Elijah

If you consider Jesus a savior figure then you need to explain how that is possible without a historical figure. If you think they were preaching salvation being received from a myth either with Christ or the Pagans then you need to show your sources or at least explain how that is/was possible.
Then why do you keep bringing Dionysus up if not to compare it to Jesus? I’m missing your point.
Does someone actually die or is it just a story? I don’t know how you think Paul thought salvation was achieved.

I wouldn’t say that Paul’s message is just that “someone” died but that the messiah did. The death and resurrection of which would have certain ideological ripples. Instead of having to do good works and follow the law to be resurrected or resurrected with a higher standing you just had to have faith in Christ who had already risen and promised to raise anyone who served him the next time he came back through. (John 11:25) It was like a pyramid scheme for eternal life, if you believe in me and get others to on the day of the resurrection I’ll bring you back to. A scheme I can understand forming around a historical core but have a hard time imagining around a mythical story especially with martyrdom in the deal.
Appealing to evidence is absurd giving the limited amount of evidence we do have from the time. Once you understand him as a working-class messiah and not as a pagan superbaby then seeing the likelihood of a historical core being there shouldn’t be a big deal.
It’s not just about probability, it’s about options. The myth theory still hasn’t got something together that can really be examined to see if it’s a valid theory.
I don’t know how much political power they had at the time or how much would have been necessary in that situation.
So they thought he was historical? And what indication do you have that he wasn’t?
But do you understand the concept of the dead Messiah and why it was important for people to worship him and how that could lead to our salvation? Ideologically.
How would you know if it wasn’t worth keeping? History has a way of preserving the best and misplacing the rest. You can’t expect any of his early followers to have the ability to write anything of substance. Some of them may have been literate but not able to compose the literature necessary to convey the message. Unlike Paul, who represents when the Jesus phenomenon moves out of the lower working class and into the more serious religious intellectual sphere. People like Paul and Philo weren’t all over the place back then to put out their own versions of what they saw with Jesus, they had to tell their story.
No I’m saying that there is not a single good example of an ancient Jewish historian who left a text that should have mentioned Jesus. The whole absence of evidence is total bunk.

All I take for historical is him sacrificing himself and that’s to explain the line of martyrs that followed.
I consider Paul to have a Hellenized view but in the way Philo does with mixing the philosophy not the mythology. I don’t know how he would even mix Judaism with mythology because I just consider them stories/poems but maybe you have something in particular in mind you think he mixed it with.
If your faith includes the resurrection of the dead then how do you figure that?
That would be true if the myth theory didn’t need to be proven with the same expectation of evidence. An unexplained theory doesn’t win by default because the current thinking can’t be proven.

aa5874

Well, tell me who of antiquity understood your Jesus, the Jesus that you have no evidence of?

Was it Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Tatian, Origen, the author of Acts, the writers called Paul, James, Jude or Eusebius.

You present a Jesus without history that not even you can explain.

If you don't know what they believed, you have to read the writings of antiquity, instead of guessing.

Read Against Heresies by Irenaeus and you will find out what people of antiquity believed.

All I have to do is show you what people of antiquity wrote about Jesus of the NT.

They wrote that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

I do not need a theory to show you Matthew 1.18.

They wrote that he ascended through the clouds.

I do not need a theory to show you Acts 1.9.

They wrote that people are still in their sins if Jesus was not resurrected.

I do not need a theory to show you the letters of the writer called Paul.

They wrote about a creature that was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, resurrected and ascended.

I do not need a theory to show you that the creature described was a myth.

Now, show me what people of antiquity wrote about your Jesus, the one without any evidence.

Solo

Look, spin, at this point the only thing that interests me is this: in your opinion, does 2 Cor 5:16 support the hypothesis that Paul knew about Jesus from ordinary human communication before receiving revelation from God about him as Christ.

"Yes", "no", or "I am not answering the question" will do. Anything else (including "why no") will not be addressed to me as I am frankly uninterested to continue this exchange lest the inanity of it reflects poorly on me.

Thank you for your understanding !

Jiri

spin

You have now already had two negative responses. I've tried to give my interpretation of what the text indicates. You are performing eisegesis. It's not there. You are inventing. You made it up. How many other ways have I got to say it to get the idea across? You're being creative. The text doesn't allow you to have such an idea. You're not reading in context. Get it? :huh:


spin

fatpie42

Okay, as for this whole idea of "they believed it so it must be true", the best explanation of why this is wholly false I feel comes from the example of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the end, the premise these theories wish to espouse (that the government wanted 9/11 to happen) supercedes the individual facts of the story they claim to be unravelling. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists were very shortly after the historical event with all sorts of records of it, yet they come up with any number of demonstrably false ideas based on bad science and poor research.

What we are suggesting here is that the strong desire for a messiah figure at the time (with many historical messiahs who were dissapointing) led to the imagination that the real messiah had already been and gone. Stories were told of this messiah figure who had supposedly been killed by the Romans (probably prior to the destruction of the Temple). Of course, when the Jewish uprisings were well and truly put down the focus changed from converting Jews to converting gentiles and Romans, so then Jews were the enemy (if there's one thing we can both agree must have been a later addition, it is the demonisation of the Pharisees as 'plotting to kill Jesus' when within the same account it is fully recognised that it was the high priests - not the pharisees - who ordered Jesus' death). As such, a whole mythology quickly develops and changes with the political context.

I do not see why there is a need that this is based around an actual historical figure called Jesus. There is no methodology by which we can assert that anything within the story refers to this person anyway. The mythological elements within the various accounts is undeniable. So, back to you. Why should we assert a historical person.

I don't believe Jesus is a saviour figure because I am not a Christian. Those who do think Jesus was a historical figure might well believe that he was a real person, but I don't see why that means that they were correct. Let's not forget that many parts of the Jesus story were placed within that story because it was believed that Jesus must have done them in order to fulfil the prophecies (i.e. they didn't have a story of Jesus doing them, but they assumed he must have done). For example, the attempt to use Quirinius' census to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. E.P. Sanders' (who fully believes in a historical Jesus figure) claims that the census would not have been within the area where Jesus was believed to have lived as well as noting that those taking the census would go to the people where they lived, not order a huge chaotic reorganisation of the populace. So this whole episode is essentially created out of nowhere based on what a messiah ought to have done, not based on a historical figure.

I was asking for your criteria. I didn't know how you would justify seeing Jesus as any more historical than any other religious mythical figures. So far you haven't provided any such criteria, but that's okay because you've also suggested that Dionysus is just as likely to be historical as Jesus; so you are being consistent.

I don't see the connection between those two questions. Paul never met Jesus, so it might well be a story told to him (or even, as Spin suggests, a story he believes was truthfully relayed to him from God Himself). Using the fact that Paul believed that Jesus' historicity was vital for salvation does nothing to demonstrate that Jesus was actually historical.

Are you an evangelical Christian? Is it apologetics you are interested in, rather than historical analysis? I have a hard time understanding why you would give me a random Bible verse with no real explanation what relevance it has to the conversation. You began by talking about Paul's message and then give me a quotation from the most mythological of all the gospel accounts.

Meanwhile you are asserting that I must take a Lutheran interpretation of Paul. Why? Sure Paul expresses the importance of faith, but the way you describe Paul's theology shows a distinct protestant bias.

Why do you find it hard to imagine? Perhaps if you explained your reasoning, I might be able to discuss this with you, but at the moment it just sounds like you are presuming too much and not taking the historical and hermeneutical issues seriously.

No. Appealing to historicity is absurd given the limited amount of evidence we have from the time.

Aha! That's the point exactly. They wouldn't have to write anything 'of substance' or 'convey the message'. All that we would need would be an account from the time, preferably from someone observing the followers of Jesus and how they act, which indicates that Jesus existed. Even the fabricated account of Jesus in Josephus does little more than this. It is not surprising to find healers in the time period and some reference to this particular healer at the time when he was supposed to have lived would do a job of indicating that he existed. We have no such evidence.

Well that's unfortunate since even the gospel accounts don't portray a historical Jesus who sacrificed himself. The only way they are able to assert that Jesus sacrificed himself is by saying that he had the power of God (either through being a kind of prophet or being God incarnate) to save himself had he wished to do so. If you consider what is written in the accounts as a true reflection of the events, any historical figure (with no such God power), was simply executed. No self-sacrifice involved.

Now Socrates on the other hand has a variety of accounts concerning his drinking of hemlock. We know that he had the option to run and that he willingly drank the hemlock himself. That, much more so than in the gospel story, was a true self-sacrifice.

Might one argue that Socrates is the historical Jesus and was then given a complete change in context? After all, if the self-sacrifice is the only bit which can be confidently claimed as historical, Socrates would fulfil the criteria wouldn't he?

As I have mentioned many times before, there is no shortage of evidence of myth within all the accounts of Jesus. That the Jesus story is mythical is well and truly proven. That it originated from a historical source is not proven. To ask for evidence that the myth did NOT have a historical source (with no evidence to the contrary) is to ask for proof of the null hypothesis (i.e. an impossibility).

Elijah

I’m not saying that them believing it makes it true, obviously, but their belief in a messiah that had came and went is easier explained with a historical figure then a mythical story. IMO
With so many historical messiahs who had already disappointed and only needing one of them to have died why didn’t they choose one of them? Why make up a new figure to die if so many messiah claimants had already been?
Now I’m all for interpreting the story of Jesus as a new kind of messiah, more ideological. I said earlier the contribution that the mythers can make to the conversation is getting the story right even if they miss on the origin and correct for me is the dead king/messiah who dies for the people. Not that superbaby pagan genie god stuff.
Beyond no one presenting a myth theory that explains the data I still don’t see how a mythical person offers the possibility of salvation?
I don’t know why you would assume they are incorrect unless you have seen a theory which explained the data better and you thought was supported better. The whole idea of it being created out of “nowhere” doesn’t really work for me.
So you think Paul thought the story was of a historical person? What does Paul never having to meet him have to do with what you are suggesting?
It was only meant as evidence of the pyramid scheme/selling point of Christianity to explain its spread. Don’t freak out at every bible verse you see.
The whole coming out of nowhere thing is a problem and the fuzzy area when trying to explain/imagine how it was confused for history.
If you can explain what you think happened without a historical figure then go for it. Not a vague summery but of who what where when.
I think you are imposing modern standards of writing ability on ancient man. I don’t think it is like on here where everyone can communicate with the written word because we’ve all spent years and years in school honing the skill but back then that just wasn’t the case and especially if you’re talking about fishermen.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Yep died as a philosopher should have. Now apply Socrates to Jesus not Dionysus. Socrates is also a good example of people imitating him with the questioning and Jesus with the martyrdom.
Socrates and Jesus are very similar and he certainly could have done more with his death especially if he had asked his followers do as him and there would be reward. Obviously Socrates isn’t trying to fulfill prophecy or start a new meme, he is just responding to the situation he is in as he should have.
The account isn’t mythical though as much as it’s a story about a messiah who died. Now if it happened in real life or was just made up we can’t be sure but it shouldn’t be looked at like a myth about a god but the story of a messiah.

You don’t have to prove that it didn’t have a historical core you have to prove that it had a mythical origin. The events still happened in history so they should have left record. The same criteria for the historical evidence you expect of the messiah should be expected for the writer of the Jesus story. I don’t really expect evidence just a explanation that makes sense for a mythical origin, to compare to.

gurugeorge

That's an interesting way of putting it. There is something screwy about the way the burden of proof has historically been distributed in this matter. Rationalists have been slightly bamboozled by Christists into not noticing that we are starting with a myth in our investigations. Unless euhemerism is considered to be the default position, a "man behind the myth" is the extra entity that needs to be proved.

aa5874

That is because you do not read or understand that in antiquity people believe that myths were Gods.

Read Discourse to the Greeks by Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks by Justin Martyr, Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Against Marcion by Tertullian and John1.1-3.

It is absolutely clear that people of antiquity believed mythical Gods could forgive sins.

Why are you trying to impose your imagination when there are HISTORICAL records to show that people of antiquity did believe in mythical Gods, Jesus being one of them?


You are contradicting yourself here.

Mythical events cannot leave historical records.

The birth of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, could not leave an historical record, and that is exactly the case. There is no known historical record of Jesus.

And to compound the fact that there are no historical records of Jesus, there are also no historical records of any one associated directly with Jesus. Even the writer called Paul who was supposed to be alive when Jesus was on earth did NOT write a single time that he saw Jesus anywhere at all.

But, the writer called Paul was certain that Jesus resurrected and ascended.

There are no historical records of the following, external of apologetic sources:

His mother
His father
His siblings
His twelve disciples
His thousands of followers.


And when I examine your posts so far, it has been drawn to my attention that you have been really propagating a MYTH, a creature that has no known history. Your Jesus is a just 21st century MYTH based on information provided in the NT.

The historical Jesus is a modern myth based on no historicity.

fatpie42

Aha! This might be a vital point for you to understand my position. Paul suggests that Jesus' historicity is a tenet of faith! Paul not only believes that Jesus was a historical figure, but believes that there was a historical event whereby Jesus rose from the dead. Paul insists it to be an important matter of faith to believe in these historical events - the resurrection in particular.

Now just because Paul sees this event as historical does not mean that everyone else did. In fact where Paul writes about the importance of faith that this event really happened he is arguing against those who believe that the event's historicity is unimportant.

Paul has never met Jesus and never saw a historical figure of Jesus. The fact that he believes that there was a historical figure of Jesus makes no difference to the view that Jesus was mythical.

Yes, that is a Bible verse. Well done.

I believe my original statement was that they believe Jesus sacrificed himself in the sense that he had the power to prevent his death and refrained from using it. If Jesus was a historical non-divine person, he had absolutely no power to prevent his death and thus did not sacrifice himself.

Socrates has a evidence of his historicity while Jesus does not. There, I've compared them. The reason I picked Dionysos was because there was a similar dearth of evidence for their historicity.

You are completely ignoring the way the writings about Jesus are written. Paul links Jesus with the mythical figure of Adam, while the gospels describe him as rising from the dead and ascending into heaven (which, if historical, would suggest that heaven was in the sky). That the figure described is mythical is undeniable. That it had origins in history is the issue we are debating here.

Paul doesn't just describe a man who died, but describes a man whose death is meant to have consequences which are related to mythological world view. Paul's view of Jesus' resurrection might sound like he is treating it as history, but his view that Jesus' death acts as 'first fruits' is undoubtedly mythological in character.

I have to prove that real people wrote the gospels? Doesn't the existence of the texts do that? What are you asking for here?

You are asking for evidence of why they wrote these texts in the way they did? Well that is a hermeneutical issue of which there is a great deal of research. I am particularly keen on Bultmann's assessment of the situation and I have tried to relate it to you as best I can.

You can find his essay "Kerygma and Myth" here:
Part One: http://www.religion-online.org/showc...itle=431&C=292
Part Two: http://www.religion-online.org/showc...itle=431&C=293

fatpie42

Oooh, a compliment. Thanks!