archibald

Here's a thread I've been meaning to start for a while. Poor Old toto. All the work I'm giving him. Sorry Toters.

Here's the deal. For those, and only those, who are interested, and willing to play by the rules (please don't spoil the thread otherwize)

I would like each poster to:

1. Place themselves on a sliding scale, by allocating themselves a number. Zero for neutral/agnostic, plus numbers for MJ (see how fair minded I am? lol) and negative numbers for HJ. So, -1 would be ever so slightly in favour of an HJ explanation, +1 would be ever so slightly in favour of MJ, and so on. Probably best not to have it unlimited in scale (need an absolute I think) so a maximum of -100 or +100 would be for certainty in either directon.

2. List your top 3 reasons, in order of importance, for both MJ and HJ. Keep it short and succinct, if possible. Think Twitter. I would ask for max. 3 lines per point. Though two words will also do.:]

If you really feel the 'other' side has nothing in it's favour, you may just list (i), (ii) and (iii) and leave blank, though I hope no one will, since it's part of my curiosity, and hopefully stimulating, and please make it clear which sides your points are listed on in any case. Obviously, you don't need to 'weigh' your points, since your rating will hopefully give some indication.

Also, please take MJ to essentially mean 'not having existed on earth in any tangible human or humanlike form'. I hope this doesn't cause some people to feel they haven't been catered for.

I myself have to go out now, so will do my own posting later.

Ciao.

Here's an example, suggested format.

A. Personal rating: -2 ( or, if you like, -10 to +10, fluctuating)

B. MJ points.

(i) I believe Paul's Jesus is non-earthly....
(ii) Too many contradictions....especially...
(iii) Too many interpolations, in particular.....

C. HJ pionts
(i) 'Q', because.....
(ii) The Gospel of Thomas, because.......
(iii) He's here in my house right now

archibald

Before I go first, something I forgot to add. I don't intend to make this a discussion thread. There's already a horde of those. I ask people just to read others reasons quietly to themselves, even if they vehemently disagree, and quietly post their own. We might all learn something. If anyone wants to take up a discussion with someone, starting another thread or pm-ing would be appropriate. This one is just for putting your personal summary on the record. Think of it as a sort of poll, or, if you're strongly leaning one way or the other, a thought experiment, or, simply a rare, dispute-free zone!

archibald

Ok. Me.

1. Personal rating: Fluctuates. Usually around -5 or -10. may (not often) go to -25, but also up as far as +10.

2. 'MJ' reasons:

(i) Lack of biographical detail in the earliest written accounts, that is to say, those which appear to be closest to the supposed events. This is definitely odd.

(ii) The extent (amount) of rapid mythologizing and fictionalizing, also many contradictions and text tampering, though none, as far as I can see, strongly indicating tampering to 'earthify' Jesus. But still a lot. And of course, an earthly 'fictional' Jesus wouldn't have needed to be 'earthified' in any case, as is a more plausible myth-template anyway.

(iii) The disappearance of the body at supposed death. How can a body just go missing? The body of someone who had followers. Who then went on to say the body had disappeared? Not even sure he would have made it to a tomb, as such. Either the Romans would have left him up a while and then ditched it to rot, or his followers stashed/buried it. Disappeared within the first 3 days? Hm. Maybe no body existed.


3. 'HJ' reasons

(i) Distance to source. 'Paul' appears to be writing very close indeed (using reasonably sensible dating methods), and his actual conversion would appear to be even closer. A year or three after the supposed death, possibly as close as that. Plus, the epistles reference followers before him. No strong evidence to suggest his Jesus was seen as non-earthly until dead.

(ii) The number of references, evidences and possible source strands as a whole (including 'Q'), and later, more independent attestations. More than we could reasonably expect, in the circumstances, and much more than many other similar figures.

(iii) The lack of any indications that there were ever any cults who thought he didn't exist on earth in some form or another.

MCalavera

1. A little greater than -90 (by that, I mean to the right of -90 on a number line). Yes, I may be a bit too confident but this confidence can be shaken if we see evidence in the future effectively countering the position I currently hold. Until then, I'm bloody confident but not dogmatic that I can't be convinced at all. Just I demand good counter evidence.

2. MJ reasons:

i. Gospels not written as how I would expect a historical account to be written.

ii. The Epistles barely reveal the historical events of the Christ

iii.

3. HJ reasons:

i. Jesus being a recent character to the writers.

ii. Theological embarrassments for the Messiah in the writings of the authors.

iii. Lack of interest in trying to convince the target readers of the existence of Jesus, but there's interest expressed in convincing the readers of his resurrection and him being the Messiah and such.

tanya

1. +100
2. walking on water, curing epilepsy with hand waving, curing blindness by spitting;
3. none, but absence of reference by Philo of Alexandria is definitive and conclusive.

Solo

Good exercise, archibald !

1. -80 (I like the 80-20 rule)

2. MJ possibility open because

i. lack of credible, independent external evidence for Jesus
ii. The writing of Paul as the earliest witness about the Jesus beliefs avoids direct reference to a historicl figure.
iii. earliest gospel (Mark) is a cultic allegory where Jesus represents personification of Spirit phenomena, and specifically a mystical cycle of the Spirit.

3. HJ probability prefered because:

i. Paul is a dissenter to what appear to be pre-existing traditions about Jesus . Mythical figures - and the meaning of their passing - do not generate controversies such as Paul was engaged in.
ii. Some statements of Paul would require high degree of speculation if they were to be interpreted as reference to a figure everyone (i.e. both sides of the "cross scandal" controversy) knew was mythical.
iii. The gospel of Mark essentially reproduces the Pauline argument for a crucified Messiah, and assigns negative role of the 'historical witness' of Jesus disciples who deny the significance of the cross, much in close parallel to Paul's attack on the Jerusalem mission of Cephas in Galatians.


Best,
Jiri

Sheshbazzar

1. Personal rating: +100 without a shadow of doubt.

2. 'MJ' reasons:

(i.) A mythical god/being with a mythical god history, like a thousand others.

(ii.) The NT tale is only a continuation and expansion of the old legendary Jewish 'Joshua' the 'anointed' mighty hero and 'Deliverer of Israel' trope.
And, No I don't believe that any literal 'Joshua son of Nun' ever lived or did those things attributed to him in the OT, those stories likewise fabricated and fictional material, not eyewitness, but rather writer embellished legend.

(iii.) Enough holes, impossibilities, superstitious crap, and contradictions in the NT to drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.

And I could go on.

3. 'HJ' reasons

Nothing.

GakuseiDon

For existence of a HJ: -80

For how much we can confidently know about that HJ: -5 to -10.

Top reasons for MJ:
i. Other than Paul, sources are probably a couple of generations after the supposed HJ.
ii. Sources don't appear to originate near where the supposed HJ appeared.
iii. Sketchy details about the supposed HJ.

Top reasons for HJ:
i. Both Paul and the Gospels appear to describe a crucified Jewish man who was killed at about the same time, and in Paul's recent past.
ii. No heresies described which match proposed MJs. No-one questioned that the Gospels were about an actual being who appeared in the first half of the First Century on earth (though they questioned certain events.) No-one questioned that Paul wrote about an actual being who appeared in the first half of the First Century on earth.
iii. No strong MJ argument. Arguments are too often reliant on comparing the Gospel Jesus with a MJ (false dichotomy), or on analysing ancient writings by how we in modern times would write.

mountainman

Hey G'Don,

What about the letters of John warning about "antichristian" confessions?
How do you propose to deal with the heresy of ANTICHRISTIAN THINKING ?

We can see that the NT authors have embedded a "Bogey-Man" into the new testament just in case someone of the gentiles or the Greeks would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh.". It's like the standard pagan curse. The new testament contains a prescription within it for those who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh.". This of course is equivalent to the opinion that Jesus did not appear in history.

Such opinion was clearly DEEMED antichristian and deemed a master heresy. This antichristian heresy matches the claim that Jesus was fabricated out of nothing existing and is a figment. So I would be arguing that you cant use this item (ii) as you have above.

As I see this, anyone who would "not confess Jesus appeared in history" was immediately regarded as antichristian. In the 4th century there were major antichristian heretics, as there were during the Inquisitions, but they were disposed of by the powerful elite running the business of the church, as we well know.

And as a matter of fact, many here deem my efforts to be antichristian on the basis that I do "not confess Jesus appeared in history". There is a hegemon at play here. The hegemon accepts that the postulate of the HJ is true. But it may not necesarily be true at all. Some of us have rejected this postulate as necessarily true. Here we all are in the 21st century, looking through a Eusebian looking glass darkly and faced with very late C14 results. War is a racket. The Canonized Bible is a product of war. Jesus may well have been fabricated and encrypted for the centralized state's monotheistic sake of political expediency.

"There is nothing new under the sun except the history you do not know".

Best wishes


Pete

GakuseiDon

Hi Pete -- Archibald asked to keep this thread debate-free, so that people can just list their own personal summary of their position. So if you'd like to raise this in another thread, let's argue it over there.