mountainman

It is important to understand the notion of "historical truth" Chili. It is absolutely critical to the historical truth when they were written.

This psychological Jesus has existed on the planet for a specified number of centuries, and it is important to address the evidence for the first appearance of this mythical character, who did away with Apollo and Zeus and Asclepius, Diana, etc, etc, etc. in the Roman empire.


Your argument chili is in the field of psychology or metaphysics or theology whereas I hope you appreciate that my arguments are necessarily restricted to the field of ancient history. In the context of history, fictitious documents were forged by rulers for many purposes - some political, some financial, others religious. Compliments of the seasons.

spamandham

...but that's the problem with the 'f' word. It's too easily equivocated. "Fiction" is a literary genre referring to untrue stories that are intended for entertainment, but it is also haphazardly used to refer to things which are not true. We need more precision than that.

Right. I do not believe anyone who knew Jesus authored those books, nor were they 2nd hand witnesses or even third hand, because the authors were not trying to record history, and whether or not there was an HJ is irrelevant to their content. But neither were they trying to entertain. They were writing a genre that doesn't exist in the modern world...one in which people know it isn't true, but place value in it anyway because of the emotional impact...sort of like airport security that if you really thought about it, you'd have to admit is pretty ineffective, but almost everyone wants it anyway because you can't just do nothing.

Toto

I do not think these are evidence of a lack of good faith as I defined it. They are forgeries, but they are late forgeries, well beyond the period of the gospels, and there is no evidence that the forgers did not think they were doing god's work and reporting what should have happened.

Eusebius may have been a spin doctor and even a forger, but his reputation does not suggest that he was engaged in creating a false religion that he himself did not believe in.

Toto

You only say this because you arbitrarily reject the archaeological evidence of Dura Europa, and you reject paleography, and because you are ignoring the evidence of amulets dated to the third century that was presented to you.

mountainman

Documents a, b and c are forged 1st cenury documents.
They are thus being represented as contemporaneous to the gospels
and were all used to bolster the authenticity of the gospels.
This fact is suspicious in itself.

Lack of evidence neither indicates good or bad faith.

His reputation? What reputation? He was a self-sung unknown man - possibly of Jewish descent - under instructions from the fascist Roman Emperor Constantine to prepare the very first widespread publication of the gospels. He may have had no choice in these affairs.

mountainman

We have no "early christian churches" and no "early christian church-houses" which are the two major types of archaeological structures expected according to the history of Eusebius and his descriptions of church buildings. In regard to the 3rd and minor classification - the "early christian house-church" we have one poor lonely suspect, smuggled back to Yale Divinity college in the early 20th century. This is not an arbitrary rejection of the evidence. It is being honest.

I reject it as primary evidence, as do others.

All the amulet evidence related to christianity that I have examined has been dated at he earliest in the 4th century. What was the specific citation?

Why didn't you cite the Holy Shroud of Turin?
All the above stuff represents a great archaeological silence.

Toto

Amulets dated to 3rd c

last mentioned here in March 2008

mountainman

Where is a primary citation with a picture and a narrative account which tells interested readers how these things have been dated to the third century. Here's what this secondary material says....

You'll note that all these involve nomina sacra and thus the amulet could be referring to Joshua, since the abbreviated form of Jesus "IH" was simply copied from the abbreviated form of Joshua --- also "IH". Theoretically I have thus nothing to explain with these gems. They are related to the Hebrew Bible and not "christianity".

In one Australian minute it will be 2010. Surely we should have some reasonably unambiguous evidence for "Early Chistianity" by now.

Compliments of the seasons.

Larkin31

Meaning, do I think that Gandalf is real? Not that I am aware of, no. I am also not personally familiar with anyone claiming to have lived with him, seen him, touched him, been spoken to by him, or otherwise communing with believers of him who have.
:huh:

Doug Shaver

OK. He was an apologist, and he wrote a history before any other apologist wrote a history. That conjunction implies nothing about what he could or could not have believed.

If I thought he could be trusted, I would not accuse him of being as credulous as modern apologists.