maryhelena

HJ of Nazareth? A created, fictional, character in an ancient written source. Outside of that ancient written source this character has no 'existence'. If one is seeking to put aside the ancient written source, then one cannot, logically, put forward any argument, whatsoever, for any assumption/possibility that the character within that ancient written source was a real flesh and blood figure.

Step one: Provide argument from within the ancient written source that the figure of JC within that account is a real flesh and blood figure.

Step two: Provide historical evidence for the existence of the proposed real flesh and blood figure that goes by the name, within the ancient source, of JC of Nazareth.

Since the historical JC camp cannot do either of the above - the case would be thrown out of court.

The gap between the JC in the ancient sources and historical realities is a very wide gap. A gap so wide it cannot be crossed by attempts to dump the ancient source and believe one can put up stakes on the other, the historical side. If one is going the route of denying the ancient source as relevant - then one has undercut ones argument - one cannot then make any claims for historicity for JC. One does not get to step two by denying step one.

And as for Step one - aa5874 is a great source for arguments against that JC figure being a real flesh and blood figure. :thumbs:

tanya

Thank you Sheshbazzar. I appreciate this comment.

If we were to list in tabular form, every sentence written in this thread, and then order the list, from most salient to least helpful, I suspect that your sentence above would have attained the #1 rank.

We can, I suppose, from a mere mathematical perspective, continue, sentence by sentence, through Mark, and each time, as the verse was spoken or written, return to your sentence, above, inserting that particular verse, replacing Mark 1:1 with Mark n:n, and obtain the same clarity of expression, the same pure logic, and the same end result:

Mark, according to this logic, "has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence...etc..."

In other words, Sheshbazzar, your sentence above, repudiates, definitively, the contention that one can cite n quantity of verses of Mark, to illustrate the fact that Jesus was a mythical character, not an historical individual.

Let us pursue your logic one step further, ok?

Let us then inquire, since Mark cannot, by your analysis, offer any useful information on the mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth, whether or not there is some other text which does bear "on the question of the initial existence...etc"?

Now we visualize the first logical conundrum: if Mark "has no bearing ...etc", then on which aspect of the Jesus story is Mark relevant?

Further, if Mark "has no bearing...etc", then why should any other gospel, have "any bearing...etc"? By the same logic, why shouldn't Paul's letters and all the rest of the New Testament be thown on the garbage dump?

How can we cite Mark, in support of the idea, on the one hand, that this text accurately depicts an historical character, (either a direct depiction of Jesus of Nazareth himself, or an indirect depiction of someone like Jesus of Nazareth) but then deny that the same text "...has any bearing...etc")

How does one go about filtering out the mythical elements of the portrayal? Was the baby born of a teenager out of wedlock, fathered not by her betrothed, but by a ghost? If Jesus didn't walk on water, how was he able to save the boatsmen?

How does one decide which aspects of Mark accurately reflect an historical narrative, and which aspects are pure fiction?

Why can one not write, just as logically, as your quote, above, "The content of Mark 1:1 demonstrates to the unbiased observer, that this is a work of fiction."

I am sure that Catch-22 is based in part on Joseph Heller's observations of the genuine behaviour of USA soldiers, operating in Italy during the second world war. I doubt, however, that this novel represents primarily an historical narrative, explaining the origins of the conflict, or the basis for the eventual triumph of the USA over the German and Italian soldiers ("the enemy").

As there is no doubt in anyone's mind, that Catch-22 is a work of fiction, so too, from the first sentence of Mark, we know and understand, that the principal character depicted in this work of fiction will possess mythical qualities. In fact, we understand, from that first sentence, that Mark must be a work of fiction, because of the claim of a mythical dimension, in the first sentence. Therefore, the controversy over which version of the first sentence is to be believed, is so important....

J-D

Again you're just repeating yourself. You've said all this before. It wasn't enough to make out your case before and it isn't now. Repetition adds no weight. You can protract the thread with repetition as much as you like, but it's a pure waste of time and space, contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

J-D

aa5874 is a great source for wildly ranting rhetoric with lots of unnecessary capitalisation; for properly constructed arguments, not so much.

As far as I know, nobody here is denying that some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually happened.

But aa5874's arguments are inadequate to establish the conclusion that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually happened.

J-D

I am confident that everybody who is familiar with the content of Catch-22 regards it as a fictional work. I am even more confident that not everybody who is familiar with the content of Mark regards it as a fictional work. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of people who do not consider Mark to be a fictional work.

tanya

I have no argument with your conclusion, that many, maybe even MOST folks, do not consider Mark a work of fiction, but, that opinion is off topic, for, the question here, in the OP, is not what people believe, but whether or not you and Sheshbazzar, and MANY others are correct, that Mark can serve to provide an intellectual substrate upon which to build a foundation for the hypothesis that Jesus was an historical person, or, as I believe is the case, that Mark's gospel is primarily a work of fiction, with a sprinkling of historical tidbits thrown in for good measure, just as Catch-22 describes genuine airplanes, real cities, real bombs, and real dates, even though it, too, is a work of fiction, not history.

maryhelena

When one goes the cherry-picking route - one has discredited whatever conclusion one has striven to create.

Stringbean

I believe his arguments are quite valid. You have nothing in the Gospels to prove a flesh and blood jesus ever walked the face of the planet.

aa5874

Your claim is blatantly ERRONEOUS and ABSURD.

In gMark, it is claimed Jesus was WITNESSED by his disciples as he WALKED on the sea and when he Transfigured.

These two events DESTROYS any claim that Jesus of gMark was a figure of history.

Unless you can PROVIDE a credible source that can CONTRADICT gMark 6.48-49 and Mark 9.2 then the MYTH Jesus theory is VALID forever.

Again, YOUR FAILURE to provide sources of antiquity to CONTRADICT gMark do NOT disturb the Myth Jesus theory.

Mark 6.48-49 I CANNOT accept gMark as a source of history for the Jesus character UNLESS I can FIND a Credible source that CONTRADICT gMark 6.48-49.

You have NOT provided any sources of antiquity to show that gMark contains the history of Jesus or the disciple.

Once you DON'T have any SOURCES then you are JUST WASTING time.

Please, Please, show us a source that CAN VERIFY that there is history for Jesus in gMark.

Just GO FIND a source and then we can talk.

Please, STOP your NOISE.

Once you have NO SOURCE for your claims just STOP talking. You are NOT contributing anything to the thread.

Mark 9:2 - gMark SUUPORTS the MYTH Jesus theory and is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed. So what?
As far As I can tell this only illustrates that there are two opposing positions.
And that is already obvious.

Agreed. That is obvious.

Shouldn't they reject the evidence of myth Jebus? You really think they should be believing in myth Jebus? Do you believe in myth Jebus?
I don't believe in any Jebus.

Oh come now. Almost every famous person that has ever lived has had certain myths attached to them. And historians routinely reject any obvious myths.
Alexander the Great according to one myth was fathered by serpent. How many serious historians ACCEPT this myth in their efforts to re-construct the past?

Not quite an accurate claim. It is recognized as being Mythology, so there is nothing to reject. Who is claiming it as being actual history?

This is funny. You have text that are chock FULL of obvious horse-shit, and you wish to 're-construct the past' so as to CONFORM to that fabricated horse-shit?

And you only have 'sources' that give nothing but a bunch of fabricated horse-shit myths and lies, and would rather accept these fabricated horse-shit myths and lies as being valid points to reason upon, than the more rational position that they are fabrications of absolutely no value at all in determining anything at all with regards to any possible earlier flesh and blood human Jebus. aa5874 can also believe any foolish thing that he wants.

all of which are nothing more than a FICTIONAL and fabricated steaming pile of :horsecrap:

Pick up your New Testament and see how the lead character is successively INFLATED from the gMark to the ridiculous level presented in gJohn 1:1-18
(Which if had been presented in The Temple precincts while The Temple was still standing, would have resulted in an immediate arrest and speedy execution)

No one is disputing that that is what the text tells.
But if the texts tell myths and lies ,WHY are you using it as 'evidence' of anything? or attemting to use its FICTIONAL and fabricated lying contents to 're-construct the past'?

Yes. A terrific Greek drama scene.
But no indication that there ever was an actual Peter or anyone that recorded his actual words.
It is ALL a f...king MYTHICAL fabrication, and has NOTHING to do with any actual person who may have lived a hundred or more years before it was written.
All simply dialog in a fabricated MYTHICAL and 'made up' 'Passion' Story, and has NOTHING to do with any actual person who may have lived a hundred or more years before it was written.


The Gospel which is According to Saint Mark, The Gospel which is According to Saint Matthew, The Gospel which is According to Saint Luke, The Gospel which is According to Saint John, Acts of The Apostles, The Epistles of The Apostle Paul, The Revelation of John, and perhaps another hundred plus Early Christian Gospels, Acts, and Writings, and The Writings of the christian Church Fathers.

Have fun reading.

No, really they have this great heaping corpus of Early christian literature, which contains and illustrates this INFLATION. Eusebius presents texts and situations of which Clement and Ireneaus were unaware.
The Christian texts as received in the 3rd century are INFLATED in content from those available in the 1st (if there even were any,-something yet to be demonstrated) or 2nd century, and by the 4th century christian texts numbered in the hundreds. It is clear that the christian religion INFLATED its imaginary Gob and 'his' words, works, and miracles for centuries.
Some do. yet many do not accept that the Gospels present any genuine or trustworthy historical information. Batman was from Gotham City. Woopie! a mythical tale can have whatever setting the writer chooses.

Some do. Many do do not.
Many believe all of these tales were products of myths and of 'editorial license.'
I don't put any stock in any of these tall-tales, or in the reasoning ability of people who are silly enough to buy into, or to seriously attempt to employ this known to be FABRICATED and UNTRUSTWORTY, FICTIONAL horse-pucky.
Some do. Many do not.
Many believe all of these tales were products of myths and 'editorial license.'
I don't put any stock in any of these tall- tales, or in the reasoning ability of people who are silly enough to buy into, or to seriously attempt to employ this known to be FABRICATED and UNTRUSTWORTY, FICTIONAL horse-pucky to 're-construct history'
Some do. Many do not.
Many believe all of these tales were products of myths and 'editorial license.'
I don't put any stock in any of these tall-tales, or in the reasoning ability of people who are silly enough to buy into, or seriously attempt to employ this known to be FABRICATED and UNTRUSTWORTY, FICTIONAL horse-pucky to 're-construct 'history'.
Some do. Many do not.
Many believe all of these tales were products of myths and 'editorial license.'
I don't put any stock in any of these tall-tales, or in the reasoning ability of people who are silly enough to buy into, or to seriously attempt to employ this known to be FABRICATED and UNTRUSTWORTY, FICTIONAL horse-pucky to 're-construct 'history'.


I have been telling everyone that for a long time now. There is NO corroboration. The tales are entirely myth.

Only to the extent that it is accepted by historians these were once real historical living persons, (and John the Baptist is still subject to some debate) however this is no evidence that these real people ever took any actual part in these ridiculously fabricated and contrived fairy tales.
No shit? And here you almost had me convinced that you were a Fundamentalist Believer. Who da thunk it!
Not a damn thing. It is impossible to prove a negative. If there was no Jebus it is impossible at this point in time to ever prove there was no Jebus,
and highly fictional 'sources' from antiquity are of no value for proving one anything concerning the life of any such possible indivdual one way or another.

So you say. but then again as you have stated above;
NO.
Why would I? I have already stated, perhaps hundreds of times now, that I regard ALL of the contents and claims of the New Testement writings as being TOTALLY fictional and TOTALLY untrustworthy.

If you believe or accept anything contained in the gMark, or any other NT text, Well, That is your problem.

Its called Reason, Rationalism, and Logic. Much more dependable and defensible than the contents of these ancient fabricated mythical religious texts.

Ooooo.... my ears are burning. 'cept you ought to remember, I seriously doubt that this 'Peter' was ever any more than a bit player in a fabricated and highly mythical religious composition. So I'm really not to impressed by any ouotations or claims of what this FAIRY-TALE CHARACTER is reported to have 'said'. Humpty Dumpty 'said' a lot of stupid shit too, of about equal value in 're-constructing history'.