TedM

Well, this is simply not true. The TF and the James reference in Antiquities, Pauls' references to Jesus' brothers, his many references to a flesh and blood are also. You, for whatever reasons choose to discount them or interpret them in some other way than is literal. You may be right, but they still qualify as evidence.


It's a difference of opinion on what is "valid".


It is not at all obvious that the gospels are intended to be entirely fictional, or that they are entirely fictional.


THis is what I'm really interested in. What evidence do you have that Marcionite documents came first?

That Mark's gospel is a back story (what's a back story?).

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
Why don't you pick one Description of HJ that you think is most Likely?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

dog-on

Point taken...I agree.

To me, a story about an exorcist that performs miracles like healing lepers, walking on water and, raising the dead, would usually qualify a story as fiction.

The Marcionites seem to be the first group to have possesion of these "letters" and have actually canonized them. Ask Justin.

A back story is where you fill in the gaps of about a character.

Paul knows nothing but Christ and him crucified, a communal meal, etc...

Mark brings it down to earth for the consumers...

TedM

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Joe. What's wrong with the question I asked?

TedM

Usually, but maybe not in modern times. The fact that they were written about someone people were willing to be persecuted for, and that they were quickly copied with additional info added are evidence that they were taken to be literally true, or much so. We have no evidence to the contrary that I'm aware of.



This is potentially one a strong area of evidence for a mythicist position. Do we not have Church Father quotes prior to the Marcionites, which indicate that the Marcionites did what they were accused of doing--ie cutting out references to the HJ? I really don't know the answer to this...


Thanks. When do you think Mark was written, and why not (if not) around 70AD?

ted

Headache

How can one find evidence against something that never existed?

The OP is completely bonkers.

Geetarmoore

Answers to the original question.


1) No contemporary written evidence for a man as wonderful as Jesus was said to have been.
2) No physical description of Jesus in any text.
3) Paul doesn't relate any of the history or sayings of Jesus, even at times when he should.
4) The Gospels can't pretend to be eyewitness accounts with the similarities (copying) between them, and stark differences and discrepancies when they do not agree.
5) The real similarities between Jesus, and a conglomerate of Egyptian pagan mystery gods.
6) The metaphysical claims of the bible can not be replicated.

For starters.

ph2ter

1. Paul did not teach Jesus' teaching, he actually invented (or someone before him) teaching about Jesus. This is very strange, if Jesus presented in the Gospels is true Jesus. Paul treats Jesus as object, not subject who recently lived on earth. He builds theology around him. If Jesus really walked on earth I would expect that theology about him comes to us from Jesus, not from Paul.
2. Jesus in the Gospels fullfils scripture, but before that, in the epistles Jesus was modelled according to the same scripture. If Jesus is not modelled according to the scripture in the first place, some fullfilments are almost impossible if we exclude supernatural.
3. If we exlude supernatural from Jesus, very little is left.

For me, historical Jesus is possible only if supernatural is possible. I don't believe in supernatural.

Geetarmoore

+1

Yep. He ignored my statement when I said the same.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm asking you to pick one of the following:

1) Preacher

2) Crucified

3) Believed resurrected by the early believers

as the most Likely historical information about Jesus. I think discussing one at a time will keep the argument focused.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page