Tom Sawyer

I would say no. In the 20th Century, Scientology started as a personality cult around L Ron Hubbard, but he invented a fake history which he was the prophet/spokesman for in order to justify the stance that this fake religion was about something other than his own power and profit. In the 19th Century, Mormonism started as a personality cult around Joesph Smith, but he invented a fake history which he was the prophet/spokesman for in order to justify the stance that this fake religion was about something other than his own power and profit.

Say, for the sake of argument, that Paul or Peter or someone was a 1st Century equivalent of those two. He makes up this religion about this guy who fulfilled the various Messiah prophecies or whatever in the OT and slaps on a bunch of stuff he picked up from other religions and then says that after this Messiah ascended into Heaven, he made Paul his earthly representative and so everyone should start following him and making him offerings of whatever surplus money and women they have available.

So, it's still a personality cult, but a personality cult centered around the god's representative and not the god himself, so an actual historical figure for the Jesus character is no more necessary than a historical figure is necessary for the Moroni or Xenu characters.

seeker

Actually you are the one asserting an HJ. The bible makes the initial claim, you only purport it to be true in that particular instance

Actually mythicists aren't 'claiming' Jesus didn't exist, they are saying that there is no evidence that he DID exist.

Since the only Jesus we actually know of is the biblical Jesus the definition has to be based on that to some degree or other. The problem is in what gets subtracted to create your HJ.

Actually disputable. A lot of evidence suggests that the earliest Christians were gnostics, a cult that believed only in a spiritual Jesus. Even the story of Paul clearly refers to a purely spiritual Jesus.

I doubt that Jesus Mythicists are as monolithic as that. Personally I think the matter is irrelevant as no matter how you slice up the story to get to an HJ you end up with someone who is clearly not the biblical Jesus.

See above, there is no reason to presume that Christianity was a personality cult, in fact there is reason to think that it wasn't.

Diogenes the Cynic

I have not made this assertion. If you my posts carefully, you'll see that I haven't.
What is "he?" What counts as "he?"
We also have the Tacitus Christus, which can be discussed without any reference to the Bible at all.
Docetists believed Jesus was made out of spirit. They thought that "spirit" was a substance. They didn't think Jesus was mythical, they thought he had walked around earth, but only appeared to be physical, and was really a space ghost.

There is also no clear connection between Gnostic thought and Jesus prior to 2nd Century.
How about the Tacitus Jesus?

aa5874

Not one single source discussed Tactitus supposed Christus at all. If Tacitus mentioned Christus it was NOT Jesus Christ because that passage NEVER was used to prove Jesus did exist. NEVER in hundreds of YEARS after it was supposedly written.

Amazingly, incredibly, every APOLOGETIC source that claimed Nero persecuted Christians NEVER did mention Christus.

Suetonius did NOT mention Christus at all.

Sulpitius Severus in Sacred Histories 2.29 mentioned a passage that is very similar to Tacitus "Annals" 15.44 but again the part about "Christus" is MISSING.

For over 300 years, and perhaps hundreds more, Tacitus Annals with Christus was NEVER ever quoted by any source.


No, No, No!!! Tacitus Annals does not mention Jesus. How soon you forget :constern01: You just wrote Tacitus Christus--remember??? Please, don't make your imagination run wild/

Please, make up you mind. Is it Christus or Jesus???

seeker

Actually you have assumed it throughout the discussion. The tacit assumption throughout our conversation on your part is that an HJ is necessary in some way.

A character described in the Bible as Jesus.

Except that Tacitus is merely repeating Christian lore, he isn't actually claiming any sort of personal knowledge that the individual actually existed.

Actually there is some dispute over that. Their views are not as well defined as you are representing them.

Considering there is no actual clear view of Christianity prior to the 2nd century that is not a surprise.
Once again he is only repeating lore he had heard, not reporting a personal experience

aa5874

There is NOT a lot of evidence for a Jesus cult. An apologetic source claimed there were people called Christians who did NOT even believe the Jesus story since the TIME of Claudius, since 41-54 CE.