Kapyong

Gday,

Oh, thanks for clarifying that point.
I didn't realise that J-D personally believed Paul's spiritual Jesus was real.


K.

mountainman

The "Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" presents an epic story of the "history" of "The Nation of Hobbits".
One does not need any documentation to see immediately that it is a fiction story.

Maybe J-D expects to find such a thoroughly documented record for the unknown authorship of the books of the new testament, in which is clearly shown who the sole composer of the texts were and that not one sentence of it was intended by those authors to be literally accurate reports of an event that actually took place.

aa5874

If Jesus was NOT real then Jesus MUST have been made up.

In the Pauline writings Jesus was GOD INCARNATE which is Compatible with gJohn.

It is WHOLLY ILLOGICAL to assert you know what Paul BELIEVED when you are NOT even sure what Paul wrote.

If Paul's Jesus was only believed to be spiritual then then it would have been ridiculous to BLAME the Jews for his death.

Sheshbazzar

I would hope not.
That -was- my understanding of your contribution up until this ambiguous post;
We had a misunderstanding or 'communication breakdown',
I have no desire to engage in any protracted argument with you.
AFAIK our views on these text are actually quite similar, and in a sense we are team mates here .

J-D

I have taken no position one way or the other on the role of Eusebius, but it is possible that you are over-estimating the pivotal role of Eusebius.

Since you ask, what Bishop Lightfoot means by the passage you quote, I don't know.

mountainman

I have theories about what Eusebius did. A theory is not a conclusion. It is best described as an exploration of certain hypotheses and postulates with respect to the evidence itself. Richard Carrier theorizes that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous". . We cant really say the same sort of thing about Tolkien, can we?

We might agree that both Tolkien and Eusebius were inspired to write fiction. Then again we might disagree on this issue of genre.


It's essentially an admission that in the history of Eusebius is all there is to know, or all there will ever be to know, about the origins of the "Nation of Early Christians" and the "History of the Early Christian Church". There are no other sources, Big E. is Big E. It's what Philosopher Jay refers to as the great water-shed of Eusebian studies. It may be summarised quite appropriately by "IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST".

Kapyong

Gday,

Thanks for being a gentleman; I'm sorry for getting things a bit wrong.
It's all good.
:-)


K.

Sheshbazzar

I most certainly have. The 'it' refers back to my statement to you above;
You wish to on some level continue to 'keep open' or to defend 'the possibility' of an actual 'historical' Jebus as being a 'might be', 'possible' component of these Gospel texts, then you are by definition a 'historicist'.
IF you accepted, and fully believed that the Jebus of the Gospels was nothing more than a myth, there could not be any such allowance.

Again, to repeat the principal, Jebus of the Gospels is either a myth or he is not a myth. He cannot be both.
While he could be a real human to whom many myths were attached (seemingly your present idea) The alternative, that he was nothing more than a myth, allows for NO literal physical existence at all, thus NOTHING written concerning his 'life' or his 'actions' could be anything other than myths.

True Jebus Mythicisim does not allow for the existence any unmythical human Jebus. Not the least bit.

Hence, If you do not believe and fully accept the premise that Jebus of Nazareth was nothing more than a mythical character within a mythical story, you are NOT a Jebus Mythicist.
In that you have not declared a firm belief that Jebus of Nazareth was and is nothing more than a mythical character within a mythical tale, you have -by default- taken the opposing position, in retaining an option that allows for some form of a living, breathing, human as being the imputus to these fantastic tales.
That, by its very allowance of any possibility of there ever being any 'historical' Jebus, makes you to be a 'historicist'.
This Decision is totally up to you, and you alone.

It is an ethical and spiritual warfare that we are engaged in, an ongoing battle wherein Whomsoever is not for us is against us, and whomsoever is not against us is on our side. And I'll frankly tell you, Christianity does not represent the forces of good.

Shibbolteh or sibboleth, by your words you will be justified, or by your words you will come into condemnation.

The ancient Hebrew word appropriate here is Hee'shmar!




.

mountainman

Hey Shesh,

I like the idea in principal, and actively support it (as you for one are well aware) but have you ever read up on the paradox of Schoedinger's Cat?

Perhaps we are dealing with a "Quantum state Jesus" who appears to some observers to be a myth, while to others he appears as not a myth. Its all rather psychological in the quantum realm, much like those who sit on the fence and throw the empty's on both sides.


Best wishes


Pete

J-D

No, I don't expect that to be found, and hence I don't expect to be able to draw conclusions the way it would be possible to do if that were found.