outhouse

yes but the educated ones have more credibility

love Johnathan Green's work in anthropology, thay have all the missing elements that one needs to try and recreate history

spin

That's irrelevant (but probably not). What is relevant is whether the historicists have a leg to stand on. And again I'd have to say, probably not. History is the attempt to show what happened in the past. Regarding Jesus, I've only ever seen assumed conclusions and arguments against mythicism.

Did Robin Hood exist? If we go back before the legendary stories is there a real figure? William Langland writing 100 years after the reputed times knew of a Robin Hood ballad which he mentioned with another ballad about a historical figure. Go back earlier and there seem to be references in legal documents to a figure (or figures) with the name. I'm happy to say that we can't say because there is insufficient evidence to make a call. The same with Arthur. Why not with Jesus? Cut through the apologetics of the quests for the historical Jesus and what reasons do we end up with for being forced to decide?

spin

It is a gauge for those who don't know the subject.

outhouse

fair enough


thanks for your input.

Love this hobby

thief of fire

I'd have to say you are the first mythicist (if that is the best term) that thinks the plain reading makes the most sense that I've come across. Your's is an interesting postion as you don't seem from this to be emotionally driven (as mythicists are often labelled) to explain away any evidence that doesn't suit you.

I wonder do many mythicists or agnostics (on this issue) accept that the plain reading makes the most sense?

aa5874

Bayes theorem was NOT developed to determine if resurrected beings in myth fables existed. And authenticity has ZERO to do with historicity.

Plutarch may have written "Romulus" but the "history" of Romulus is of Mythology.

In a certain subset of the Pauline writings it is implied Jesus was made a Spirit

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV Please explain how Bayes theorem can be applied to determine the historicity of a "Quickening Spirit"???

Solo

What is your timeline of Valentinus vis-a-vis Marcion ?

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your assertion is wholly erroneous. A Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the very FAITH that he NOW preached.


Galatians 1:13 KJV And in the very same chapter, the writer Implies that others knew about Jesus, the Son of God, in Jerusalem.

Galatians 1The very written statements in the Pauline writings IMPLY that people in Jerusalem knew about the story of Jesus, God's Son.

Solo

He did not meet the Jesus in person prior to his crucifixion. He clearly had knowledge of him:

1 Cr 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Now, unless one subscribes to Doherty's view that the crucifixion did not take place on Earth, there is a specific Jesus referenced by Paul in this verse who had a life on earth before being crucified.

2 Cr 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

This verse, read together with the one above establishes that Paul had information about the referent via ordinary human communication, prior to his forming a belief he was a recipient of a revelation about him as Son of God who has risen.

(Take this as a FYI that I am throwing out for the group. I am not interested in getting into another meaningless debate with you over this, spin)



So, as per above, this is not the best argument for evidence we get from Paul that Jesus did exist. There are three other verses people who want to discuss Paul's witness of JC's existence on the planet should be aware of

Gal 3:1 - O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? It is difficult to imagine that the aggressive tone Paul takes could reference a mythical scenario. Only if the execution was real and historical, can the appeal to Paul’s previous teachings sustain the insult (!) he lobs at the defecting acolytes.

Gal 6:12 - It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Again, if there was no historical “cross of Christ” Paul’s impeachment of the judaizers would not make sense. If Jesus was a myth everyone would have known he was a myth, and whether there was a cross in the myth would have made no difference to anyone capable of rational thought. That the judaizers would be trying to avoid persecution for an event which did not take place on earth or within living memory, just does not play out, at least not in any way that I can see. On the other hand, if Jesus was executed for breaking the law (implied by Rom 8:4, Gal 3:13), then idolizing him publicly carried risks with it – and Paul’s pointing to the hypocrisy of his proselytic rivals with respect to the law which killed their idol – and which they don’t keep anyway - could be counted on to make an impact.

1 Cr 15:20 - But now (νυνί) Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. It is possible, as G.A. Wells believes that Paul thought Jesus lived a long time ago, left no trace, and it was only in Paul’s lifetime that he had risen. It is just not very convincing that (at least) two opposing sects during one generation suddenly invoked his name and began to vie for converts.

Expanding on : 1 Cr 2:2 I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. The qualifier καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον, implies that Paul did not want to hear anything about Jesus before his crucifixion when coming to preach to Corinth. Again, if “Jesus said this and Jesus did that before he was killed” was a myth and Paul knew it then I am at a loss to grasp what difference it would have made to Paul’s pitiful condition to let people talk about the hero’s mythical exploits and mythical causes of his mythical downfall leading to his mythical death. But, if the obverse is true – if Paul in the throes of a persecutory stage of mania suggests that the phantom visitor of the Corinthian mystics can be placated by acknowledging him as an ordinary recently living human empowered by God post-mortem, then it is reasonable to assume Paul found relief in the schema himself, that his Jesus Christ mantras actually had a way of reducing his own agitated psychosis. And it is equally probable that Paul’s fame as a ancient precursor of logotherapy* was established because his technique seems to have worked and with some people similarly afflicted as Paul. It worked as it provided (at least some) relief to what seemed to them as a meaningless, bottomless cycle of suffering. For the therapeutic hypno-suggestion to have worked, Jesus had to have proximity to the sufferers – similar to that of Paul – proximity in their social status, education, reputation in the community at large (1 Cr 1:18-31). It is my view – and I do not hold this to be more than an opinion of one person - that Jesus’ proximity would have been temporal as well, given the underlying belief that the end was near.



As per Gal 6:12 above.

Best,
Jiri

James The Least

It started out good, with praising Thomas L. Thompson. But I expected you to cite his "Messiah Myth" as the real historical-Jesus-busting book and explain why, but you never did.

Does Ehrman even mention Thompson in his new book?