MCalavera

Do you even realize that people in antiquity also BELIEVED Ghost stories based around REAL people?

STOP ASSUMING and IMAGINING and INVENTING HISTORY!!!!!!

aa5874

Jesus was described as a Child of a Ghost that is NOT an assumption.

Matthew 1:18 - Now why have you ASSUMED that Jesus was a real person of history?

You are talking to YOURSELF. You assume the Ghost stories are about "historical Jesus".

I make no such assumptions. I accept them as described--Ghost stories.

Vorkosigan

Not without an analysis of the text! Anyway, Papias' passing along the invented tale of Judas completely discredits him.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Thanks Vork.

aa5874

But, how would it be determined that Papias would be discredited for the tale of Judas when we don't even know if there was another tale that was more plausible?

We seem to forget that the Jesus character was itself IMPLAUSIBLE and we still have FOUR invented tales Canonised by the Church.

Who could discredit the tales of whom they never saw or heard?

MCalavera

I'm not deep into all the details. But depends on which view is more parsimonious.

archibald

Indeed. Economy is only a guide, or indeed a rational preference, when all else fails, and an answer has to be estimated, and may be the wrong answer.

But, just incidentally, my daughter wants to know where do the storks get them from?

I have a hunch that particular analogy may be an example of the opposite to what you suggest. :]

Atheos

I'm still unimpressed with this insistence that interpreting the available evidence in favor of a historical Jesus is somehow more "parsimonious" than interpreting it in favor of the mythicist view.

All we have are stories. We have no actual evidence that the individual in question existed. No birth record, no letters to or from, no historical documentation written by a disinterested third party, etc.

There is abundant evidence and reason to believe that these stories developed via oral tradition for several decades before anyone began writing any of it down. In the process the story absorbed elements of Greek and Jewish traditions.

At this point any assumption made that the story is entirely mythical is completely offset by any assumption made that elements of the story are not mythical. Both are entirely plausible and fit with the available evidence.

And once we strip the story of its mythical elements to arrive at a plausible historical core we're left with an itinerant preacher who managed to influence a few people with his words, said some controversial things and may have ended up in the slammer after vandalizing the temple.

Big whoop. This story probably describes the lives of hundreds of eccentric preacher types of the period.

Either way the extraordinary man presented in the stories never existed. In other news King Arthur probably didn't pull Excalibur out of a stone either.

Nathan Poe

And you're dismissing again -- and getting more and more hysterical with each dismissal, I must add.

Because fanciful birth stories about famous historical people is nothing new. Furthermore, if you read the text chronologically, you can see how the birth story grew and developed over time, and as part of specific theological agendas -- so we know that it wasn't an original part of the story.

Furthermore, we can see where those Gospels which don't have a "Ghost Story" as you call it make innuendos about the more mundane (and embarrassing) alternative -- one which it would've been in the best interests of the more conservative authors to explain away with a fanciful myth -- which is exactly what they did.

I don't know what these particular people of antiquity believed -- I know modern Christians believe them because they don't know better, and I know your obsession with this particular "Ghost story" is getting a wee bit unhealthy.

Have you considered talking about this with a professional?

Nathan Poe

It's really quite simple -- Paul called himself an Apostle, but Paul was clearly not one of the twelve.

Therefore, there's a difference between apostles and "the twelve."