Ben C Smith

Sorry; this should have an OTOH prefixed to it.

Ben.

fatpie42

Well naturally "supernatural" is more of a modern category, but that doesn't mean I cannot use it to describe things in the NT. Turning water into wine is supernatural and so is appearing to people in a ghostlike fashion in the way described in the NT.

Now, I am actually using 'supernatural' pretty loosely, since I am happy to accept that the seemingly supernatural things described may have been visions or religious experiences and therefore not technically 'beyond the natural' (though religious experiences can often appear to be beyond the natural for those experiencing them).

fatpie42

To my mind, if you are still alive you haven't actually died yet. Sure, that was somewhat of an error and I have corrected it.

Nevertheless, the idea that Jesus' resurrection conquered death is a major Christian tenet and it does not necessarily imply that "Jesus raised himself from the dead" (except to the extent that Jesus and the Father are homoousious, which I accept is extra-Biblical).

Petergdi

It carries a lot of baggage with it. It muddies the waters and adds nothing useful.


It might be useful to point out that the Wedding at Cana seems to be a story about how Jesus differs from John the Baptist. It is absolutely useless to call it supernatural - we all know that changing water into wine in the manner described in the story isn't a usual everyday sort of thing; and none of the other baggage that "supernatural" carries help us understand the story at all.


But it isn't a ghostlike fashion. There is something odd about the appearances, but Jesus is very solid.

What's the point of using "supernatural" if the baggage the word carries doesn't really apply?

Peter

rlogan

Hi Amaleq13

I really want to try putting what I think you are saying into a timeline. Please don't misunderstand. Just a genuine interest in putting this into a coherent timeline. It has to have a timeline in order to have internal consistency.

Do I have your version correct below?

1) Historical Jesus -> Dead End.

2) Paul's Myth -> Arises later, no relation whatsoever to Historical Jesus

3) Gospel Stories -> Later still, also no relation to Historical Jesus

4) Note: Jesus as a name is "forgotten" after 1) but "resurfaces" later in 3)


Please date Mark for me. I put it more like 130-ish in terms of the written work. Thanks. Not arguing. I just want to understand.


Additionally, I would like the dating for the development of the myth you have been referring to - the one that is completely different from the Jesus who lived in 30 CE. Genuine interest in your story. Please fill it in for me. It would have a beginning for example.





Suspect? Gosh, if you would name the professionals you are referring to then by golly we'll just see. Please do. Thanks.

Because if you are really going to pretend to play the argument from authority card - you can't use nameless "professionals". What works and authors are you relying on, exactly?




I have no story apart from the exact words of Pliny. That is my story of what Christianity is, in terms of how it was viewed by the official government of the time. I accept it.

I do not understand why there is any point to you inventing and repeating "outsider's view". It is a tautology that anyone who is not christian is writing an "outsider's view". So what point are you making here?

It is termed an "external source" by convention, and generally external sources are specifically sought out as a "good thing" because of the obvious bias in Christians, reporting all manner of obviosly untrue things. But you have invented a new term that imbues a negativity to an external source you don't like.

I think you seem to be trying to say that it is "uninformed" or something. "Uninformed" relative to what? Guesswork? It is the only external source I am familair with for a thirty year period or so when Christians IMHO actually existed. I am dating them from post-90 CE so it isn't until over 30 years we hear from anyone else besides Pliny/Trajan on Christians.

Is there some other authority you are relying on that is more informative?





You are saying then that what he writes to Trajan is the sum total of everything he knew about christians? I don't think so. He knew their names, where they were meeting, probably what they did or did not talk about.

I think you've not thought much about what it means to send soldiers out to arrest people, bring them before you, interrogate significant numbers of them, and even to the point of torture.


You asked a question I just did not understand. Might be hypoglycemia. Have not eaten yet. Let me know if it was important.

See ya.

Most sincerely, rlogan

Amaleq13

This is the version of HJ I do not consider "preposterous".

Historical Jesus -> Mythologized man (miracle stories, Wisdom Incarnate, etc) -> Mythologized Heavenly Being (Paul's theology) -> Mythical Life(Gospels)

No. Jesus throughout but "Christ" becomes predominant with the Mythologized Heavenly Being.

Standard c70CE arguments have convinced me more than anything else I've read.

You need to refresh your understanding of that logical fallacy. Admitting one accepts the general consensus is not an argument from authority.

The absence of a story in Pliny tells us nothing about the likelihood of an historical Jesus.

Inventing? Pliny was not a Christian. He was not inside the cult. There is no reason to expect an outsider to have complete or even accurate knowledge of the beliefs of a cult. This is only more true when the purpose of his investigation is to test what they won't do. You seem to expect him to be interested in and know the Gospel story and then you find its absence significant. That seems like an unreasonable expectation to me.

Don't like? What are you talking about? My failure to accept your interpretation of Pliny doesn't constitute dislike for him or what he says.

About the beliefs of a cult? Yes, generally, that is the case. Questioning former members or folks who wish to distance themselves from the cult is not a reliable method of learning about a cult. Torturing cult leaders is not a reliable method of learning about a cult's beliefs. How accurate Pliny's information about their beliefs was, we don't know because he only refers to "depraved, excessive superstition". That's a bit broad.

Actual cult members who, by definition, know exactly what they believe.

To paraphrase you, I just have the exact words of Pliny. What you imagine he might have also known isn't terribly compelling in the way of evidence.

I have no idea what Pliny considered "depraved, excessive superstition". Do you? Perhaps the idea that a crucified man could or should be worshipped like a god?

It would help if I knew what it was.

spamandham

Can I ask what it is you find plausible about:

Historical Jesus -> Mythologized man (miracle stories, Wisdom Incarnate, etc) ->...

...that becomes preposterous when altered to:

(miracle stories, Wisdom Incarnate, etc) -> Mythical man -> ...

fatpie42

You haven't explained why it is 'useless'. It is an accurate description. It isn't an "everday sort of thing" because it goes beyond what we understand as the natural order of things. If I can't call it "supernatural", can I call it "magic"? They did have magic back then, right?

In Matthew:
"His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow."
Pretty ghostly right?

But in Luke we have an even better example:
"Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." Solid people do not tend to dissapear.

Then straight after that we finally have our first claim that Jesus is solid, then even more explicitly in the gospel of John. Matthew and Mark, the earlier accounts, do not feel the need to make this claim. It seems that the idea that Jesus was solid is quite clearly a later development.

Perhaps I'd understand your point better if you told me what 'baggage' you are referring to. Language is somewhat fluid and words have various meanings, so I don't think I need to avoid using the word unless the unhelpful meaning is unavoidable.

Amaleq13

Nothing. I don't think the MJ approach is preposterous, either.

I've never said it and never suggested it.

rlogan

Thank you for doing that, along with the name Jesus throughout, and the dating of Mark circa 70 CE.

I did not realize you were dating Mark that early. Now I want to keep trying to understand your version and I hope that it is taken in the Christian spirit you know I ascribe to. Heh.



You specifically asserted "professionals", and now that I have demanded them the response is argumentum ad populum. I really do want a genuine exchange here and I think we are making progress. So let's now stick with good logic.

The general consensus amongst mormons about mormonism or muslims about islam and with christians about christianity is obviously biased and worthless as some kind of "authority" even were it not argumentum ad populum to begin with.

In this case when you try to uncover what the actual basis for dating Mark is, it comes down to the prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple - Mark 13:2. Since prophecies aren't real, the gospel must have been written after the destruction of the temple and the "prophecy" written as an ex-post-facto "proof" of Jesus' remarkable powers.

You can do that with one line if your dating is actually anchored in some kind of evidence underlying the argumentum ad populum. (eg my dating is based on Mark 13:2) I would appreciate that approach instead of the logical fallacies. I don't think you are that feeble minded. Perhaps defensive about the use of derisive terms I have occasionally used in describing misguided HJ proponents. I pledge not to do so here and will overlook their preposterous beliefs... er... Kidding!




I think I have established with you that there is a historical person by the name of Jesus in your version. Instead of a "dead end" as I put in my timeline to you, there is some rememberance of that very historical person which is aggrandized by myth.

Could you please then add in a couple of other things for me?

Roughly, when are the other Gospels and the Pauling corpus. Not interested in extreme detail and not going to nitpick here - just trying to understand your position in general terms but with sufficient scope that we are not doing this silly one-line quote/retort/quote/retort.

Thanks. I think this is much more productive.