mountainman

The Jesus theories numbered 1 to 4 are based on the postulate that there was a real (historical) jesus, whereas the Jesus theories numbered 5 to 8 are based on the postulate that there was not.

The OP therefore is directed at Jesus theories numbered 1 to 4. It is attempting to argue the case that not only is there no authentic evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, the anecdotal and/or fabricated evidence which does exist is in fact itself evidence of a figure who could not possibly have been historical. The OP would have different success against the jesus theories 1 to 4, with most success against 1 and least success against 4 (where the historical jesus postulated is far removed from the jesus of the books of the new testament canon).

avi

Thanks, Pete, for the excellent summary of Price's model. Well done.

Logically, why should one anticipate a diminished rate of success presenting the same evidence, offered in support of disproving the presumptive existence of an historical Jesus, to adherents of Price's group IV, compared with group I?

To me, data pertinent to support for, or repudiation of, an hypothesis ought to be equally valid, regardless of one's interpretation of the merits of the hypothesis itself. In other words, the validity of the data, itself, ought not change, depending on one's prejudice towards one or more of the possible interpretations....

Mark 6:49

Byzantine Majority:
oi de idonteV auton peripatounta epi thV qalasshV edoxan fantasma einai kai anekraxan

Alexandrian:
oi de idonteV auton epi thV qalasshV peripatounta edoxan oti fantasma estin kai anekraxan

World English Version:
but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out;

Data: According to this gospel, men observe a "fantasma", i.e. ghost, spirit, phantom, WALKING on the surface of Lake Galilee, a body of fresh water, in its aqueous phase, not frozen.

Jesus goes on to say, in subsequent verses, not to worry, it is just me, don't be afraid.....

Why would you interpret this passage as clearly refuting only the first of Price's categories, rather than all four of his "historical" groups?

The implication of Jesus' reassurance to the men in the boat, in Mark 6:50 is that he is not a "fantasma", but rather, the very same, human, Jesus of Nazareth, well known to all of them.

Then, if this figure walking on the surface of the water is not a "fantasma", he must be a human with supernatural powers....

avi

mountainman

Hi avi,

Good question as usual. Let's look at Price's 4th category, where the Jesus is presented as the least historical - with minimal historicity:

Followers of this category theory could claim that there was still a real jesus but one who did not walk on the water. Rather he may have fallen overboard after a big party with Mary and friends, and the story was embellished by later generations. Followers of this category of theory are running with a very inconspicuous Jesus, but nevertheless a real jesus, whose life and times and memory are almost entirely fabricated, but not quite. Somewhere, conjecture the followers of category 4 HJ, there was a real person called Jesus at the basis of all these canonical Jesus stories. These people do not worry that the history of this Jesus cannot be reconstructed or retrieved, because essentially this Jesus was noone special, and would therefore not be expected to have had any history written about him or his life.

That's my take anyway avi, on why those who follow Price's category 4 Jesus, are able to argue that the "Superman Aspect" of Jesus has been fabricated, over a very tiny irretrievable historical core.They posit a very tiny irretrievable historical core, and therefore the problematics (I wont say "logical fallacy") of having next to zero historical evidence to support their version of Jesus is not anywhere near as problematical as theories in categories 1, 2 and 3 which demand more evidence. The absence of evidence is more commensurate with category 4, less with 3, even less with 2 and 1. Of course, I dont agree with these positions, but I think I understand them. My money is all on Jesus Theory Category 8.


Best wishes


Pete

J-D

I don't understand you at all.You don't appear to know anything about logic.Only ones that you don't answer the first time.Philo and Josephus do not corroborate all the statements about Pilate in the New Testament.You have not explained how you are evaluating the historical reliability of Philo and Josephus and Suetonius.Josephus does not corroborate all the statements about Caiaphas in the New Testament.That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to deal with it by obtaining clarification of its meaning which you have not yet given.Each of the Gospels says something different. Matthew says that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Mark says nothing about his conception or birth, but says that the the Holy Spirit descended on him when he was baptised. Luke says that Gabriel came to Mary and told her that she would give birth to the Son of God after the Holy Spirit came on her. John says nothing about his conception or birth or about his baptism by John the Baptist but says that John the Baptist testified that the Holy Spirit came down on Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874 and Satan was the Devil and they were BOTH on the Pinnacle of the Temple when the DEVIL asked Jesus to JUMP

I am aware that that story is found in Matthew. That does not prove that other statements in Matthew are false, still less that other statements in other books of the New Testament are false. The historical reliability of each individual statement in a document is a separate question.

J-D

No, they aren't. Generally speaking, the positions people take about the story of Jesus are conclusions they derive (rightly or wrongly) from evidence, and therefore not treated as postulates.

(There are a few exceptions who treat their positions about the story of Jesus as postulates as a device to avoid serious discussion.)aa5874 has never confirmed this.

J-D

Logically, proof that one statement in the Gospels about Jesus is false would disprove the hypothesis that all the statements in the Gospels about Jesus are true but would not disprove the hypothesis that some of the statements about Jesus in the Gospels are true and some are false.

aa5874

What is false in gMatthew?

I can't find any statement by the author of gMatthew that he was writing history.

It is just ILLOGICAL to assume gMatthew is history when the author CLEARLY described the main character, Jesus Christ, as the Child of a Holy Ghost and CLEARLY depicted the character as acting NON-HUMAN when he was with the DEVIL on the pinnacle of the Temple, walked on water, TRANSFIGURED, and RESURRECTED on the THIRD day.

It is LOGICAL that Any claim that gMatthew's Jesus was an ordinary man INSTANTLY discredits the author and some other credible sources for an ordinary man/woman of Nazareth must be found.

There is ZERO credible sources of antiquity for an ordinary man/woman of Nazareth, that was ordinarily baptized by John and was ordinarily crucified
under Pilate.

Logic is concerned with FACTS.

The historical Jesus has NO history, no source and no corroboration.

The historical Jesus theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D

It is not true, for example, that a virgin conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not true, for example, that a man stood on the roof of the Temple with the devil. There are other examples.Neither can I. I can't find any statement by the author about what kind of book it's supposed to be. I can't even find any statement in the text that the book has just one single author. (On the other hand, Luke begins with a clear statement that the book has a single author who is compiling what is intended to be an accurate historical account, although even this is not conclusive about authorial intention.)It is clear that Matthew as a whole is not a historical account, but that does not prove what the authorial intentions were and it also does not prove that there are no historically accurate statements in the text.There is no logical contradiction in hypothesising that the document combines some information which is historically accurate with some information which is not.You have not explained how you decide what is a credible source and what is not.

aa5874

Well, please identify what part of a story about a child of a Holy Ghost that may be logically theorized to be historical.

J-D

Matthew 3:13 says that Jesus came from Galilee to be baptised in the Jordan by John. So far I have not seen anything that would show that to be a historical fact and I have also not seen anything that would show that it could not possibly be a historical fact. Luke 23:6-7 says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because he was told that Jesus was a Galilean. So far I have not seen anything that would show that to be a historical fact and I have also not seen anything that would show that it could not possibly be a historical fact.