mens_sana

That is a conservative Christian problem. They do not (cannot) distinguish between the Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith (MJ). At the same time, the mythical aspects of the faith should not automatically debar the existence of the historical figure.

mens_sana

That's a nice link. Another, more recent argument for parallel development of Christianity and Mystery religions of late antiquity can be found in Jonathan Z. Smith's Drudgery Divine (14th Jordan Lectures, University of London), University of Chicago, 1990. Smith compares vocabulary, stories, and settings — and demolishes Fraser's dying-rising god notion. For all the debate about who influenced whom, I've wondered if the real connection might be that both religions (starting with Paul) were basically charismatic prior to Christian dependence on "apostolic" texts.

mens_sana

Thomas and Q, two sayings sources without narrative (biography) except that implied through the John the Baptist (apocalyptic) connection, Jesus' itinerancy and connection with Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum, his reputation as healer and association with hired farm workers and shepherds. Very little biography there, but some.

Then, when we add sayings from a wider selection of 1st century sources, sayings that are multiply attested from sources independent of each other, all attributed to one individual, we get an additional boost for the probablity of the existence of a historical person.

And, finally, for me, the heretical beliefs of the Ebionites (they lasted until almost the time of Augustine) in a physical, fully human, non-divine man, born to natural parents Mary and Joseph, who was perfect in the Law, and who God "adopted" as his son either at the baptism or the crucifixion. I find it very hard to get around the Ebionite Adoptionist theology, with its Jewish apocalyptic roots and connection with John the Baptist.

mens_sana

Must be their Protestant heritage. :devil3:

rlogan

Excuse me? How is this responsive at all to what I said?

If you grew up in a muslim society, your views on Jesus would be different. They would be different still if you grew up as an Ah-Kha hill tribe silversmith or a Tibetan shepherd or any number of other things.

That you react so strongly to such an obvious statement - calling it an accusation and an ad hominem is a curious thing.


I had a longer post, but in view of how you are contorting so much of what I say as some kind of personal attack I think it best just leave it alone.

Clivedurdle

It is not a unique idea!

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-S...the_Cross.html

I was priviliged to see the real thing at the National Portrait Gallery a few years back and this work by Dali is huge and incredibly powerful. It is possibly killer evidence of the mythical basis of all of this!

Didymus

I erred. Canonicity is not a factor in historicity. See my message to Chris.

Didymus

mens_sana

Although it often acts as the first kneejerk filter in our methodology. :grin: I thank whomever for the broader view introduced by Crossan, Koester, Mack, Pagels, Vermes, et al. :bulb:

Jayhawker Soule

That appears not to be the case. Do you see anything in the writings of Paul that is inconsistent with a historical Jesus?

cajela

I created a monster! I came back from the weekend expecting maybe half a dozen replies and it's on page 5!

Thank you all for visiting my little thread, I promise I will read it all soon.