Littlejohn

"... What I mean by hereticism is the simple hypothesis that there was never any historical jesus..."

This IS NOT 'hereticism, but simple exegetical negationism about the figure of a historical Jesus! ... You confuse your concepts...

"...and will defend it as a reasonable position..."

Reasonable position??... I do not see what there is reasonable in all this ... However, glad you ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

mountainman

The hypotheses that Bilbo Baggins or Harry Potter were literary figures and not historical figures is reasonable. My argument is that it is also reasonable to argue for and to defend the hypothesis that Jesus Chrestos was a literary figure and not an historical figure, despite the fact that Eusebius claims to have suddenly discovered a letter written by JC "in the archives".

Obviously hereticism, as a reasonable position on the "historical Jesus", may be viewed as a spectrum from MYTH to PIOUS FRAUD. But in all cases, the argument will be that the historical jesus - as described in the NT canon - "did not exist in the flesh". See for example, Docetism

mountainman

It has always been traditionally assumed that Arius's five sophisms related to the theological nature of Jesus, as you say above, that Jesus was not preexistent, etc, etc, etc and all the other theological variants.

All I have been attempting to point out is that Arius's five sophisms may be related to the historicity of Jesus, or the nature of the historical jesus. If this is the case, then Arius five sophisms are consistent with a fabricated Jesus.


I am interested in ancient historical evidence and not theology.

The facts are that Jesus was promoted to God at Nicaea.
This may be a trivial fact to you but I want to examine what happened.
A huge controversy related to Jesus focussed on these words of Arius.
The Arian Controversy embroiled the entire Roman Empire in chaos until it fell.
Edward Gibbon critically and skeptically questioned how much christianity contributed to this fall.
Arnaldo Momigliano supports Gibbon.
These are two historians - not theologians - looking at Jesus and the Church.

Historical opposition to Jesus and the Christian Church
occurred immediately these things were publically floated.




Historical HERETICAL Opposition
to Jesus and the Christian Church - 324/325 CE

The books of Arius were burnt, prohibited and it was death to preserve them.
The name and memory of Arius was subject to imperial damnatio memoriae
The barest fragments of his writings remain extant.
The manuscript evidence for Arius is extremely tenuous and still contraversial.


There is no doubt that Arius embraced a heretical position on the historical Jesus, because he has been maligned as the greatest of all heretics in the entire history of the christian church.

Finally, the reading that Arius used satire against Jesus and the church can be supported from the literary evidence in the sources - Athanasius's "Against the Arians" and in Constantine's Dear Arius, You are a gallows rogue Letter of c.333 CE. This reading is admittedly novel, but that does not automatically mean it is wrong, and I have presented the sources for discussion.

Toto

If my aunt had wheels, she would be a tea tray.

We have had this discussion before. The historicity of Jesus was just not an issue in the 3rd century. There is no reason to think that Arius wrote anything about a fabricated Jesus.

The historical evidence is that Arius wrote about the issue of whether Jesus was preexistent, not whether he was fabricated.

Why is this a fact? If it is a fact, it is consistent with the idea that Arius did not claim that Jesus was fabricated.

This is one non sequitur after another, and nothing you have said provides any support for your ideas.

This is false. Arius embraced a heretical position on the theological Jesus.

You have not presented any source that supports your position.

Your constant repetition of the same sources that do not support you is extremely annoying.

Littlejohn

"..The hypotheses that Bilbo Baggins or Harry Potter were literary figures and not historical figures is reasonable.."

Ah! ... You put Jesus of Nazareth on the same plain of Bilbo Baggins and Harry Potter .... I seem a 'reasonable' comparison...

When Eusebius wrote his work (III-IV century AD), nobody doubted the historicity by Jesus: ergo, neither the letter that thou mentioned, or the false 'Testimonium Flavianum', were written with the intention of producing evidence about the historicity of Jesus, but rather for other reasons.

In particular, the Testimonium Flavianum was composed to emphasize that Jesus was 'truly' divine, associating to the one the authoritative opinion of the historian jew Josephus (ie, in practice, if a convinced Jew, as has been Josephus until his death, claimed that Jesus was 'more than a man', it was therefore necessarily true!....)

All this in order to confute the appellants 'slander' of the pagans and of Jews, which not only claimed that Jesus was merely a man and not a god, but that his story was completely different from that reported by cheating in the Gospels. To verify that it is, just read the quotes by Lactantius about Hierocles .

"..But in all cases, the argument will be that the historical jesus - as described in the NT canon - did not exist in the flesh.."

I think this is actually a reasonable position. In fact, the Jesus of 'faith', ie as he is described in the Gospels, it is as if he never existed, despite the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY a historical character! ..

"..In Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion.."

You touched a really 'hot' aspect!... In fact, until today no scholar in the world has been still able to perceive what is hidden, indeed, behind the patristic hoax according to which the 'Docetists' claimed that Jesus was not never been 'incarnated'!...

Nobody gnostic has ever been so foolish as to make a statement like that! .. Simply it was a of the infinite misrepresentations to which resorted the holy forger fathers, ie the founders of the catholic-christian worship, to mask an embarrassing aspect, which concerned a 'side' of multifaceted historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. (*)

In reality, the gnostics have not done other that develop one aspect of Jesus' preaching, which, in turn, had done own (personalizing it) the well-known ATOMISTIC theory of Leucippus and Democritus. In fact, among the many attributes that were applied to the character Jesus of Nazareth, there was also that of "ATOMOS": a thing, this, which says it all! ..

What really meant the 'Docetists', one refered not only to the body of Jesus, but to everything that is in the universe: either animated that inanimate! .. (this is also one of the reasons that led the counterfeiter fathers to affirm that Jesus did not attend the school: which it is a thing ABSOLUTELY false!)


Greetings


PS: I do not know if thou think credible all that I'm exposing, but if thou are even simply 'shook' by doubt, then thou should understand by yourself that 'fossilising' you on the absurd theory of non-historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, thou aren't will never able to discover the truth concealed for centuries by the forger clergy!

__________________________________

Note:

(*) - An aspect almost mirror image of the one, is the aspect of the 'crucifixion' of Jesus: an event NEVER happened! .. The gnostics bitterly objected to the Catholics such a halucinating invention (Jesus was executed by the Jews, and hence not by the Romans, by stoning). In response, the forger fathers, in order to appear unfounded that claimed by the gnostic-jesuans, they invented that the latters denied that Jesus was crucified, inasmuch they were ashamed that their charismatic figure had been executed in that way!... Demential! ... One does not understand why the Gnostics should have been ashamed of the crucifixion of Jesus, while they, the Catholics, were rather proud of that! ...


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"...If my aunt had wheels, she would be a tea tray."

!...

In Italy we say:

"Se mio nonno avesse avuto due ruote, sarebbe stato anche un carretto"...

Translation:

"If my grandfather had had two-wheels, he would have been even a small-chariot!"..

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

And you know this 'fact' how?
Please tell us all of these 'facts' that you think that know about the real 'history' of this character.
For example;
What year was he born ?
In what city?
Who was his father?
What was he doing in the years before he became a preacher?
How did he die?
Where did he die?
Where is his tomb?

Where ever did you find your real 'historical' information?
Who wrote it?
Have the documents that you gleaned you real 'history' from, been generally proven to be accurate, trustworthy, unbiased, and objective in their reporting?

mountainman

An Estimated "Historicity Percentage Value" for the HJ

I have taken the liberty of adding a column which clearly discloses the range or spectrum or strength of belief various classes of theories associate with the "historical Jesus". These values are arbitary - I just made a guestimate, we coould alter these figures, but the main trend is described as follows.

The first 4 classes of theories (all mainstream) assert that we are dealing with a "historicity value" for the "Historical Jesus" which ranges somewhere between 100% and an exceedingly small percentage approaching 0%.

The second 4 classes of theories (against the mainstream position) assert that we are dealing with a "historicity value" for the "Historical Jesus" which is not just zero, but it is NULL. There is no evidence, and therefore the Bayesian historicity equations (such that Richard Carrier has written about) cannot be computed -- there are no values available to compute. There is a vast difference between zero (or close to zero) and null.

Note the blue boundary in the table between these two sets. It is there second class of theories, for which the "historicity value" for the HJ is null, that may be grouped together to represent the position of hereticism on the Historical Jesus.


Tabulation of Spectrum of Belief and Unbelief for the Historical Jesus

Data has been taken from
R.G. Price's Jesus Myth Spectrum




[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center}Status
|
{c:ah=center}Gospel Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center}Description of the Type
|
{c:ah=center}Published Proponents
|
{c:ah=center}#
|
{c:ah=center}Historicity (%)
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Son of God
|
The Historical Son of God
|
The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true
|
Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.
|
Fundamentalists et al
|
[1]
|
100
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}An Historical Guru
|
An Historical Guru
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus
|
An Historical Jesus had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and "Apologists"
|
[2]
|
90
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Influential and Legendary Figure
|
Quasi-historical
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus.
|
An historical Jesus was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and some mainstream academics
|
[3]
|
50
||
{c:bg=royalBlue}"Boundary"
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}A Minor Figure
|
Possibly historical
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus.
|
Jesus is possibly historical. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.
|
Jesus seminar (?), many mainstream academics
|
[4]
|
20
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Anecdotal Jesus
|
Mythical Jesus - A Collection of Anecdotes
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus.
|
Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.
|
Earl Doherty (?) and a few others
|
[5]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Jewish cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults
|
There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not
|
R.G. Price
|
[6]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Pagan cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras.
|
The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.
|
Perhaps Acharya?
|
[7]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;ah=center}Imperial Pious Forgery
|
Fabricated Jesus - by imperial fraud
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core
|
The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.
|
Francesco Carotta, Joe Atwill, You-Know-Who
|
[8]
|
NULL
[/T2]

From the same website ....




NOTE the SPECTRUM of Historicity

In the diagram you will see a yellow shaded spectrum which vanishes down the list of options as the "historicity value" attributable to the "historical Jesus" is successively reduced down through the first four classes of theories, until is disappears altogether in the last set of 4 classes of positions which are heretical positions on the HJ.

mountainman

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center}Status
|
{c:ah=center}Gospel Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center}Description of the Type
|
{c:ah=center}Published Proponents
|
{c:ah=center}#
|
{c:ah=center}Historicity (%)
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Son of God
|
The Historical Son of God
|
The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true
|
Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.
|
Fundamentalists et al
|
[1]
|
100
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}An Historical Guru
|
An Historical Guru
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus
|
An Historical Jesus had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and "Apologists"
|
[2]
|
90
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Influential and Legendary Figure
|
Quasi-historical
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus.
|
An historical Jesus was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and some mainstream academics
|
[3]
|
50
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}A Minor Figure
|
Possibly historical
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus.
|
Jesus is possibly historical. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.
|
Jesus seminar (?), many mainstream academics
|
[4]
|
20
||
{c:bg=royalBlue}"Boundary"
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Above the boundary the HJ existed;
Below the boundary the HJ did not exist
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
|
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Anecdotal Jesus
|
Mythical Jesus - A Collection of Anecdotes
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus.
|
Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.
|
Earl Doherty (?) and a few others
|
[5]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Jewish cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults
|
There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not
|
R.G. Price
|
[6]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Pagan cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras.
|
The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.
|
Perhaps Acharya?
|
[7]
|
NULL
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;ah=center}Imperial Pious Forgery
|
Fabricated Jesus - by imperial fraud
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core
|
The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.
|
Francesco Carotta, Joe Atwill, You-Know-Who
|
[8]
|
NULL
[/T2]

mountainman

Heretical theories of fictional (ie: NON HISTORICAL) Jesus were subscribed to in the 4th and 5th centuries.

How do you know this ineptitude as a fact ?

I reject the notion that people - especially the Gnostics - doubted the historicity of Jesus at Nicaea. Eusebius discloses in VC that

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.

That this shameful Pagan ridicule stopped short of denying Jesus was historical is just wishful thinking on the part of the converted. In which of the scores of Gnostic Gospels and Acts does Jesus appear in any form of "historical light"? The answer is none, since it is plainly evident that the genre of the NT Apocrypha is "Popular Fictional Hellenistic Romanticism". Paul baptising talking lions, Peter fitting camels through the eye of a needle, Apostles being transported about by "Bright Clouds", Jesus appearing and disappearing, Aesop's Fables, common Fiction.

One hundred years later Nestorius is anathematized by the pyromaniac and murdering Bishop Cyril for publishing that there were still theories of fiction abundant in the region. (Cyril was trying to hush hush all these wild rumors, and sweep Julian under the carpet)