Transient

Maybe I am daft or something but what you just quoted seems to show that he believed that Jesus was much like the current trinity model, that Jesus was the son of God, born of the virgin Mary and was of God's Spirit etc.
Doesn't sound like he thought it was a myth or that there never was a guy called Jesus walking the earth in human flesh.
Maybe 2 people looking at the same words can see entirely different stuff - beats me.

aa5874

You appear not to understand what "mythology" means.

Jesus was described as an entity that was truly conceived of the Holy Ghost of God and a virgin, who TRULY transfigured, TRULY resurrected and TRULY ascended to heaven.

And a Pauline writer claimed there would have been no salvation from sin if Jesus did not resurrect.

That is the description of a MYTH.

That is the description of the NT and the Church writers.

The Church believe their God/man Jesus was historical but so too did MARCION.

MARCION'S phantom Jesus was actually in Capernaum, Marcion's PHANTOM was walking the earth, and people in Judaea did see the PHANTOM, if you believe Marcion and the Church.

Believers do not regard their Jesus as mythological, but as historical, whether or not their Jesus had flesh.

Achilles was described as the offspring of a sea-goddess, what kind of flesh did he have when he was in the TROJAN WAR?

It does not matter, Achilles was described as a myth and so too was Jesus.

What kind of flesh do MERMAIDS have? MYTHS NEED FLESH?

Transient

So basically you consider it a myth because it assumes that a real god exists and that it implies a spirit world etc? You assume that anything "supernatural" must be fiction?
There well may not be a spiritural dimension and no god but I cannot assume that in trying to look at something like christianity. I start from a different point - ie somewhere neutral.
There is nothing wrong with starting from a different point but understanding that makes it easier for me to see what you are getting at.

J-D

You haven't explained how it's different from what you said. I can't see any valid methodological grounds for dismissing the possibility that some of what is written about Jesus in the canonical Gospels is historically accurate and some of it is historically inaccurate. I also can't see any strong evidential grounds for dismissing that possibility. It looks to me as if you are dismissing this possibility. If you are not dismissing the possibility, it would clarify things if you would say so explicitly. You may incline to the position that everything that is written about Jesus in the canonical Gospels is historically inaccurate, and that is (in my judgement, anyway) a plausible and defensible position, but I don't see how it's been incontrovertibly demonstrated. I see two possibilities and no decisive basis for regarding either as definitively established.

J-D

Is it? How? I see no evidence for that conclusion. I haven't seen any evidence that either Tacitus or Josephus derived anything from Mark, or had even heard of Mark.But of course. That's basic historical methodology. It's the only way historians should work and the only way they can work.

badger3k

That Infidel Guy podcast was the occasion that I lost complete respect for Ehrman as a scholar. He actually went with the "there's more evidence for Christ than there is for Caesar" BS, and he was a bit arrogant in his presumption of what "historians" think (and why they think that). Of course, he has his own theories and has at least one book about it, so his livelihood and reputation is staked upon the Apocalyptic Preacher idea. I don't think he's shed his evangelical leanings as much as he thinks he has.

aa5874

I am dealing specifically with the historicity of Jesus, I have not examined every single supernatural claim of the spirit world.

The authors of the NT and Church writers described an entity called Jesus who TRULY was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Such a description is mythological.

Next, I searched for writings of authors, external of the Church, who mentioned Jesus as a deified Jew, and Messiah.

No writer of antiquity, except forgeries in Josephus, mentioned a deified Jew called Jesus during the time of Tiberius who was called a Messiah after he was crucified for blasphemy.

My search has revealed a myth called Jesus as described in the NT and Church writings.


For decades I assumed the historicity of Jesus, that was my starting point.

It was just in the last 4 years or so that I have found the writings of Josephus, Philo, Chrysostom, Jerome, Rufinus, Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and others that MADE me discard my assumption of historicity and have enough information to support my position that Jesus was just a story believed to be true, in effect, Jesus was just mythology.

Now, I am not really interested in where you started, I need to know your position NOW and what sources of antiquity you will use to support your view.

The historical Jesus is irrelevant, he can't resurrect and save mankind from their sins.

J-D

As a matter of formal logic, the following argument is valid (that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true).

Premise 1: Anybody who can't resurrect and save mankind from their sins is irrelevant.
Premise 2: The historical Jesus can't resurrect and save mankind from their sins.
Conclusion: The historical Jesus is irrelevant.

By exactly the same logic, the following argument is formally valid:

Premise 1: Anybody who can't resurrect and save mankind from their sins is irrelevant.
Premise 2: aa5874 can't resurrect and save mankind from their sins.
Conclusion: aa5874 is irrelevant.

In my opinion Premise 2 of each argument is true, but Premise 1 is problematic. It depends on what you mean by 'irrelevant'. The meaning of 'irrelevant' is highly context-dependent. Irrelevant to what?

Transient

We are looking at the term "starting point" in different ways.
I am not referring to a point in time but rather current bias if you like when looking at material and debates.
I am quite neutral. I don't know whether christianity is entirely true, not true at all or somewhere in between. I don't really think anyone can be sure.
I approach it from a neutral stance.
I don't mind if it is true or not.
I mention the spiritual dimension because whilst I doubt there is one I really don't know for sure and so I don't write off stuff just because it necessitates a spiritual dimension.
If I read a story of someone who saw a ghost I would not think much of it at all because I could not verify the sighting, same with aliens etc. I don't waste my time thinking about stuff that I can't verify.
Christianity is different however because there is the vague possibility that one may live forever with nice friendly people - not a bad deal and so I keep an eye on the debates in case it happens to be true.

I do not think that we can understand each others pov at all.

aa5874

I cannot follow your logics at all.

Is there someone who have claimed that some unknown entity called aa5874 did TRULY RESURRECT 2000 YEARS AGO and that without his resurrection mankind would REMAIN in SIN.?

Jesus is an unknown entity, like Achilles, where implausible claims were made and witnessed. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus must resurrect to save mankind from sin and the Gospels claimed Jesus did resurrect.

Who was the historical Jesus? Where are the sources of antiquity for the historical Jesus who could not resurrect and save mankind but was deified after being crucified for blasphemy.

There is nothing.

Mr 9:31 - A most absurd statement if Jesus was just a man. What really did the historical Jesus say?

There is nothing.

The historical Jesus is irrelevant.