Kapyong

Gday,

Don -
Let me try again :-)

The issue is surely NOT whether they BELIEVED in a Jesus that was REAL - of course Christians believed in Jesus.

This is the distinction that I see as important :

• physical

vs -

• spiritual (sometimes rendered as mythical, but I am coming to hate that word.)

According to Doherty (and myself) Paul saw Jesus as a spiritual being who descended to the realm of Flesh - but not as far as Earth. A spiritual being.

Paul still saw Jesus as interacting with the people on earth - through VISIONS. Visions of a spiritual being. According to Paul, real historical people had visions of a spiritual being. Even together in groups apparently (the 500, the twelve.)

Paul's Jesus is a spiritual being.


So now -
the docetics saw Jesus as a spiritual being, a phantasm who descended as far as Earth and directly interacted with people. But still a phantasm, a spiritual being, not physical.

The Docetics' Jesus was a spiritual being.

Doherty (and myself) never focussed on this key phrase "walked the earth" because that is not what the JM is about - rather the point is whether they believed in a Jesus who was either :
* physical and earthly
* spiritual


Both Paul and the docetics describe a spiritual being.

Their Jesus was a spirit, a phantasm.

And regardless of how REAL they BELIEVED in such a phantasm - they are actually believing in a spiritual being who did NOT exist as a physical earthly human.


Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
A bioi written about a god-man who sojourned on earth is hardly a historical biography.

What about Plutarch's bioi of Heracles? (Now lost.)
A son-of-God who did miracles, allegedly on earth - but someone who probably did NOT exist.

Just like Jesus.


Kapyong

GakuseiDon

It's a fair point, but I'm not claiming certainty. I'm claiming a certain weight to the statements of Christians based on the proximity of the writings to the events portrayed in the writings.

Agreed, based on that statement alone. Thus, so what?

Since that isn't what I am arguing, I'll leave you to debate this point with people who argue that.

GakuseiDon

I agree. But I'm not claiming that. How many bioi were written about people whom the author thought didn't exist? And for those exceptions when that happened, how did the people of the time recognize the exceptions?

It goes to genre, and recognition of genre. Some here seem to suggest that people read the Gospel of Mark and misunderstood its genre. I guess it is possible, but how likely is it that people then misunderstood the genre? What does the historical evidence tell us?

And so?

Toto

So where is the demonstration?

People attempt to answer your questions. If the answer doesn't work for you, at least explain why it doesn't. Otherwise you will appear to be the broken record.

D'uh - a god who lived on earth is still a supernatural being.

That's not so clear to me.

Because this is indirect evidence of Jesus. And we know that sometimes legends grow up and take on a life of their own. At times everyone believes something happened or someone existed, but it really didn't.

In other words, all of your evidence can be explained as legendary, or urban legend, or wishful thinking. It doesn't require that Jesus actually existed.

GakuseiDon

Kapyong, I get what you are saying. If that is what the evidence says, then that is what it says, and I would be wrong in my points. It may be a topic for another thread though. If you would like to start a thread with the evidence that Paul was referring to a spiritual Jesus when he talked about flesh, that would be an interesting conversion to have.

Toto

But the people of the time did think that gods existed.

The historical evidence tells us that in the late second century, proto-orthodox Christians decided that Jesus must have manisfested himself on earth - but this decision was based on theological reasons, not any evidence that Jesus actually did exist.

What do you mean "and so?" ?? Do you really not see that this example destroys your attempt to use genre to prove history?

GakuseiDon

• The Gospels were a form of ancient biography -- Modern scholarship has moved in this direction, see Burridge and Dunn.
• The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate -- based on extant literature.
• The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus -- based on extant literature.
• There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth -- based on extant literature.
• Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate -- based on Paul's letters.

As I said, I don't doubt that people disagree with one or more points above, but cumulatively they form a strong case for the existence of a historical Jesus.

I'll try, but how do I answer responses like "Ned Ludd!"?

So what? Which ancient biographies were written by authors who didn't think their character existed as someone on earth in some form?

Which ones didn't? What is the evidence? Are you going to Ned Ludd me?

So what?

If my assumptions are granted, give me a better explanation, with something more than Ned Ludding me.

GakuseiDon

Some here seem to suggest that people read the Gospel of Mark and misunderstood its genre. I guess it is possible, but how likely is it that people then misunderstood the genre? What does the historical evidence tell us?

I do. I agree that the genre can't be used to prove history. How often was the genre used to write about people whom the author knew didn't exist, and how do we recognize those exceptions?

Toto

Adding "based on [unidentified] extant literature" is not a demonstration.


Do you recognize the reference? The Luddites were workers around the time of the industrial revolution who went around breaking machines. Supposedly they were following the example of Mr. Ludd, but modern researchers have shown that Ludd never existed. This did not prevent people from believing that he was historical and writing biographies of him.

I don't know how you answer this, because it destroys your case completely. It is one example of a person believed to be historical not long after he would have lived, but who in fact did not.

Do you disagree that this destroys your case? Does it weaken it? If not, please tell me why.