadda yadda nothing. The theory hasn’t been fleshed out much less supported IMO.

Evidence I would expect to see is people of your opinion in the past mainly also protostories and similar Christ figures in other cultures. Evidence of the cover up or transition between mythical and historic Christ.
You’re asking for evidence of one guy who died. Your theory spans across large groups through centuries. There should be a lot more evidence (depending on the theory) of a mythical origin then of one guy killed.
Yes I would be naïve to believe all the stories about the founding fathers or the evils of our enemy nations but equally naïve not to believe that we had founding fathers and enemy nations.

You didn’t use any example of this invention of history you are talking about. Is William Tell all you have?
No it’s not simple or economic. It’s a giant unsupported unexplained phenomenon you are trying to put forward with your myth to history concept.
Well if you’re looking for undeniable evidence to make the case for a historic Christ you could be waiting with spin for a long time. If you can use reason and your experience then I don’t have to make a case for it, you should be able to realize by now the illogical and unsupported position you’re in. If you can’t use reason then not much of what I’m going to say to you is going to sound reasonable.

The difference between what I’m asking for and the mythical side is asking, is you guys are asking for undeniable proof when none should be expected and I’m asking for just a coherent/complete theory so I can try to make sense out of the other side’s position. You’re asking for a newspaper clipping with his obituary in it and I’m asking you guys to make some sense.

Elijah

How so? What understanding of “a god” do you have going on here? “Jesus was a god and here are some passages with Jesus and the word god kind of related in them” isn’t telling me what you think.
How are you interpreting it? You said you didn’t have a cartoon understanding and now is the time to show it.
I don’t think the difference in understanding is on historical/fictional lines but about the understanding of the philosophy and the words in play. Do you believe in a Myth plane theory like spin?
Ok cool, when your teacher tells you the answer let me know.