Splarnst

No.

The non-divinity of Jesus isn't a settled issue. Why would his existence, which is basically infinitely more plausible, ever be?

aa5874

And what about non-christian HJers? HJ is an article of faith or "bad faith". HJ is based on sources "WE CAN'T TRUST".

jgoodguy

I propose that the mythical, historical and gospel Jesus positions will be much weakened in ten years.

The mythical because it is too cumbersome of a theory that cannot be supported by evidence. The historical because of a continuing lack of evidence and a lack of support for any of the informed speculations on what the heck a historical Jesus was. The gospel because of the continuing decline in the numbers of Christians.

aa5874

The MYTH JESUS theory is NOT cumbersome. It is either Jesus did exist or did NOT.

We have evidence that the Greeks and Romans BELIEVED in MULTIPLE MYTH GODS and Sons of God and that it was the very Greeks and Romans who believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of a God.

The myth theory essentially claims and argues using the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that Jesus was ONLY BELIEVED TO HAVE EXISTED just like any other MYTH God and Sons of God of the Greeks and Romans.

Marcion's Son of God was a PHANTOM and that of the Jesus cult was the product of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

They are ALL MYTHS, they were MYTH CONTEMPORARIES. The PHANTOM and the GHOST were supposedly on EARTH in Judea in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberuis. See "Against Marcion".

MJ is NOT CUMBERSOME.

gurugeorge

I don't think it'll ever be settled until some more evidence is found that clinches it one way or the other. From the evidence we've got, it's still ambiguous, although MJ is a bit more viable, IMHO, mainly due to lack of triangulation from external sources, and the progression from "lack of evidence of an eyeballed human being called Jesus" internally, in the supposedly-earliest "Paul" writings, to "full of evidence of an eyeballed, at least partly-human Jesus" in the seemingly-later sources, the gospels. But there may be reasons for that lack, and that rather odd progression, even on an HJ hypothesis.

aa5874

I really don't understand what you are saying or trying to say. Let us REVIEW the situation as of now.

Initially We had TWO theories.

1. The "historical Jesus"---Jesus of the NT was just a man who was EMBELLISHED and MYTHOLOGIZED.

2. The "myth Jesus"----Jesus of the NT was ONLY BELIEVED to have EXISTED but did NOT.

It is ALREADY KNOWN that there is NO CREDIBLE or RELIABLE source of antiquity for HJ. In effect, it has BEEN SETTLED that there is NO HJ theory.

This is the ACTUAL situation on the ground for HJ. There is REALLY NO HJ theory.

ASK CHAUCER for a CREDIBLE SOURCE of antiquity for HJ and you will see he comes up with NOTHING.

PROVE IT! ASK CHAUCER for evidence WE CAN TRUST from antiquity for HJ.

Even Scholars who support HJ do not even present any credible sources for HJ.

On the other hand, it is ALREADY KNOWN that there is EVIDENCE for Myth Jesus in the NT Canon and the Church writings.

The MYTH JESUS theory is Good. There is an MJ case.

After all we are to dealing with THEORIES not with proving ABSOLUTES.

Unless HJers have found some CREDIBLE sources of antiquity for HJ then the argument is REALLY settled.

The INITIAL supposed HJ "theory" was really just a speculative claim based on SOURCES WE CAN'T TRUST and FORGERIES.


A theory about the history of antiquity OBVIOUSLY NEEDS CREDIBLE DATA from credible historical sources of antiquity.

There is NONE for HJ.

Can some one EXPLAIN why HJers REFUSE to accept that there is really NO HJ theory?

HJers are in DENIAL.

I will ask CHAUCER myself and he won't have ANYTHING CREDIBLE from antiquity for HJ.

CHAUCER, can you present SOURCES WE CAN TRUST from antiquity about HJ?


I won't wait for TEN years for you to answer.

gurugeorge

The absence of external evidence for a HJ, along with the evidently mythical character of the entity in all the Christian writings, merely warrants the plausibility of the MJ hypothesis. i.e., in view of the absence of external evidence, "myth all the way down" is definitely a contender hypothesis (as it wouldn't be, if we did have, say, Philo or Josephus - without any doubt - talking about a Jewish preacher called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans).

But the absence of evidence is not conclusive against the HJ hypothesis, because we are not omniscient and cannot know whether evidence that might have clinched the "man mythified" hypothesis has simply been lost, and because the extant writings are still consistent with "man mythified".

You can't get away from that last point, so the question remains fairly open, and someone who prefers the HJ idea is not being a total buffoon. The position does have its attractions, it has some "explanatory power" (as Abe has said).

Or to put this another way that (hopefully) makes it absolutely clear:-

Suppose we could know for a fact that all the evidence that exists around the matter of early Christianity is all the evidence there is or could be - I mean, that all the textual traces of what happened roundabout 2,000 years ago have been faithfully transmitted down to the present, that the writings we have are all the writings that ever were produced ... THEN you would be right, because formally speaking, based on the evidence we have, there is no external evidence for the man, so the "man mythified" hypothesis doesn't work solely on the basis of the evidence we have.

But we don't know that we have all the relevant evidence. The formal argument ("on the evidence we have, no HJ") may, for all that, be wrong about what actually was the case (because the evidence we have is incomplete).

This is not a legal situation, where some decision has to be made, in a time-pressured environment, on the basis of whatever evidence can be gathered.

So: are you interested in what actually happened around 2,000 years ago, or in getting a formal argument right? Someone who's interested in what actually happened will naturally leave the question open (even if they, as I do, prefer the MJ idea because of its formal elegance, because of the lack of external support for the HJ idea).

You don't actually have to make a decision about it. Nobody here is part of a process in which some decision, objectively right or wrong, has to be made, right now, on the basis of necessarily limited evidence.

Toto

Chaucer's rant and replies have been split off here and might be moved to E if the tone continues.

aa5874

Well, that is all that is necessary to maintain the MYTH JESUS theory. Nothing less.

1. There is EVIDENCE of MYTH .

2. There is NO credible evidence of history.

Myth Jesus is a PERFECT theory

You seem NOT to understand how theories are developed. Theories can be developed from DATA collected.

You seem not to understand that there MUST be absence of evidence if Jesus was MYTH.

Do you understand that?

The MJ theory "HANGS ITS HAT" on absence of evidence. The MJ theory CANNOT survive once credible historical evidence of Jesus can be found.

Claims of Lost evidence or evidence NOT presented cannot be ASSUMED to contain credible historical evidence for HJ.

We have evidence which have survived whether deliberately or randomly and yet we have no credible historical evidence from antiquity for HJ. It is the evidence which has been presented, like in any other mattter, from which a conclusion is made.

Please, you are the one who mentioned "being a total buffoon" I don't use those silly terms.

I asked ApostateAbe and HJers for credible evidence from antiquity for HJ and they cannot produce a shred of credible evidence.

I will NOT tolerate, accept or become ATTRACTED to ASSUMPTIONS of the FAITH based HJ theory.

Do you know of any matter that has been RESOLVED using ALL, and EVERY SINGLE piece of information, including ALL ARTIFACTS, ALL WRITINGS, and ALL ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS?

We are SIMPLY developing theories using evidence that HAS SURVIVED from from antiquity.

Please understand your problem. You are ASSUMING that there may be information out there somewhere that supports HJ when in fact the supposed LOST evidence may actually PROVE beyond reasonably doubt that Jesus was MYTH.

Do you NOT understand that there may ONLY be the FORGERIES in Josephus about Jesus and NOTHING else if ALL and every writings were to be recovered?


But we DON'T know if we have ALL the evidence for MYTH JESUS. Perhaps there were MANY more hundreds of documents that could SHOW that Jesus myth.

If ALL and every document which survived at RANDOM or even deliberately by the Church itself does NOT have any history of HJ then it is EXPECTED that the RANDOM or DELIBERATE sample of Surviving documents REPRESENT the history of Jesus.

It MUST be EXPECTED that the Church DELIBERATELY made sure that the very best sources for the existence Jesus SURVIVED and it is EXPECTED that they would destroyed or manipulate those that denied his existence.

The evidence that has SURVIVED is probably the best evidence for the existence of Jesus since it was people who BELIEVED in Jesus who were in control of many of the texts which has survived.

I will predict that the so-called LOST evidence is far worse for the existence of Jesus and it was for that PRECISE reason why they were "LOST".

Do you even REALIZE that virtually everything from the so-called HERETICS were LOST?

If we could ONLY FIND a book authored actually by Marcion.

Well, why are you telling me such a thing? Tell Doherty and Ehrman and those Scholars who have ALREADY written books as if they are in a "time pressured environment".

Why have they written books on whatever they have collected when it is NOT a legal situation where some decision has to be made.

Tell Doherty and Ehrman what you just wrote.

Please tell Doherty, Ehrman and Scholars who have written books about those things. They have DOCUMENTED their opinions and think their argument is right even though they don't agree.

Now, I have seen enough MYTH EVIDENCE. Some may have seen far MORE myth evidence than me but I have based my opinion on the evidence of antiquity that I have READ so far and NATURALLY if I am wrong someone should be able to PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES to show my error.

I am waiting for the day when an HJer can say, after careful scrutiny,that he has CREDIBLE evidence of antiquity for HJ.

That is the day when I will CONCEDE but I think it will take more than 10 years for that to happen.

I only have a theory that Jesus was just a myth fable like that of Marcion's Phantom myth fable. That is all.

Nobody here has any credible evidence from antiquity for the HJ theory and it may take MORE than ten years.

gurugeorge

Oh yes, absolutely - in fact that would be my bet, for the reasons you say. The winners kept what texts they thought were most favourable, not to the idea of a historical human carpenter, but to the idea of a historical man-god.

Or rather, orthodoxy preserved those texts that seem to support the idea of apostolic succession (personal discipleship of the earliest "apostles" to the cult deity).

But the fact is, we just don't know what we don't know. We can make a decision now based on the formal logic of the fact that there's no independent triangulation of a human being, but that conclusion, while logically valid based on what we know, may yet be false, because of something we don't know.