TedM

umm, that's a strange supposen.. the claim has to first exist and be prevalent for the absence of a denial to have any value.. Have I missed your point??

Toto

I guess you did.

Who claimed that Jesus existed as a historical person before 150?

Juststeve

The Gospel writers claimed that Jesus existed as an historical personage before the year 150. In addition to that all from whom the Gospel writers got information made such a claim. That does assume that we accept the consensus dates by experts in the field and ignore folks that think Constantine wrote the Gospels.

Steve

TedM

Ah, guess I can't say for sure since the writings are subject to different dating speculations, though most would say we should go back to the first claims being around 70AD in the first gospel.

I'll leave the further reply to the other thread.

Would like to get back on track regarding what Valentinus and Marcion believed. Why would the orthodox lie about what they believed as one post suggested? I see no reason for that at all.

IF they believed in a historical Jesus (in appearance) then why should we doubt for a second that Paul believed in one?

Toto

Are you assuming that Mark wrote his gospel as history? What is the basis for that? And 70 AD is about the earliest date the gospel could have been written. There is no actual evidence of it that early.

Why would Republicans lie about what Democrats think? Are you that naive?

tanya

I beg to differ.

They argued, (Mark 1:1) that Jesus was the son of God. That does not bode well for an historical person.

Both Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, acknowledged the historical existence of Hercules, son of Zeus.

Does that mean that Hercules was an historical person, in your view?

Juststeve

Tanya:

Mark describes a particular man who lived on earth at a particular time, in a particular place, interacted with particular people and met a particularly human fate. He also said he was the Son of God whatever he meant by that. The later does not change the fact that Mark was describing an historical personage before 150 C.E. Toto was wrong and if you wish to join her on that point you are wrong as well.

I have no view on whether there was an historical Hercules except to say if there was he was not the son of Zeus. Mythers often seemed to be confounded by the notion that historical characters can and often do have legendary attributes. Confusing isn't it?

Steve

tanya

Hi Steve,

No, in my opinion, it is not confusing, at all.

Legend: unverified, potentially historically accurate with considerable hyperbole generally added on;

Myth: supernatural attribution.

People, including most folks on this forum, persistently misuse the two words.

A LEGEND cannot refer to supernatural qualities. The moment that some aspect of the person/entity/structure/locale concerns supernatural phenomena, the "LEGEND" becomes MYTH.

Toto

Is every character in a written narrative a historical person? How about Rhett Butler? Sherlock Holmes?

You are the only one confused. There are historical personages who acquire legendary attributes. But when all you have is legends, you have no reason to assume that there is a historical person behind the legend, without confirming evidence.

Have you actually paid attention to any of the discussions here?

Horatio Parker

Perhaps they didn't look at things that way. Maybe there wasn't the same dichotomy between spirit and flesh; empiricism and emotion. Flesh without spirit being meaningless.

In short, they may have thought that such a question missed the point. Maybe anyone walking with the spirit *was* Jesus in the flesh.