dog-on

Do you prefer your trousers with elastic waist bands as well?

dog-on

Dude, chill...

Do you believe in the cosmic Christ as portrayed in the bible? Yes, or no?

Other than that being, any "average Joe" HJ is just made up since there is no discussion of such an animal in any of your "primary sources"... :wave:

gurugeorge

Yes, and as I said, IIRC all these are contested by Doherty on his website at one place or another. (But thanks for taking the trouble to quote, that's a handy list.)

That's really an unfair characterisation of what I was saying (and of what mythicists say generally, if that's what you mean): what I meant was, "I'm sure there are counter-arguments to these things in Paul (and I vaguely remember Doherty has some), but it's not really my concern to go into that at the moment." Again, remember the context of my post: an outline of the form of the argument from silence as used by mythicists. I'm not proposing my version of mythicism here, but reporting the position as I understand it. (Hence the "So:", but I admit I could have been clearer.)

Ooh, I'm cut to the quick! I think I presented the argument from silence as (e.g.) Wells and Doherty use it quite accurately, which was my only concern.

I wasn't aware that all evidence one gives for a position one takes has to be from academic articles The first two articles show (in general, popular form) that an interest in the details (events, gossip, artefacts, etc.) of a celebrity's life are psychological constants - did you even read them? Had I more time I'd dig deeper but actually if you understand the point, you will understand that the first two general articles are quite sufficient to support my argument (i.e. a presentation of the logic of the argument from silence as used by mythicists), and I didn't even need the third (I just put it in because I was sure you would probably ask for something like that) - but the book (that the review is of) does actually (even according to the slightly critical review) support the idea that celebrity was about the same in those days.

Because the full-on God-man is impossible to prove from the evidence, and the usual story of "obscure preacher deified" doesn't make any sense either. What does make sense is a mystical religion, like ten-a-penny mystical religions all over the world, with a "founder" retroactively injected, who embodies the central principles, and given biographical details. (You've shown you are somewhat familiar with Daoism, need I go through Buddhism, Hinduism?)

"Seriously stretch" may be your opinion, it's not the opinion of everybody on this board, and other reviewers.

The point about "face value" is that it comes prior to research - I told you how I came to my opionion of Paul long before I read Doherty. The "face value" of Paul, when I read the letters in my 20s, was that there was something extremely fishy going on, and the overall tone and tenor of Paul's mentions of Jesus was mystical, and seemed to bear little relation to the "Jesus" I was familiar with. When I came across Doherty, he seemed to give a good explanation of it. Other people have other aspects (like Wells, Price) that are also interesting. I don't think any of them likely has the full picture, but the main point I was trying to make is that mythicism is certainly plausible, and that the argument from silence as used by mythicists is a logical argument.

I don't have to do anything Chris, because I'm not presenting an original mythicist argument, I'm just reporting (and was correcting what I felt was a mistaken impression of) mythicist arguments as I understand them.

Yes, the mystical Jesus - he's in John too, a bit, and most especially in Thomas. (e.g. "lift up a stone ...." is pure non-dualism) To me, as someone who's had non-dual mystical experiences (unsought for and subsequently confirmed by reading the classics of mysticism), it's kind of obvious (although I agree if I were presenting the idea rigorously I'd have to do something more convincing than just finger the old school tie ).

For example: at the risk of opening up another can of worms, I think "kata sarka" means roughly the same as "Christ in you", i.e., "Christ" is a term for pure perception/action considered (metaphysically, i.e. in itself), as God's canvassing of his own possibilities through his creatures, which is normally "imprisoned" in the flesh (or "crucified", if you like, or "in hell", etc., etc.). (Check out Doherty's review of a novel about Mary Magdalene on his website, where he speculates that possibly something like this was the "point" of early Christianity.) Freke and Gandy also go into this in some detail. It's also evident in a fair amount of pagan writing, especially the neo-Platonists. The basic idea is that a "gestalt switch" is possible, by which the process of perception that's housed in the body of flesh ceases to see itself as personal and individual (as a "me") and realises itself as impersonal and universal (as "God", or the "THAT" of Vedanta). That's the real meaning of "resurrection", "eternal life", and all the rest of it.

lee_merrill

There were indeed recent discoveries, as mentioned in this thread, and also recent denials, from some who were apparently not convinced by any 4th century evidence, and thus proposed (in the face of this) an argument from silence.

There were some here arguing that Luke was incorrect, even. Another argument from silence, again, now in the face of some actual evidence.

And here again (surprise?) we have another argument from silence, despite various pieces of evidence.

"Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. 'Rum thing,' he went on. 'All that stuff of Frazer's about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once.'" (C.S. Lewis, "Surprised by Joy," p. 123).

dog-on

Yea, right. (surprise!)...

The HJ argument in a nutshell:

With all these documents, it must have been based on someone.

(nothing up my sleeve,....Presto!) HJ

Gooch's dad

You said the above regarding Doherty's astonishing re-interpretation of fairly standard Koine Greek phrases in the NT. The opinions of "everybody on this board" is pretty much irrelevant in determining the accuracy of his Greek inventions, since only a handful of posters here are fluent in Koine Greek.

Care to name another reviewer who is fluent in Koine Greek, and who does support Doherty's interpretation?

This is exactly why pop-press books and posts on message boards are largely irrelevant in determining the validity of a "mythical Jesus" hypothesis. You get tyros who claim that their opinion is just as valid as that of a historian who is fluent in all Biblical languages, and who has studied the stuff for decades.

Which always reminds me of creationists who say that their interpretation of evolution is right, "just because it makes sense". They toss out the entire academic and scientific body of knowledge, based on what amounts to an a priori assumption.

Now, I don't think all MJ'ers make such an a priori assumption when approaching the question of a historical Jesus, but I do think that the vast majority of those who support the MJ hypothesis are being hypocritical, in ignoring the academic body of knowledge on the subject.

dog-on

Maybe the a priori assumption should be MJ, since we are dealing with documents purporting to be the biography of a God/Man.

spamandham

If you are referring to the Caesarea Maritima inscriptions you alluded to in this post...

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=90

...they refer to relocations after the Hadrianic war, but are the inscriptions not dated to the late 3rd/early 4th century?

diana

Interesting point.

Is it possible to approach the study without an a priori assumption of some kind? In theory, yes. In reality, the answer seems to be no.

So. What assumption should we make at the outset? What a priori assumptions do historians make of the big Old Testament characters (Moses, Abraham...)? What assumptions do we make when faced with similar stories from other cultures and religions? At the very least, we should be consistent.

Incidentally, as I understand it, a person can be both HJ and MJ simultaneously. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

d

Amaleq13

No one in this thread has argued that Luke was incorrect in referring to the census conducted under Quirinius.