DCHindley

Abe,

My problem is that radical Mythicists usually speak as if any real Jesus MUST be the Jesus Christ depicted in the NT, as an excuse to dismiss Jesus entirely as utterly alien to everyday experience. This kind of approach does not leave any middle ground.

For those centerists among us we can "back into" what any real Jesus might have done or taught by means of literary analysis of the NT and early Christian literature and comparison with what other historical sources say about the period in question. Unfortunately, we get widely differing results that on the face if things often appear to be ideologically driven.

DCH

ApostateAbe

DCHindley, those are the kind of mythicists I have on my ignore list. They are not useful members of the conversation, one way or the other.

aa5874

Your claim is totally erroneous. You very well know the problems associated with the HJ argument.

1. HJers have NO credible sources.

2. NO sources of Canon have been DATED to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

3. Non-Apologetic sources wrote NOTHING of Jesus when writing about events during 26-36 CE in Judea.

4. Sources that place Jesus and Paul before c 37 and 70 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.

An HJ argument cannot be maintained. It is FINISHED.

The HJ argument VIOLATES the very basis for the pursue of history.

The past cannot be reconstructed by REJECTION of DATA or by the use of KNOWN Corrupted DATA.

The HJ argument is really worthless at this point in time.

outhouse

if MJ followers want to play or claim BJ, thats fine. it just shows their complete lack of understanding the subject.

it does suck and muddy the forums down though.

Toto

I think that is only the position of aa5874. I can't think of any other poster who takes such an stark position.

aa5874

Your statement is nothing but rhetoric and completely erroneous. You keeping doing this as if you are beyond any sanction.

You are PRESENTING mis-leasding information about me. Please stop your absurd remarks.

My position is that HJers are involved in Bait and Switch arguments.

They ADVERTISE that their Jesus was Obscure and then ATTEMPT to sell me a supposedly WELL KNOWN Jewish Messiah found in the NT Canon, Josephus, and Tacitus.

Let us deal with the actual DATED evidence.

We cannot continue to have HJers with their Bait and Switch arguments.

HJers are the ones who use the NT to claim their OBSCURE Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John, was a preacher man that was crucified under Pilate.

No such man is in the NT. The details in the NT is that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

HJers MUST, MUST, MUST present credible sources for their Jesus NOT Myth Fables found in the Bible.

We have NO dated New Testament Manuscript from the 1st century so we cannot assume that the Jesus story is historical especially when Jesus was accepted as the Son of a Ghost in antiquity.

I will no longer accept Myth Fables with FAKE authors and unknown date of composition from the Bible as historical sources.

DCHindley

Oh, I have seen it. There are a number of folks here who think aa is right on the mark about this. He's not the only person who calls Jesus a "ghost."

If one wants to wipe out any possibility of Jesus being somehow part of a God's plan for the world, it is easiest to do by denying him any historicity whatsoever.

Spin speaks of Christian hegemony, and he is right. The Christian worldview so pervades Europe and the Americas that most everybody unconsciously accepts some things said about him (or the Bible, or church history, etc) as "true."

No matter how badly one may want to make it go away, it is still there, and in response to nagging (although baseless) guilt, s/he often becomes even more strident in his/her rejection of a historical Jesus of any kind.

I'll confess, when I embarked on my Paul project, I never realized just how difficult it would be to think "outside of the box."

But it can be done ... though with a fair amount of effort.

DCH

Grog

I note aa's own objection below. aa5874 is the true "historicist" in that he applies a positivist analysis to the source materials. Using "historicist" methods, he concludes that there is only evidence of a clearly mythical character found in the NT. [I am so putting words in his mouth, but I am attempting to make a point about the term 'historicist.'] Proponents of the "historical" Jesus are not "historicists" when it comes to Jesus. They do anything but apply positivist methodologies to their project of excavating Jesus from the texts at hand. On the other hand, they do apply those methodologies in their critique of so-called "mythicism," which is itself a term I have difficulty with.

outhouse

if your going to claim biases, you should provide credible examples of such

sotto voce

A ghost is, allegedly, apparition of a person who once lived on earth. If accurate, this would appear to be a HJ position.

But it is curious how people all over the internet who claim to be atheist recognise only Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic teachings, as representative of Christ, or make haste to defend it/them when probity or validity is questioned. This seems to indicate an acceptance of HJ even more common than may be apparent.