Kapyong

Gday,

Don - you're becoming like Tim O'Neil.
Please stop it.


K.

gurugeorge

Of course there is. Given that Jesus was also a mystical experience for Paul, the obvious reading (to me) is simply that these tidbits of Jesus' biography is what Jesus told him in his (Paul's) visionary experience. ("I came in the flesh, I am of the line of David, blah-de-blah")

Still mythical - or at least (pace spin's qualms about using "mythical" precisely in this context), a "fleshly" but not actually historical Jesus.

You have to reconcile the avowed visionary source of Paul's belief with the "fleshly" bits, with the fact that he claims he got his gospel from the horse's mouth. This seems to me the simplest and most cogent way of reconciling them.

GakuseiDon

Not nice to remove the quote from its context. Similarly, many historicists probably deserve ridicule as well. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides, with arguments that are plainly ridiculous (what else can you call Acharya S's "Advanced Pygmy Civilization Theory", for example?) The question then becomes whether one actually uses ridicule or not.

I don't know why I keep torturing myself (and you guys as well, I guess) by begging -- begging, mind you! -- for anything like a comprehensive mythicist case to be outlined. Yes, I get it: there isn't much evidence on the historicist side. Yes, historicity shouldn't be assumed. But I'm interested in how people thought back then; this constant deflection back to that question whenever I ask for the mythicist case is boring. Time for me to get back to Doherty's book -- at least he writes about what I'm interested in -- and take a time out from here. I'm starting to get aggro again, like a hungry butcher at a broccoli stall. Yes, you heard me, mythicists. I'm comparing you to broccoli! That means I'm saying you are a natural healthy product full of vitamins, green, and go well with a warm white sauce and grated cheese. Oh yeah!

gdeering

Hi GakuseiDon,

Have you laid out your case for what you believe (I read your Dawkins link)? I am confused. Even if some one were to pick up the gauntlet, what kind of reasoning would work? As a (sort of) Christian where do you stand on Jesus, given these three alternatives:

Myth
Real (mortal) man
NT God/man etc.....

From my point of view, the arguing for the mythicist position can only effect the third position. What ever happens to one's opinion of one and three it never really changes the chance that two (just a guy) is indeed true.

Is it your contention that one can deduce a real person out of the Gospels or a real god? If he is a god then there is room to address both the truth of the Gospel narrative (the slaughter of the innocents and other cement galoshes of credibility) and it's construction. If he's just a guy there is very little to talk about (and disprove), but if he's just a guy why are you a Christian?

I'm probably not well versed enough in the literature to pick up the gauntlet, but it really helpful to know what sort of beliefs you have since they do not seem to be standard issue.

Thanks,


Gregg

aa5874

The mythicist position is directly related to lack of historical evidence.

Once there are written sources from antiquity that depict Jesus as a God, once there are sources of antiquity that clearly demonstrate that Jesus believers would not have worshiped a man as a God and there are no historical sources external of the apologetic sources for Jesus as a man, then the mythicist position will be very good and far superior to HJ.

Toto

I have, and even Acharya S does not deserve the slur of being compared to creationists.

I don't know anyone who has made this assumption. The only assuption is that historicists should be able to justify their claims.

Do you recite the Nicene Creed? Do you acually believe it? From the third century, the definition of a Christian has been someone willing to swear belief in the claims in that Creed.

Otherwise, anyone could claim to be a Christian.

GakuseiDon

Well, I've asked to be banned for six months, to try to get over my addiction to posting on this board. So while that is waiting to go through:

Yes, that's the kind of response I was hoping for. The question of what Paul's gospel was, and what he learned from those he persecuted before he received that gospel, is an interesting one. Also, what does it mean to be "fleshly" but not historical? Are you saying that Paul had this belief -- that someone could be fleshly but not historical -- or that Paul was mistaken in believing that Jesus was not historical? If the former, then I would ask for support for such a reading, since it doesn't appear to match beliefs of that time.

GakuseiDon

Anything that can be supported, as being more probable than something that can't be supported.

Myth and man.

OK.

I don't think Jesus had any God DNA, so that rules him out from being God. Paul thought that Jesus was appointed as Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But then "Son of God" probably didn't mean the same thing to Paul as it does to us.

The myth is: Jesus was a person who said some inspiring things, and then was obedient to God until death, even crucifixion. It is a powerful image, of redemption and grace. Whether the myth reflects actual events is not that important to me -- I believe in God, and the God that this myth points towards. That is, I'd still believe in that God even if there were no historical Jesus.

(As for the usual questions that come up, "But what about Zeus?" etc. If you want to make a case for some other god, lay it out for me.)

It doesn't really help, you know. It tends to fragment threads, because this is what a lot of atheists love to jump on. <removed> But since I've asked to be banned for six months, I thought what the heck.

GakuseiDon

That's harsh on creationists! Those slimy dogs. But I was thinking of more run-of-the-mill slurs, like they walk funny, or their clothes are out-of-date.

Which is a reasonable assumption. I think they should also.

Oh, the horror! You do know that I post on TheologyWeb, right? Yet the posters there seem less worried about this than atheists here. I wish I had a dollar every time some atheist popped up with a "Oh no! That poster is not a TRUE Christian!"

aa5874

Something may be wrong with the way you think because it is multiple-attested that Jesus was composed of God's DNA.

We have documented evidence. It is right in the Canon, the very first chapter. Please look at the transcripts of the evidence, Matthew 1.18 & 20
And further the transcripts of the author of gLuke will explain to Mary how Jesus will get his GOD DNA in some details. The transcripts of gLuke will describe the HOLY GHOST DNA transfer process.

Luke 1.34-35 It is clear and without doubt that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke presented written information showing that Jesus did have GOD DNA.


So, you are not really an historicist. You just believe in Gods and do not really care about historical facts. It would appear that once historical facts contradic your beliefs then you must ignore the facts and continue with your belief.

But, may I remind you that once you believe in Gods, you believe in entities considered MYTHOLOGICAL. You believe in MYTHS.

It really does not matter whether or not people believed in Zeus since Gods are considered MYTHS.

The description of Zeus as a MYTH is irrelevant to belief. Perhaps very few people worship Zeus as a God but his MYTHOLOGICAL status is not ever diminished.

This is also true of Jesus. The MYTHOLOGICAL status of Jesus Christ is independent of belief since it is documented.

It is like the earth is documented to be spherical in shape whether or not you want to believe the documents is up to you.

We have documents describing Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

As long as records are kept of the Canon people will always see Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and Galatians 1.1.