Doug Shaver

Get used to some qualms. That is exactly what I think.

aa5874

You are merely REPEATING what you BELIEVE. You are NOT providing any actual evidence for your Historical Jesus of Nazareth and introduce Rhetorical statements about YOUR FEELINGS.

It is ALREADY known that HJers believe Jesus was a figure of history.

Take the next step.

Provide the evidence for your belief.

Provide the source for your belief.

The source for the EGYPTIAN is Josephus.

The evidence for the Egyptian cannot help you.

What is the source for HJ of Nazareth??

steve_bnk

Only an idiot?

A case can be nade for an historical figure on which the myth was spun, but there are also plausible alternate hypotheses. It could be a complete fiction. From a show on Christianity the gospels were likely written as promotional literature to attract converts, certainly embeliished.





The short answer is we can never know.

aa5874

Well, if you say "we can never know" then NO CASE can be made for an historical Jesus.

The case for an Historical Jesus can ONLY be made when EVIDENCE is KNOWN for such a case.

There can be NO CASE without evidence.

A NO-CASE submission will always be allowed when NO evidence is KNOWN for the case.

And you say "WE CAN NEVER KNOW".

If what you say is true, there WILL NEVER BE a case for the Historical Jesus.

Now, the evidence for Myth Jesus is ALREADY KNOWN in Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1.1-4, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2-3, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, and Galatians 1.1-12.

There will ALWAYS be a case for Myth Jesus.

The Data for the Myth Jesus case is KNOWN and will be with us FOREVER.

steve_bnk

Examples abound today.

Bin Laden had mythical status among many.

The genesis of Scientology.

The genesis of a bunch of Inidan gurus and their American followers. The Bagwan and his Rajnesi cult. The cult like belief by weterners in the posession of speciasl wisdom by virutue of 'oreintal wisdom'.

From a biography of Gandhi, younger Europeans who came to India later in his life could not undertsand how the great man could be on a first name basis with those who were with him from earlier times. He had begun to attain a mythicsl statsus outside of izndia.

The defunct Japapnese emporer cult.

The absurd conservative mythification of Ronald Reagan.

The only difference is modern communications.

Did George Washington really chop down a cherry tree?

Solo

Hi Andrew,
do you know of any mention of maya in Buddhist texts as obstacle to spiritual liberation ?

I understand the buddhist maya, as the 'primal' or the 'grand' illusion that accounts for the created world, but is not in itself the cause of evil. The buddhist mindset perceives the elements composing this world are essentially unreal like things appearing in a mock-show(Vajracchedika 32 a). It is passion or desire (raga) which excites evil through senses,; it is that which Mara thinks he owns. In a Samyutta-nikaya, there is a parable of Mara disguised as a ploughman, tempting Gautama:

- 'Recluse, did you see any oxen ?'

- 'What have you, Malign One, to do with oxen ?' (Note that Buddha knows the demon, not the other way around !)

- 'Mine, Recluse, is the eye, mine are material shapes, mine is the field of visual consciousness. Where can you go, Recluse, to escape from me ? Precisely mine, recluse, are the ear, sounds, the field of auditory consciousness: the nose, scents, the field of olfactory consciousness; the tongue, tastes, the field of gustatory consciousness; the body, touches, the field of tactile consciousness; precisely mine, Recluse, is the mind, mine are mental states, mine is the field of mental consciousness'.

- 'Precisely yours, Malign One, is all this. But where there is none of all this, there is no coming in for you'.

(in Edward Conze et al, Buddhist Texts Through the Ages (or via: amazon.co.uk), Boston 1990, p.108)

Best,
Jiri

steve_bnk

Maya is the human created metaphysical facades. Taking background flats in a stage play as reality.

Our political public facades of our politicians are maya.

tanya

Mark 1:1: Byzantine, (my guess: post Nicea, fourth or more likely, fifth, sixth, or even, as late as seventh century) Question: Is it possible that the ORIGINAL version of Mark 1:1, written, I believe, after 135 CE, had this same wording, and subsequent versions, see below, REDACTED the son of god business....? Is it possible that the Byzantine version, though printed later, had actually been derived from an earlier manuscript????

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

Mark 1:1: Codex Sinaiticus (my guess, initially published post Nicea, also, but no later than mid fourth century, at the latest, and possibly a copy of an earlier manuscript from the third, or even second century?)

αρχη του ευαγγελιου [ιυ χυ] (omitted)

aa5874

Are you implying that we will NEVER know if all these people did exist?

It is just baseless To claim "modern communications" is the only difference between chopping down a cherry-tree by Washington and that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was God and the Creator, was on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple with Satan, Fed nine thousand people with 12 loaves and a few fishes, CURSED a tree so that it died, Instantly healed incurable diseases, walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

Suetonius "Twelve Lives of the Caesars" even though about Emperors of Rome do NOT contain as much Mythology as even gMatthew alone.

And, you have already stated that "we will NEVER know" so I really don't understand how UNRELATED events about other characters will ever help.

Sheshbazzar