outhouse

sources please.


in a minority audience


only due to cultural differences



they didnt know such a person, and its not why they were writing. they wrote biblical jesus because thats all they knew.


I think your correct about HJ but your sorely mistaken if you dont think they didnt believe jesus was a 100% man with 100% divinity. They all wrote him in as a very mortal man EVEN after the resurrection, he is written in a a bodily resurrection, sitting around the fire eating a fish with the boys..

you do know that people back then looked at visions and dreams as reality dont you.?

Toto

I have challenged your use of the term "historical Jesus."

If you don't comment on that, I will take that as a concession that this is all based on muddled thinking.

GakuseiDon

Obviously it isn't boring to me. I enjoy those ancient texts for their own sakes, and I would still be interested in them if Doherty's theories become mainstream.

Let's assume that Doherty's theories become mainstream, and scholars accepted his view of the origin of early Christianity. Wouldn't they still want to study early Christian writings, to see how this influenced early writers going into the Second Century and what we see in the extant texts? I mean, studies in the area wouldn't just stop because there was no HJ. Those whose only concerns are on whether there was a HJ or MJ might stop posting on FRDB, but scholarship would still continue. Scholars would still want to tease out the implications. And that is why it is important to me: the implications. Obviously I think Doherty is wrong, but I'm happy to investigate the implications.

It's like Acharya S and her wacko Pygmy idea. If you've read me debating Dave31 on this, you'll note that I often grant that there was an ancient advanced global Pygmy civilization, in order to discuss the implications of this on the rest of Acharya S's theories. Case in point: her idea that Pygmies couldn't have been influenced by outside contact on dying-rising gods belief because they have been isolated for 5,000 years (when an Egyptian expedition visited the Pygmies), yet elsewhere she has stated that the dying-rising beliefs have existed for 25,000 years.

But don't you understand the implications of this? The Christ in gMark is essentially a mundane historical person. Are you saying that the notion of a spiritual Jesus Christ appearing on earth, working miracles and rising to heaven does NOT come from the Gospels? That there is another source for this information? Or does it predate the Gospels? What are the implications here?

GakuseiDon

I get the feeling you are just waiting for Doherty to come along and give you your opinion. Instead of keeping FRDB safe for mythicism, why not investigate it? Why not try to improve on Doherty's theories, make the weak parts stronger, or validate the more speculative parts? Have you no curiosity? How are you any different from a Dave31? Do you think Dave31 should look into Acharya S's ideas more thoroughly?

By "historical Jesus", I mean a belief that there was a person called Jesus who had appeared on earth and was crucified in the first half of the First Century. Whether they got that from visions or from eye-witness accounts, whether they searched for evidence or were repeating dogma, is not important for the point I'm making.

outhouse

comes right out of the OT from two different sources.


doesnt mean they used said legends to form a new one.

But more in line with simular thinking within theology.

aa5874

Your claim that gMark's Jesus is human with a human father is utterly erroneous. I have IDENTIFIED that you are constantly making erroneous claims.

gMark's Jesus is IDENTIFIED as the Son of God---NON-HUMAN.

gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.

Mark 3:11 KJV gMark's Jesus is identified as NON-HUMAN.
gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.
Mark 5 gMark's Jesus is identified NON-HUMAN.

gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.

Mark 15:39 KJV gMark's Jesus is identified as NON-HUMAN.

gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.

Mark 14 gMark's Jesus ACTED NON-HUMAN.

gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.

Mark 6:48 KJV gMark's ACTED NON-HUMAN.

gMark's Jesus was NON-historical.

Mark 9:2 KJV gMark's Jesus is a MYTH.

EmmaZunz

@GDon - OK. I can't see any HJ in Hermas. Ignatius yes, Barnabas yes - seems to me they have heard vague elements of the Gospel tradition, but they have not read Gospels themselves - the ideas were probably spreading orally.

@Toto - There is an interesting question whether all HJ sprang from the Gospels, or other HJs sprang independently from interpretations of scripture. Which texts were you thinking of in particular as showing dogmatic, scriptural, non-Gospel HJ?

@ aa5874 - Why do you post the same comments again and again on every thread? I see you have made over 14,000 posts and I dread to think they are all the same point. You seem to be setting very tight semantic constrictions on what qualifies as HJ, but your expectations are way stricter than anybody else's, ancient or modern. Hence I think why everyone just ignores you.

GakuseiDon

EmmaZunz, most people here ignore aa, and I recommend the same. He's harmless enough, and can be funny at times, but a time waster if you want to debate something.

Fair enough about no HJ in Hermas, but then what are the implications on how we view other early literature and the mindset these concepts were developed in? I'm not expecting you to answer that btw, but it would be a shame if examining early literature went to simply the point of "HJ or no HJ", without it factoring into how we view the literature of the day.

But on early literature: looking at the NT today, which epistles (i.e. not counting Acts and the Gospels) were the works of Christians who believed in a historical Jesus? Would you agree that there are none? That is, when the proto-orthodox began to decide what epistles should be included, they ended up choosing only works by mythicists? (Hermas and eBarnabas were in there for a little while, so eBarnabas would have been the only candidate, but even that would not have been influenced by the Gospels based on the above.)

Toto

What Christian writers are earlier than the second century?

Why do you keep dragging Acharya S into this? She has he own particular take on astrotheology that I do not follow.

No he's not. He appears from nowhere, is visited by the holy spirit, is tempted by Satan, heals the sick, rises from the dead. He reenacts Hebrew scripture, he has no normal family relationships in a society built around family and marriage.

The implications are that there was a spiritual Christ, referenced in Paul's letters, who predated Mark, and that Mark "fleshed out" this spiritual concept.

Toto

This does not answer my question. Personal insults are out of place here. I don't have strong opinions on this issue, and I am not waiting for Doherty.

My role here as moderator is to keep the debate from degenerating into personal insults, which you may describe as keeping FRDB safe for mythicism, since the primary historicist tactic seems to be flinging personal and professional insults at mythicists. Sometimes I feel like Sisyphus.

I don't care about Dave31 or Acharya. I notice that you take every opportunity to drag them into conversations where they are not relevant.

Please stop this.

But it is important. If there were real historical events that sparked the Christian movement, you would expect to find some evidence of that. You would expect early Christians to convert others by talking about the charismatic personality who changed their lives. The absence of any historical details is a problem for this scenario.

If, on the other hand, Doherty is essentially right and Christianity started with visions or with interpretations of Hebrew scripture, and the crucifixion of Jesus happened in some other plane of existence in mythical time and space, you would expect what you see in early Christianity - an absence of any historical details, a reliance on scriptural references, inconsistencies in the story, mythic themes - early Christians who appear not to be that concerned about historical details about their Lord and Savior.