Diogenes the Cynic

Christianity, yes, or at least the seminal cult which prefaced Paul.

ETA, I think you could also make an argument for a common sayings tradition. If an identifiable set of sayings can be shown to have a common author, then that author had to have existed. We just don't know who it was.

Grog

I think there probably wasn't a person (not a single person) and that's why we don't know who it was.

Given that it seems our positions aren't that far apart (we are both speaking of probabilities, we're just on different sides of the divide), why so hostile toward the skeptical side?

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not hostile to the position, I just don't think it has a strong theory or enough evidence to demonstrate that no real personality cult could have possibility existed. I object to the categorical dismissal of even the possibility of a real person inspiring the original movement. That is not something we can say with such certitude, or with some of the contempt I see from some mythicists.

I'm agnostic on the issue. I don't think either side has proven its case, and I object to either side declaring that the other side can't possibly be right or that there can't be a middle position.

aa5874

Your statement does NOT make sense. You must know All written sources MUST have REAL authors even if there is no commonality.

This is so basic.

If a million persons copy some source then the million plus the source HAD to have existed.

But, the million dollar question is WHEN did the Source come into existence???

It is WORTHLESS to PRESUME history without credible sources.

The NT and Apologetic sources cannot be trusted for history since they are horribly unreliable and filled with Fiction, interpolations, forgeries, multiple authors, unknown date of authorship and implausibilities.

spin

You claim that there was a historical1 Jesus, ie you assert that the claim that there was a historical1 Jesus is valid.

You can understand it however you like, but I understand historicity that way, so we need a historicity1 and a historicity2.

"Stuff happens... whether it is recoverable or not." Your use of the term "historically" here seems to be void of meaning.

When you talk about something being historically accurate, it means that you can test its accuracy through historical methods.

I've defined how I use historical2 (ie "what can be established about the past through evidence"). If there is no evidence then it is not historical, which "doesn't mean it didn't happen", but that we can't say anything meaningful about it in history.

While I don't agree with your wording, I agree with the notion. Most of the past is irrecoverable, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just that historians have no means of accessing any substantive information about it.

I understand you, but to me that seems like a belief.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not necessarily. I only assert that historical1 would qualify as "Historical Jesus."
More like a best guess. That's what we all have to do since knowledge is not available to us.

spin

Do you feel obliged to best guess Robin Hood or King Arthur, or are you just constrained with Jesus? Given the lack of evidence there's no need to guess with Jesus either and in guessing you have 50% chance of being right.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why assume that I would make the same guess in every case? Each case is different with a different set of evidence.

I'll say this, I would not be willing to bet the house that no real human inspiration for those characters was possible.

aa5874

Again, you blame others for presenting a worthless argument for an historical Jesus.

You knew all along that you had ZERO credible sources, and ZERO dated sources yet you continued to argue.

The Pauline writings are well established sources of Fiction with Multiple authors and no date of authorship yet you still cling to the worthless sources.

It is well known and documented that Jesus was described and publicly CIRCULATED in antiquity, in the Roman Empire, to be the Son of a Ghost so there is evidence that Jesus was Myth.

All characters that are considered Myths are described as Myth so it is wholly absurd and unreasonable to claim that there is NOT enough evidence for Myth Jesus.

There are THOUSANDS of existing manuscripts with the Myth character story, Jesus the Son of a Ghost, the creator of heaven and earth, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

You very well know of the quest for an historical Jesus and that NO historical Jesus has ever been located in any credible dated source of antiquity.

The HJ argument cannot be maintained right now. It is finished. That is all.

The Myth Jesus argument is SECURE because the authors of gMatthew and gLukr DECLARED Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and PUBLISHED it.

In the NT, Pilate was a Governor, Tiberius was Caesar, Caiaphas was high priest, Gabriel was an angel and Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

2-J

I think this thread has been useful so far.

spin's definitions of historical1 and historical2 are helpful.

As a non-historian (never studied it past high school level) I naively assumed 'historical' would always just mean 'happened in the past' as Diogenes said. But then I became aware of some of the different ways historians have viewed history and other attempts to define 'history' which can be more like spin's historical2.