teamonger

Okay, but this is semantics. If Jesus presented the illusion of being a man, then for those docetics he still "existed" in some sense. I was using "phantom" as a rhetorical synonym to the mythicist view.
t

teamonger

As long as we're discussing hopes... while I do hope to see the Jesus Project achieve much in genuine inquiry, must admit part of me is hoping that, at the end of the day, the Jesus mythers will see the error of their fringe thinking, and say yeah, there probably was a cult leader who got the ball rolling.

Keeping skepticsm/secularism on the mainstream course helps to marginalize the apologists; they remain on the fringe where they belong. In other words, we're better off letting them look like the nutty ones.

But really, I don't think either mythicist or historicist will find any clear victory at the JP.
t

teamonger

Of course I realize the "miracles and magic". I see them also on the Benny Hinn show, but I don't doubt Benny is a real cult leader. Anyway, I think many of the concepts are theological window-dressing, and not necessarily central to Jesus' character. I find the Jesus of Mark and Q to be a highly plausible (but mistaken) cult leader. Appears legends then accreted around this historical core, and then theologies were built upon the legends. We can also see that the original character didn't quite fit (was a Galilean from Nazareth, for example), and we see how such problems were later glossed over.

My position isn't far removed from Thomas Jefferson's scissors. It was not so simple as Tom thought, and I don't hold Jesus in the esteem that Tom did, but the principle is the same.
t

teamonger

Those that agree do so because they want Mary to stay a virgin. But see, to make "brother" different than it's plain meaning, you have to invent a new category of Christian who is not an apostle. Rather ad hoc. I prefer the plain meaning of "brother" here, which is also in Mark, gospel of the Hebrews, and Josephus.

He indicates Jesus came "when the time had fully come". That implies recent to me. The resurrection would have to be after the arrival.

Paul "delivered" what he also "received" in 1 Cor 15. Sounds like the methods were the same in this case.

I already acknowledged that Paul had to spin the crucifixion into a good thing. He had to!

Papias' reference to apostles being alive long before him. Persecutions under Nero indicating early Christian activity.


Urban legends often have some piece of truth at their core, which make them all the more believable.

Of course Mark's endtimes is the end of the world. Mark plainly describes the Son of Man coming in clouds of glory, with angels gathering the elect, after great tribulation, all happening within a generation. Did that happen??

But if Mark was writing around 70, he saw great tribulation. He could well have thought the end was about to happen. Just as the writer of Daniel thought the end-times were upon him when he wrote.

And if Mark were writing around 70, portraying events from around 30, stands to reason some parts might be historical. Especially if some earlier believers were still alive who actually knew those times.

t

teamonger

Okay, how about this: a portrayal of events from 40 years earlier is less likely to be complete fabrication, due to the liklihood of people still being alive who knew the times. Better?
t

teamonger

I do not say it "must be believed", I say it must be considered and evaluated by historical criteria. Why are you predisposed to think there could be nothing of historical value there?
t

aa5874

Do you see the probems?

The statement by Origen that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ" is NOT found anywhere at all in the writings of Josephus. No where whatsoever.

The suspected forged passage of Josephus, the TF, claimed Jesus was [the] Christ.

Eusebius quotes a forged passage about Jesus and Origen quotes a passage about Jesus that does not exist, and they are still contradictory.

And in fact, almost the entire statement found in Against Celsus by Origen is not found at all in any of Josephus writings. Josephus never mentioned that the death of James was responsible for the destruction of the Temple.

What really is authentic about Jesus? Whatever you guess.

teamonger

The point is, seems Origen read something in Josephus to make him think that. But what? apparently, a negatively worded TF.

Yes, which means that Christian scribes probably "corrected" the original negative statement.

Origen did not quote a passage, he merely commented, "Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ". Logically, he read something that said so.

Origen did apparently misinterpret Josephus about that, but this is irrelevant to the case above, and also to the authentic "brother of Jesus" reference.
t

teamonger

I'm curious if anyone here is attending the December conference of the Jesus Project. Kinda far for me...
t

Toto

Even worse. By the time that Mark wrote, the Jewish War had removed most witnesses from the area and probably leveled most of the landmarks. The idea that 1) anyone would have been around to check the facts or that 2) anyone thought that Mark's composition was even pretending to be a historical account that needed to be checked against the facts on the ground seems highly unlikely.