steve_bnk

HJ means a non-divine flesh and blood human person who lived and died, upon which the tale began.

none_

which tale?

steve_bnk

The gospels of course.

none_

so the gospels are about historical jesus?

mountainman

History shows that despots have fabricated lies. For the purpose of unifying the scattered collegiate milieu of religions and cults in the Roman Empire to a centralized monotheistic state religion in which the fabricated tale represents the "Holy Writ" to be canonized. See Ardashir c.224 CE, Constantine c.325 CE and then Muhammad a few centuries later. The supreme military commander and ruler in each case implements a centralised monotheistic state religion during the period in which he holds absolue power of the nation. It was USEFUL for the rulers and good for business. The blueprint can be seen in Ardashir creatinbg Zoroastrianism in the Persian Empire a century before Nicaea.



"Considering the times" does not automatically default us to the 1st century since we have no evidence of anything at all Christian in the 1st century. Considering the times means keeping an open mind. The best case scenario is that the HJ story was fabricated in the 2nd century, and the worst case scenario is that it was fabricated in the 4th century. It could not have been fabricated any later than Nicaea because of the archaeological evidence, and its unquestionable explosion from the 4th century.

The period therefore is either the 2nd, the 3rd or the 4th century, and by these later times Jesus is looking far less and less historical and more and more a fictional myth of some form.



The Romans had big problems with the Persian sage Mani, and no Roman Emperor would be interested in a "Barbarian God". See the list of gods the emperors sponsored between Julius Caesar and Diocletian - they were all part of the Egypto-Graeco-Roman pantheon for which abundant archaeology exists. The new god must come from within the Roman Empire, and be under Roman control. Ideally the new God would also be controlled by the Romans and be able to say things like "Render unto Caesar the things that are really Cesars". Ideally the story have the Romans staging the execution of the new god, and his triumph over quantum physics.


Eusebius's politics indicate that the empire would not tolerate another Greek god like Apollonius of Tyana, because according to his research the antiquity of the Hebrew sages exceeded than of the Greek sages. The books of Moses were to be regarded as superior in all ways, including antiquity, over the canonical books of Plato. The new god must come from within the Roman Empire, and perhaps from a fierce militant soldiering people, such as would have been told about the details of the Roman's victory at Masada. People who would die for their beliefs.

Monotheisms are fabricated affairs.



See R.G. Price's "Jesus Sprectrum" with positions 1 to 8. If Jesus was marketted from the top down then there would be an immediate following, and the mass communications would be handled by the army and state services.


I disagree. There is a vacuum of evidence prior to the 4th century. More imprtantly the miserable outright pious forgery of Eusebius needs to be denounced as pious forgery. The non historical Jesus theories are not required to address the manifest lack of evidence before that time. On the other hand it is up to those who argue for an historical jesus to present the evidence for their position. So where is the list of claimed evidence to be examined (again) ?

Lists of "Claimed Evidence" for the HJ spectrum of theories

Claims of evidence start with the books of the NT canon, which aa5874 is claiming are really evidence of some sort of mythical cloud-ascendor and fictional resurrectee. External corroboration and claims start with mention in Josephus and deteriorate with each claim. The C14 is of no assistance to the HJ model, and in fact is another indicator that the mystery of christian origins has its story set very late in antiquity. Claims of evidence introduce the Eusebian history as integrous, but besides being labelled as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity", Eusebius does not even have a respectable reputation among ancient historians as a competent chronographer.

steve_bnk

Sorry, I can not continue this line with you.

none_

if that is your limitation I can accept it, but have you seen the thread I created about historical jesus being different from biblical jesus?

mountainman

Alternatively it was a commission - a contract job.


Alternatively even 1600 odd years ago, when the codex technology became available.


Perhaps even a rich and influential sponsor, with a scriptorium, professional Greek scribes and many years to fiddle with.

steve_bnk

From what I read, in the ancient world spreading a prophesy and then having someone appear to fulfill it was a political power techique.

Who were the fabricators and what was the goal? The NT prophesy was an apocalyptic end of the world. The apostles in the tale thought the end was near.

'... See R.G. Price's "Jesus Sprectrum" with positions 1 to 8. If Jesus was marketted from the top down then there would be an immediate following, and the mass communications would be handled by the army and state services.
..'

That seems to make my point. If it was fabricated it would take a concerted effort to develop the movement which would likely have left traces.Especially in the light of the Jewish state and Rome above it.

Rome had two rules, that which promoted order and prosperpity was good. Anything interfering with order and prosperity was harshly opressed. Tne Romans believed religion to be essentisal to the fabric of social order.

Hovwer consider 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, to god what is god's'. Hardly a threat to Rome. The JC of the NT would have been a recognizable charismatic preacher. He was calling the Jews back to the old ways, such as reinforcing the divioce ban. He would have been a threat to the Jewish establishment not Rome.

According to a history of Christianity I read there was a time when Rome gave some dispensation to Jews in the empire regarding the state religion. It became a fad of sorts with Romans taking on the outer trappings.The strong patrtiarcal Jewish family was admired.

Fabricating the tale as late as the 4th century makes no sense at all. By the time of Nicea there were a number of competing versions of Chrtistianity. The formlization and unification of Chtrianity was a polical move by Constantine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_C...an_controversy


I make no claims pf evience or certitide. It is my subjective view.

none_

I prefer response that I can understand..
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...cker/index.htm