fatpie42

This is how evidential enquiry works. You don't assume things without sufficient evidence. I get the impression that you think I am being unreasonable, but I'm not sure why you would think that.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. I think it's possible that there might be a God, but without any evidence for that God it seems pretty pointless to believe in one.

Similarly I don't believe in a historical Jesus, but nevertheless recognise it as a possibility.

Unfortunately I am not in agreement with that aspect of the text I gave you. What I agree with in that text was its definition of 'mythology' which you seem to have great difficulty coming to terms with.

And it just happens that there are other sources for John the Baptist and there are none for Jesus.

Have another look at Bultmann. He explains it much better than I could.

Bultmann is a NT scholar, not a historian. He is considering hermeneutics, not historical accuracy. I didn't modify his techniques at all.

If we are considering a historical Jesus, we would expect to be looking at historical evidence. You have decided that historical evidence is irrelevant because you think the gospel texts describe events which are viewed as historical by the writers. Bultmann's analysis actually shows that the majority of the text is written mythologically, not as history at all.

I absolutely admit that many aspects of the gospel relate to historical elements and geographical elements of the time. The criticisms of the pharisees and the praise of Pilate both point to writers who are criticising a real religious group and are trying to gain favour with the Romans. However, of all things in the text, I don't see any reason to see Jesus as historical.

Elijah

Yes, I think it is extremely unreasonable to expect tangible evidence from a 2000 year old peasant. Truthfully, I just consider it a tactic to justify your skepticism and not anything you actually expect.
I’m probably as much of an atheist as you are and doubt the existence of your understanding of God more than you do. It’s just labels. The reason I doubt the “theist” understanding of god is the inconsistencies with a non spacial/temporal entity changing or being perceivable. Not because of a lack of evidence. Because there should be no evidence or even comprehension of the true source of the universe. When people ask for evidence of god you automatically know what understanding of God they are still struggling with.
Well if you have two possibilities you need to address which one you consider the most probable not the one you have the most evidence for because we have so little to work with.
How about a text that you are in agreement with in regards to how Christianity started from a myth? That’s fine if you want to use mythology that way but we are talking about mythology in regards to pagan mythological tales, not symbolic language/descriptions used to help express certain ideas within historical tales.
Did I miss them? You have more than Josephus right?
You haven’t posted one bit of text or demonstrated that you understand him. As of now I’m still wondering why you put that text up there or if you read it at all.
Maybe you want to find someone who gets the results you got. I realize there is symbolic/mythological language in the texts. Duh.
Why not? What is your reason for not believing they were speaking of a historical messiah claimant in the text? Just no tangible evidence or is there something more? Or are you taking the mythical/symbolic language literally and thinking they are speaking of supernatural occurrences which nullify the possibility of there ever being a historical core?

Also; are you done trying to say Jesus was talking about the devil in John 12:31 or are you still going to get back to me on that?

Toto

The advanced thinkers of the time (described as middle Platonic) assumed that this imperfect world was ruled by "archons" or agents of the Demiurge. A reference to the "ruler(s) of this world" is generally taken to refer to these demons, who are servants of the lesser god. For example, Paul says that Jesus was crucified by the "rulers of this world" or the "princes of this world" depending on the translation, and there is a general consensus among scholars that he is referring to demons, although the demons might have been working through earthly rulers.

You can find some discussion of this issue in this thread or other threads by searching for the key term "archons."

I find it difficult to get into this way of thinking, and it certainly does nothing for mental clarity in general. You might view this whole philosophy as "retarded."

Elijah

I think you are on the right track and it’s fine if you want to try to make the passage Gnostic but then it’s hard to explain how Jesus could cast archons out. I guess it depends on your understanding of Gnostic archons which I consider more like forces/laws of the universe so Jesus casting them out is a complete impossibility. Demon/memes of authority sure but you are still just trying to rid the world of earthly authority.

Princes of the world should sound even more like the George Bushes of the world than ruler.
I don’t think its retarded, I think it’s difficult to understand. I think the problem is distinguishing between spiritual aspects of the universe like memes and laws and the product they produce like nations and people, compounded with the artistic/poetic language. It’s hard to distinguish between the demon/meme of authority and the actually authority. That’s what makes fighting the authority so hard because you’re not actually fighting individuals but spiritual entities/memes.

fatpie42

Fortunately you claim to be proposing the historical existence of a 2000 year old messiah who was unjustly executed because of his high influence on the populace. That's not the same as just finding evidence for a '2000 year old peasant' is it?

In any case, a claim to historicity has to be backed up. If you wanted to claim that there were peasants 2000 years ago, there would be evidence of it. However, you want to claim that a particular peasant was the origin of the Jesus myth and that requires evidence which you do not posess.

Well actually, since John the Baptist isn't referred to mythologically within it, I'd say that the gospels were good evidence for his historical existence. Not least since we can compare the text with the Josephus account as well.

That's strange, since up until now you've appeared to be denying this.

Why not? What is your reason for not believing they were speaking of a historical messiah claimant in the text? Just no tangible evidence or is there something more?[/QUOTE]

Something less. There is no reason. You haven't provided a reason. I haven't seen a reason. We wouldn't presume a historical origin in any other mythical figure, so why presume it in the case of Jesus?

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here. The only reason for presuming that Jesus was historical is that he's been the centre of the most dominant religion in western culture. A religion which would consider denying such historicity to be blasphemous.

Of course not.

Elijah

Two options, historical and ahistorical. Which one is more likely and why? There probably isn’t going to be any more evidence being discovered that settles this anytime soon so get off that rant. It is a silly tactic.
So the gospels are good evidence of historical existence? But since they used symbolic language to describe the nature of and the events around Jesus, their messiah, then he must be fictional?
You are greatly mistaken if you think I take the gospels literally.
Sure there is a reason. For almost the past 2000 years he has been thought of as so and if that’s not the case then an explanation for how that confusion began needs to be presented. It’s not like we don’t have any reason to think he existed. He’s considered one of, if not the most influential person in our written history. What we need is a reason for why you think he didn’t exist. Hopefully it isn’t that you need more evidence of a peasant from 2000 years ago to be convinced and you have some justifiable reason.
I think the elephant in the room would be the only logical reason anyone would believe in the myth theory is for deconversion purposes. Their own and of others. It’s something you have to want to believe in.
Then why do you take its use as evidence of Jesus being a mythical/fictional entity?

aa5874

But, you must take the gospels literally if you are claiming there was a literal human Jesus.

It is those who regard Jesus as mythical who take the gospels as fiction or mythology, not you.

You believe that Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost as found in the NT, was crucified.

You are a literalist. Don't pretend not to be.

dog-on

I kind of disagree.

I, as a mythicist, can accept everything written in the gospels as being exactly what it seems to be.

A historicist, not necessarily so.

Therefore, per Lord Occam's switch-blade, I believe that my position is, perhaps, the less contrived one.

aa5874

You mean a person can claim events in the NT were historical without any historical evidence because they are called an historian.?

And what is your disagreement?

Do you disagree with what the church writers wrote about their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

They wrote that it is true that their Lord and Saviour Jesus did exist before the world was created, that it was true that he was born without sexual union, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

That is their true story of their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Why would a person who is called an historian disagree with the church people about their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ without any historical evidence?

The church writers discribed their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a myth.

I will leave the Church with their myth, their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, born of virgin, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

dog-on

Most historicists that we deal with here do not:

That was where I disagreed with your previous statement.