gurugeorge

The Ebionites would be the closest - basically I suppose to use the term might cloud the issue when one is talking about ancient peoples (were they "officially" Euhemerists, following the specific theories of Euhemerus? no). I've been using it lately though in a modern, loose sense (i.e. we don't need "heroes" necessarily, just some real human behind the fantastic tale), because I think it highlights what we moderns are doing with the Jesus myth.

i.e., there is a lot of taking for granted, that this myth, this obvious, evident, fantastic myth, has some sort of ordinary human being at the root of it. That is the question of the "historical Jesus" as most rationalists, at least, would think about it (and probably many rational religious people too).

But this idea, that a fantastic story like the Jesus story MUST INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY have some real person at the root of it, is just so much hot air really. There are several possible origins for myths - from outright fiction that comes to be believed over time as real (and in some sense exemplary or allegorical or whatever), through "urban myth" type development (sort of spontaneous coagulation driven by community needs, perhaps nudged along by leaders), through the kind of thing I was talking about with "Paul" (visions, etc., that people take on trust and believe pertained to real entities), through to what I'm loosely calling "euhemerism" - the idea that, indeed, there was some ordinary bloke there, whose story just got blown out of all proportion. And all shades inbetween (e.g. there might be some elements of fiction or visionary experience mixed in even if there were a historical Jesus).

The point is, what does the evidence tell us, and what kind of evidence do we need to clinch the deal (or at least lift a theory out of the realm of mere possibility, through plausibility, to likelihood)?

As I said, I don't think "born of the seed of David" and the like are nearly enough for a historical Jesus. The case is pretty bleak for such - as Price says, even if there was such a fellow, there just doesn't seem to be any evidence for him, since the extant evidence is ambiguous, undecidable, between "cobbled together, visionary/mystical mythical mish-mash vaguely based on someone who actually existed" and just plain "cobbled together, visionary/mystical mythical mish-mash".

But as I said, that being the case, the latter hypothesis is quite worthy of exploration.

(And anyway, "Jesus" really has been an imaginary friend for most Christians anyway - that's really been the cash-value of the Christian religion all along, regardless of whatever one particular sub-sect might have touted to ensure the flow of monies to its coffers - I speak of the "apostolic succession", of course, the tail that wags the dog in this whole affair of a seemingly-historical, seemingly-eyewitnessed entity who at first blush looks to the rational mind like he could have plausibly existed as a real man who got hyped up.)

gurugeorge

No that's a typical dry GDon-ism, but it doesn't work. It's obvious that what spin means is that, yes, the parents must be real (because naturalistically, people don't come into existence without parents), but their SPECIFIC IDENTITY wouldn't be a demonstrable historical fact based on evidence.

i.e they are "historical" in a loose sense (they must have existed, unless we have reason to think that Lincoln came into existence through parthenogenisis or the like) but their identity isn't historically demonstrable, so they aren't "historical" in that sense.

GakuseiDon

Hmmm... I wonder how much confusion is caused by us using the same words but having our own internal definitions, like "historical" and "myth". The Jesus story IS myth, in the sense that it has meaning and informs our worldview. So whether the story is about a spirit or a man, it is myth. But if early Christians thought that Jesus was a real supernatural spirit, then that counts for Jesus being a spiritual being.

No. I don't think we can take written records as evidence of the supernatural. Probably personal experience or the testimony of a friend would provide some evidence (though not proof), so first or second hand experience.

gurugeorge

LOL, this is where it gets slightly knotty - of course to them the supernatural spirit (with some fleshly or pseudo-fleshly aspects to his biography) was historical (in the loose sense of "they thought he existed at some point in time and space").

But of course for us (as good students of Hume), while we can't rule supernatural beings out apriori, we have no good reason to think there are such things - and certainly nothing in the Bible is evidence strong enough to overturn common sense and give us any good reason to think there are such things as supernatural spirits.

(We can easily conceive of evidence that would be strong enough - as you can see in jokes, we would all be pretty convinced by a Second Coming in Central Park, a la "The Day The Earth Stood Still", complete with miracles, witnessed by many independent news agencies from different nations, etc., etc., etc. I should think even James Randi would have to have a re-think under those circumstances And of course, as individuals, people are free to take whatever remarkable events occur in their lives as some kind of subjective proof of the divine, as many do.)

GakuseiDon

Don't worry, I'm well aware of how spin 'debates' (in the loose sense )

I agree that it adds nothing to the debate, at least on this board. As long as we use the same definition for the same word, then debate can continue. The way we use "historical" here conforms to every meaning that I've seen listed. But I think that spin did raise a good point, and credit to where credit is due: the debate may be enriched by using a more precise and technical definition. But I don't think it matters on this board.

GakuseiDon

Well, perhaps. But why not use the word "mythologized"? A "euhemerisation" treatment of the Old Testament would probably go something like this: Jehovah was a king in Israel who had a son called Adam, and Satan was the leader of a rebellion which tried to take over Jehovah's kingdom. I'm not sure what the New Testament equivalent would be.

aa5874

The "historical Jesus" simply needs physical evidence OR written evidence from sources external of apologetics in antiquity.

There is just NO credible source from antiquity that can show that there was a Messiah called Jesus before the Fall of the Temple as stated by the Gospel and Pauline writers.

No Roman writer or Jewish writer wrote about a Jesus Messiah cult where this Jesus was worshiped as a God and creator of heaven and earth by Roman citizens ALL over the Roman Empire and by Jews in Judea or Alexandria.

The Pauline writings and the Gospels with Acts of the Apostles cannot be corroborated at all.

The "historical Jesus" has come to an end.

Nothing new, no written evidence from antiquity has been brought to the table. Virtually every piece of extant source has been examined and only two pieces of forgery mentioned Jesus and even then he was RAISED from the dead.

It is all over for the "historical Jesus" of the CITY of Nazareth.

spin

Yes, let's wipe out another meaningful word.

More unrepentant I don't understand mentality. Who the fuck said they were in contradiction? Are "conservative" and "right-wing" in contradiction?


As we do with "conservative" and "right-wing". I don't know exactly what you are afraid of, but you are lashing out irrationally there, buddy, in denial of linguistic categorization. If you keep going you will eventually end up not being able to say anything meaningful.

Than what?

icardfacepalm:

:hobbyhorse:

Non sequiturs! I do love yours.

And, my, have you tortured this poor verse, saying something different each time. "[T]here were other Jesus'es (or Christs) known at Corinth" (@). Paul "ignores the earthly ministry of Jesus" (@) -- assuming there was an earthly ministry from the verse. And now here Paul is "proscribing in his church the talk of Jesus Christ except him crucified". This is all derived from:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Cor 2:2)

One can understand that Solo's linguistic difficulties are not just about "real" and "historical".

Smilies can be so expressive, can't they?

It's alright, Solo. I no longer expect you to understand what people say to you.

okestick:

When you aren't on the right page, you make strange comments in the tutorial.


spin

Solo

I thought I made it crystal clear that I did not accept the idiotic idea of denying historical existence to people who must have existed (like Pilate's father) simply because we do not have specific or reliable data on them. Evidently, it was not clear to you !

Jiri

Solo

This is just playing around with words after giving them new and silly meanings. A famous physician of antiquity, Areteaus of Capaddocia is definitely a historical figure, yet it has not been established whether he lived in first or second century. Let's suppose then he was real.

Jiri