mountainman

This comparison is already hackneyed in this forum.
You will need to let it go ....


How many centuries have the theological colleges been sponsored by the church? Our education system has emerged from centuries of mass delusion at the hands of a despotic church system. There is still a dominant hegemon as a result that the basic hypothesis of an HJ cannot be wrong.

It's time to examine other alternatives.




Excellent. I too am just firing questions and not bullets.


The idea that there was nobody in antiquity who ever questioned the historical existence of Jesus is a hegemonic relic of dogma. It is not an historical fact. At best it is an hypothesis (like the HJ hypothesis) which has not yet been peer reviewed.


90-95% of the Roman Empire was pagan c.326 CE when the official law was enacted that religious privileges are reserved for Christians and not reserved for pagans. Are we to assume that out of these millions of pagans every single one of them fell flat on his or her face and prostrated themselves on the ground before the NEW and STRANGE deity of Jesus H Christ with the common knowledge that, although they had never heard of this person before, the new emperor must have checked his facts.

To believe this happened is like believing in a fairy story.
Things do not work like that in the real world.

Why were the Christians executing people who held different OPINIONS?
What were these OPINIONS that were attracting the immediate death penalty, century after century after century?
What writings were the Christians burning for century after century after century?


WE DONT KNOW.

Yet Ehrman and all other mainstream pundits think they do know.

Their conclusions are hypothetical, and are in reality based on their hypothesis, the fundamental one of which is that Jesus existed.

They are the INSIDERS. They are privy to divine dogma.

I represent the OUTSIDERS. I am not privy to divine dogma.

outhouse

I agree, it goes well with your fiction comment




not the modern ones we are using.

Is there bias? absolutely

are they creating apologetic based history? sure they are



But that doesnt negate the good work done by the impartial that for the most part solidly finds a historical jesus.



its always a good time to investigate all angles.


But at the same time, I wouldnt waist my time with YEC, or biblical jesus.


Since im about 55% HJ and 45% myth, I see so much waisted energy on oddball tangents going nowhere, its rediculous.


So far no one can explain away my version of HJ, and when one digs deep in archeology and social anthropology, HJ makes perfect sense out of the culture and mythical jesus fails as most hellenistic man god hybrids have a historical core. And the way the wrote jesus in is such a embarrassment as you can tell the authors and redactors are struggling what to do with a failed messiah nobody from timbucktoo Galilee

outhouse

isnt that the truth

I agree.


But there is a amount know with certainty to historical jesus and only a few small sentances covers it..

Bernard Muller

RSV 1Jn4:2 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,"
It is undeniable the emphasized words are against 2nd century Gnostics/Docetists. However, looking at the next verse (4:3) with its negative version of most of the preceding one, and the words in italics (compare them with the ones in 4:2), it appears "that ... Christ has come in the flesh" is likely a later interpolation.
4:3a RSV "and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist ..."
Of course, Jesus is also Christ & Son, because earlier, he has already been adamantly declared as such:
1Jn2:22 "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."
Therefore, not confessing Jesus is also denying Jesus as Christ & Son.

aa5874

Why do we need your version of Jesus today??? You don't make much sense.

Your version of HJ must be a fake if historians already have another version.



The Jesus story was NOT an embarrassment to Christians.

The crucifixion of Jesus was a LOVE story. It was the GREATEST LOVE story of all.

Please read gJohn.

John 15:13 KJVPlease read Galatians.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Sheshbazzar

The problem with this line of discussion is that 'modern' logic does not interface with the natural credulity of primitive belief systems.

People in the 1st century, and right through medieval times were extremely credulous with respect to the existence of the supernatural, and most firmly believed in the existence of a Deity or deities, and in the attendant angels, demons, ghosts, spirits and a large variety of other phantazmagorical creatures.
It would not have even entered into their minds that the 'Nephilim', 'Satan', the 'Cherubim', 'Seraphim' etc. did not indeed exist or that they were mythical, much less any figure that might have been said to have done this or that amazing feat in their naive versions of a hear-tell 'history'.

A common trick to get people to 'see' these various apparitions was simply point at the sky and shout 'Look! hundreds of angels!' or 'There appears a great dragon in the clouds of heaven! And a sure enough out of any crowd of the credulous there would be those that also 'saw' and witnessed the same phenomenon, with the usual set-up being an implication that if you did not also see what these others claimed that they 'saw' you were not as spiritually righteous as they were. So there was considerable group pressure to conform and to confirm whatever it might be that others claimed they saw. And the tighter knit the group identity the more pronounced the tendency to conform.
This was the hysteria of witnessing 'spectral evidence' that powered the infamous Salem Witch Trials, but it had been around since the dawn of human civilization. This type of cult manipulation is still the stock and trade of backwoods Pentecostalism.

Because of this common primitive credulity we are not likely to ever find any early source that would even think to argue for the non-existence of a real Jeebus, but then neither will you find these early sources arguing for the non-existence of Satan, demons, the Sepharim, the Phoenix, Atlantis, or even a real King Arthur.
This way of critical thinking, demanding the provision of verifiable evidence for miraculous claims, simply was not that prevalent or considered as being vital in the ancient world, or even today within more primitive societies.




.

Doug Shaver

You asked how he could make the claim. I told you how he could make it.

Whether he could formulate the claim in such a way that you personally would pay any attention to it is another matter entirely.

mountainman

Your disagreement is noted, but you appear almost totally unaware that you are treading on a completely false analogy. It has been referred to as a derangement syndrome.


Also note that a fictional Jesus is just a special form of the Mythical Jesus.




Do some homework please. Read the question carefully.
Hint: You are seeking a number between 15 and 16.

outhouse

not even that popular only in myther circles.


dont take me out of context, I dont have a 100% Ehrman view on this even though he makes a great point.

One only has to read the unscholarly approach to many here and use this very forums as a example and he would get a A on a report card.

theres only a slight handful at best that break his stereotype here.




im sorry but i dont use those sources, and for that reason i cherry pick my scholars for content

Solo

What should we call this : "the outhouse doctrine" ?

Best,
Jiri