aa5874

Actually it is not really a laughing matter. I find extremely disturbing when HJers continue to reject the Jesus of the NT, the Jesus that truly was conceived by the Holy Ghost of God and truly floated through the clouds, and then without any evidence whatsoever claim the floater Pilot did exist but was grounded, he did not really fly away, everybody included his mother, his brother, and his disciples, including the writers called Paul, lied or just forgot the truth about Jesus for the last 2000 years.

And after lying, or forgetting the truth, about every single aspect of the history of Jesus, his mother, his brother, the disciples with the Pauline writers all decided to worship him as a God.

Now, HJers propose that they know the truth about Jesus. They propose that he did live only as human.

Now, where is the ......ing evidence from the HJers?

They claim that they are mainstream. Where is the .......ing mainstream evidence?

Every time an HJer post on this forum, they just go a full circle, but one thing is always missing, the ......ing evidence that Jesus was only human and that he did actually live during the time of Tiberius.

I have been on these boards for over three years, and I have isolated and detected the fundamental flaw of the HJers.

HJers have no evidence.

The game is over.

Jesus was a myth and I have evidence.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.9.

maryhelena

Agreed, not a laughing matter re the scammers - but the bit about "...the world greatest floater Pilot" - that was something that gave me a laugh.....:wave:

aa5874 - I don't think its really very wise to get too disturbed about what crazy stuff people believe - as long as they don't go demanding that the rest of us take their imaginings to be factual - they can amuse themselves to kingdom come for all I care - once they start stepping on my toes - well that's a different ball game....

Yes, I agree with you - there is no evidence that the Jesus of Nazareth written about in the gospel storyline is a historical person ...

That there might well have been a historical individual that, somehow or another, provided some insight in others, provided, even unconsciously, a new perspective on first century Jewish thought - now, that scenario would provide a different historical core to the one that the HJ crowd are selling....The one they have - a real historical Jesus of Nazareth - is , when all is said and done, nothing but an everyman, a phantom upon which they can impose their wishful thinking....hence, utterly and completely meaningless....

Actually, such a scenario would allow the HJ camp and the MJ camp a platform from which to move forward - i.e. both camps need to check their premises....

In other words: The HJ camp need to face the fact that their position regarding a historical Jesus of Nazareth is untenable. The MJ camp need to face the fact that a Cosmic Christ scenario will never sell. The middle ground: A historical individual with no connection to the gospel's carpenter's son - and an intellectual, spiritual/theological/philosophy of relevance to living in the here and now.....

Well, something along those lines......

Doug Shaver

True, but I wasn't counting the fruitcakes.

aa5874

I must get disturbed because HJers are not crazy, they have no evidence and just keep on making the same proposal over and over.

There are always three fundamental positions on any matter.

1. Jesus of the NT was a myth.

2. Jesus of the NT was not a myth.

3. The existence of Jesus cannot be ascertained.

Any one can adopt any position, but after a position has been taken, it must be known what source or evidence was used to come to such position.

HJers have not yet provided a single source for Jesus as a man.

Both the internal and external sources that mentioned Jesus called Christ described him as a mythical character who was raised from the dead.

Doug Shaver

If you believe that there was a real man about whom the gospel authors were writing, or thought they were writing, then you're a historicist. The "historical Jesus" is just the catch-all term for referring to the actual Jesus of Nazareth, on the assumption that such a person actually did exist. There is no intended implication as to how much factual history there is in the gospels.

My own take on it, and I think it's fairly prevalent, is that if the man really existed, then at least the following must be true about him. (1) He was an itinerant Jewish preacher working somewhere in Palestine, probably Galilee. (2) He had some disciples. (3) He was crucified by Pilate. (4) After his death, his disciples founded a religious cult based on his teachings.

Of course, for conservative Christians, especially inerrantists, the historical Jesus and the gospel Jesus are one and the same.

It depends on the point of Christian history being referred to. Mythicists believe that the Christ about whom Paul (for example) wrote was not corporeal, at least in any modern sense. Part of the problem, as Doherty sees it, is that Paul was using a kind of Platonic lingo that is utterly foreign to practically anybody who has not studied ancient Greek philosophy in considerable depth.

Another source of confusion, as somebody else has noted, is that mythicism is not the only alternative to historicism. Some of us think it's the only intellectually respectable alternative . . . but I digress . . . .

There really are two questions going on here. One: Was there a historical Jesus? Two: If not, then how did Christianity really get started? For my money, the evidence, all things considered, clearly supports a negative answer to the first question. I think the second remains a lot more open. I suspect that something like Doherty's scenario is correct, even if he has some or even many of the details wrong. (Considering the paucity and ambiguity of the evidence, it would be pretty amazing if he has gotten everything right.)

The latter. We're saying that the first Christians believed in that realm and believed that the Christ did his dying and rising routine there.

aa5874

But, your statement may be completely false.

It is not mandatory at all for any person named Jesus who lived during the time of Tiberius to have done anything as you have claimed. And it is not mandatory for any person to have been naned Jesus or to have been from Judaea for a story to have been fabricated about some real person with another name and who lived in another region.

And further, you have no evidence whatsoever to support what you claim must be true.


You mean some mythicist? There has been no concensus among all mythicist that the crucifixion and resurrrection occurred in a heavenly realm.

rlogan

Hi Doug. Somewhat rambling response, and also not particularly aimed at you...

I hope I understand what you are trying to say because...


You just demonstrated an implied proportion of factual history there is in the gospels with this rendition. It is inescapable.

All of the assertions above begin with the gospel version. Take away the miracles and modify to the degree necessary to prevent rejection of the proposed Jesus and shazzam! There he is. 7.43% gospel version or whatever.

What is this historical jesus? It is what's left after all the features of the gospel Jesus are removed that would cause us to reject his existence (based on science, historical knowledge or whatever).

That is not a sound methodology for producing a "historical Jesus". It is a circularity. A tautology. Begging the question. You did indicate as much above, acknowledging it was an assumption.

It is downright annoying to be "challenged" to prove such a thing did not exist. It is so constructed. You didn't do that. But some do, and it is understandably frustrating.

Yes, if you remove all the rejectable features of something then by construction you have something non-rejectable. So you can begin with complete fantasy and end up with the "historical fantasty".

Because one starts with the assumption that a historical jesus can be extracted from the gospels with this methodology, one has assumed the conclusion.

Look also at what you have left too: It is nearly reduced to "there once was a man".

Oh really? How big was he? "The biggest he can be without anybody noticing him."

How did you show that? "I don't have to. I pick the biggest one I don't have to show. Prove he didn't exist."

Life on Mars? "Sure. The kind of life that is just beneath our ability to detect it."

And after we explore Mars, and our technology for detection improves, and after we still find no life? "Obviously the kind of life there is on Mars has changed. It is now just beneath our new capability to detect."



The slightest bit of common sense applied to Paul's writing acknowledges that it is religious mumbo-jumbo. Honestly, some people are in effect saying "body of Christ" sacriment really means eating the rotting corpse otherwise.


You must begin not by assuming it is history but instead asking "Who wrote this, when did they write it, what was their purpose"

So who wrote it? "It's a secret. Men didn't sign things back then."

I see, so Pliny didn't sign his letters to emperor Trajan? Geez - who knows, anyone could be the author of Josephus' works.

Don't get me started. You have to do such Rube-Goldburg mental gymnastics to back a "big bang" Jesus model.

On the face of it, the New Testament has competing Jesus identities. One is Paul's, arriving to us through vision. The other is an alleged historical superman. The allegorical version came first. The historical one last.

What was important to his historicity is that it gave claim to primacy in the struggle for control over Christianity. The entire basis for this primacy is literally from the hand of Jesus to Peter, the first Pope.


Jesus was made history by Eusebius at the behest of Constantine. Specifically in the work "History of the Church". It was at the very time religion was monopolized by the state, and to an obvious purpose: better control of the populace.

The evidence is that the earliest christianity has a visionary Christ but not a flesh and blood founder Christ. Historicity is later introduced and becomes the principle by which Christianity is monopolized.

Looking for the "Historical Jesus" is actually a non-sequitor in light of the fact the first one on the scene is visionary, not historical at all.

Rick Sumner

You seem to be confusing what I'm saying about Golb, which doesn't surprise me, given the state of the discussion.

As the title of Golb's book in and of itself makes clear, Golb's argument is not all "Qumran archaeology." His argument isn't just against the Qumran Hypothesis. It is against the Essene Hypothesis. Not simply that the scrolls should not be equated with Qumran (archaeology), nor simply that Qumran was not home to Essene (also archeology). It's also that the DSS were [i]not written by Essenes (archae. . .oh wait. We're going to have to settle that one with textual arguments).

And that position, like it or not, is outside the mainstream. Less so now than when he wrote it, but outside the mainstream nonetheless. Not only Golb, but presumably his publisher as well, was aware of where the contentious portion lay. The title of his book underscores it.

This is, unfortunately, outside the scope of the current discussion. Maybe next time.

First it was that Drews was trivialized in his own time. Then that turned out not be true.

Then it was that they stopped taking him seriously once the major voices sided against him. But that wasn't true either.

Then it was that Drews could stand without Frazer, and that getting rid of the latter doesn't negate the former. Except, well, it does.

Now it's "Oh well, I don't care anyway."

You didn't read him. You aren't familiar with the level of debate his work created. 'Fess up, you got caught out.

You might want to go back and read the post you jumped in on. I agreed he was too histrionic. That was rather the point.

When you ignore the context of the dispute with Toto it's not my comment you're addressing at all. It's a strawman.

They have no reason to expect to have to deal with them. They aren't aware that the issue is being challenged. Consequently, we can't draw any conclusions on their competencies based on what they do not address in this matter. Their silence only indicates ignorance if we have reasonable grounds to expect them [i]not]/i] to be silent.

Crossan never argues that Jesus wasn't a Puerto Rican immigrant either. Should I conclude therefore that he has no grounds for believing Jesus wasn't a Puerto Rican immigrant? He's just assumed it?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

Your "fringe" Golb may have been one of you not communicating your idea clearly. I don't know. Perhaps you were unaware of the ordinary collocations of the term "fringe".

Drews is part of a process that you refuse to understand. Your trivializing is only to be expected, especially as you also have not done the first principles footwork.


spin

Chaucer

How then does one account for the fact that this removal process is already done without any "modernizing" ad hoc process whatever, when it comes to the highly fanciful physical miracles being totally absent from all non-Scriptural texts, be it the sayings in Thomas or the references in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and on and on? One can say that such-or-such a text is accountable through interpolation, or another through posthumous word-of-mouth from second-generation believers, or a third from some kind of misunderstanding of a concept in Greek philosophy, etc., etc. But at a certain point, sooner or later, the coincidences in positing this sort of excuse plus that sort of excuse, etc., simply become too unlikely and too multiple to be credible.

The fact that a critical mass of non-Scriptural texts already have no trace left of physical-miracle nonsense at all, very unlike the Scriptural texts, is too great a coincidence to ignore. So yes, there is indeed evidence of the HJers' normal human being for Jesus, and it's found in at least half a dozen extra-Scriptural texts, from sayings texts like the rejected Thomas to a number of Roman chronicles, that together are both entirely separate from the early "Christians"' esoteric cult texts as a group and constitute just too much of a consistently miracle-free zone as a whole to be ignored. There are just too many miracle-free extra-Scriptural texts extant for each and every one to be coincidentally corrupted and/or misleading. That simply defies probability.

Chaucer