Ben C Smith

Thank you for the opportunity to become better acquainted with Julian.

Is it your contention, Iasion, that Julian claimed that Jesus did not exist?

Ben.

Amaleq13

No and it is hardly analogous. Do you think we know about the victorious battles of Alexander because "essentially all historicists accept it"? Do you think we know there was a President of the U.S. in 2001 and the WTC towers were destroyed because "essentially all historicists accept it"? Do you think we know that a specific individual filled the specific role in these historical events because a devout believer in him wrote a story that is so blatantly filled with theological mythology that identifying what, if anything, actually happened is virtually impossible or because another devout believer in him wrote letters to other devout believers that told all about his True Identity as a Spiritual Entity?

There is absolutely no freaking comparison between either individual and the situation with Jesus.

jakejonesiv

It is just not the silences about a human Jesus in the Pauline material. There are positive statements about a spiritual Jesus.

Ephesians 4:9-10 is a positive statement of a descending and ascending redeemer myth. Add that one to the list.

Galatians 4:6 speaks of a spiritual son. "And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." That makes two more for your list.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

The first is so general as to be historically worthless while the latter lacks support from anything but the myth-soaked Gospels. If Paul had identified the first apostles as former followers of Jesus, you would have a start at identifying "the historical Jesus" but that is still short of a specific identification.

What you need, in order to obtain a specific identification like anything remotely close to Alexander is converging lines of independent and reliable evidence and that simply doesn't exist for Jesus. Christian editors screwed your best, and apparently only, shot with Josephus.

If we had an unadulterated report from Josephus, even (especially?) one that was obviously biased against Christians, that described a troublesome prophet who wandered into town, pissed everyone off, and got himself crucified for his efforts while his followers ran away, I think even rlogan would be forced to accept that "the historical Jesus" had been identified.

What he is talking about, IIUC, is the difference between considering it likely that a real guy probably inspired the whole religion and being able to say that guy mentioned in that historical record is the man who inspired the whole religion. Only the latter qualifies as identifying the historical figure.

Does it really require living in Alaska to understand that? :banghead:

Amaleq13

Now that is a good example! The myths may have been inspired by an actual guy. It is not impossible nor really all that unlikely but it is also not impossible nor unlikely that somebody with a rather fertile imagination fabricated the whole thing.

What evidence exists to identify the "historical King Arthur"?

I have done absolutely no research into this whatsoever but I'll bet you a dollar that any claim to have identified the specific, inspiring individual involves a buttload more than speculative attempts to peel away the mythical parts of the stories and declaring what is left an identification. Perhaps there is some archaeological evidence? Perhaps some independent accounts of a potential candidate? Exactly what we don't have for Hay-Zeus Ben Joe (pardon my Joe Wallack).

jakejonesiv

Disagree. Belief that Jesus was a spirit is positive evidence against a human Jesus, and it takes a human Jesus to be historical.

Let me point out a fallacy in your argument. You are trying to limit the list to explicit statements that Jesus didn't exist. Rather, anything that points to Jesus being other than a flesh and blood human being is evidence for non historicity, since it takes a human being to be historical. :banghead:

To respond that each incidence is to be dismissed as a "weird idea" is to beg the question, since Jesus being human could be the original "weird idea." If that is your continued response, our coversation on this topic has reached an end.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

I'd differ with Ben on this. The person I'm identifying is the leader of the earliest sect of Judaism which later became Christianity. He was executed through crucifiction by the Romans. He was a Messianic contender.

No one is arguing that Jesus is remotely close to Alexander, though the parallels do exist. One I had looked over which makes more sense to me is the King Arthur legends. Did Arthur exist? In fact, I'd say that the quest for the historical Arthur is almost too close to the quest for the historical Jesus. Did a real Arthur exist? There's no point in immediately ruling this out.

Other historical figures abound in legend which may have had a real persona behind them include Lao Zi, Kong Fu Zi, Sun Zi, Achilles, Socrates, Romulus, and Remus (although the latter two are even more highly dubious).

We can wish we had anything we'd like, but we don't, so we have to work with what we got. And how does rlogan treat Tacitus? Clearly Tacitus has said exactly what you just said would be evidence. Personally, I'd be weary of using Tacitus as proof-positive, but he definitely figures into the equation somewhere.

Please explain how you reasoned for the last statement, and why it is significant for HJ studies.

Zeichman

Edited because I said some assholish things which I wanted to get rid of.


Wouldn't the best conclusion be suspension of judgement rather than proposing the opposite?

Chris Weimer

You're right! If the earliest traces of Jesus are those of a spirit, then we have started out with a mythical Christ. But what evidence is there?

Iasion

Greetings,

Yes indeed,
Celsus did assume Jesus existed.

But I thought a lengthy attack on Christian beliefs, which specifically criticised the Gospels as being "fiction based on myth" was apposite here.

Julian also assumed Jesus existed.

Also,
I forgot to give a reference for Tatian's "we too tell stories", it can be found in Chapter 21 of his Address.

Some versions have this translation :
"Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own"

Iasion