Duvduv

Simply that the mythist argument misinterprets. It isn't that some writer conceived of a mythist Jesus in the context of the epistles with a few interpolations, but that the emerging HJ church ADOPTED and ADAPTED the monotheistic friendly letters with HJ references. Thus the MJ argument only works on the basis of INTERPRETATION of the epistles, not on the basis of evidence. Especially since no external evidence exists anywhere that the Christ was a myth, but simply that there were writers putting to paper ideas about the Christ BEFORE the full gospel storyline had fully developed and found itself in gospels.

We see that even in the so-called Nicaean Creed of 325. The Christ person had not yet become the son of Mary under Pilate etc.

Duvduv

That is your personal interpretation, AA. Others of us see it differently, i.e. that the gospel Jesus was placed within a historical context (under Herod and Pilate in first century Judea) at a particular time in history.

aa5874

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

The supposed very first writer to mention the Nicene Creed also claimed Jesus was born of a Virgin and was crucified under Pilate.

See "Eusebius' Church History" 2.1--Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

See "Eusebius' Letter on the Council of Nicaea".

Toto

No, the argument is that early Christians believed in a spiritual Jesus. The epistles, whoever wrote them or interpolated them, are evidence of this belief.

You statement that the MJ argument only works on the basis of interpretation of the epistles does not make any sense. How else do we understand the intent of whoever wrote them, other than by interpreting them?

Toto

That is not the technical definition of the "historical Jesus." Historical Jesus is a term of art for an actual historical individual whose existence can be inferred from the gospels. If you only have a mythic or fictional character in a historical setting, you don't have a historical Jesus.

aa5874

That is your personal erroneous interpretation.

May I remind you that the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Satan and God were placed within an historical context from the Taxing of Cyrenius to the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

May I remind that Romulus and Remus were placed in an historical context by the Romans and likewise Adam and Eve by the Jews.

It is clear that the Jesus story in the NT is a compilation of Jewish, Roman and Greek Mythology placed within an historical context which was perfectly PLAUSIBLE in antiquity.

Duvduv

The fact that the epistles are missing most gospel information may simply be due to the fact that at the time they were written the body of the HJ gospel storyline had not even yet emerged, and not that the author thought his Jesus was a myth figure..

Duvduv

I am referring to the idea that a Jesus figure WAS BELIEVED to have existed in the time of Herod and Pilate when the NT texts were written but that the full storyline had not emerged from the outset, as I mentioned about the epistles and even the 325 Nicaean Creed.

Toto

This is jumping the shark.

You are trying to pretend that an early Christian wrote or edited the epistles, and had no knowledge of the recent founder of his religion, but still believed that this founder was a historical individual and not at all mythic???

aa5874

You don't really know what you are talking about.

It is stated quite clearly that the Pauline writer PERSECUTED those who believed the Jesus story that Jesus was God's Son made of a woman who was crucified, DIED for OUR SINS, was buried, and resurrected on the THIRD day.

The Pauline writer knew of the story that Jesus appeared to the disciples AFTER the resurrection which is found in Jesus stories AFTER the short gMark.

The Pauline writer composed his letter AFTER the short gMark Jesus story was composed.

There are NO post-resurrection visits or ascension of Jesus in the short gMark.