mountainman

This hypothesis may be drawn from the evidence but there is certainly not the only hypothesis that may be drawn from the evidence. For those who currently accept as TRUE the (hypothesis of a) historical jesus in the 1st or 2nd centuries (on the basis of the canonical books of the NT) the hypothesis does not appear feasible. The entire field deals in hypothetical histories. There is no consensus of hypothetical opinion. Jesus's existence itself is hypothetical.

Hence the importance of assessing new evidence such as the gBarnabas, where a different Jesus story has been authored in which Jesus does not get crucified and ascend through the cloud bank above Jerusalem to the mother ship.


This hypothesis may appear dead to some people on account of the palaeographical dating assessments of NT related papyri fragments, to others on account of the Dura-Europos-Yale "house church", and to others on account of the tradition (held to be true) that the gospels and Paul etc are from the early centuries, and that Eusebius was not fabricating his historical narrative. However to me the hypothesis (that's all it is sv) still has legs to explain all the evidence in our possession from the first five centuries.

Accepting I have been of all manner of insults as a result of the exploration of this hypothesis in discussions. The fact remains that there is no one item of "silver bullet" evidence by which the hypothesis can be killed outright, due to the great paucity of "early evidence", in some cases its suspicious nature and in other cases its transparent ambiguity. If you think the horse is dead provide the autopsy report - the ancient historical evidence - by which the horse's life is unambiguously refuted.

sotto voce

It's all we need to know.

The sort of debating 'technique' that asserts one possibility as unquestionable truth, but merely permits another, equally feasible, is not a technique that one really wants to see....

... and false attribution is actionable in law.

Mind how you go.

mountainman

No it isn't because we dont know whether this hypothesis is necessarily true, for example Plotinus may never have even heard the Jesus fable.


History is about questionable truths. The HJ is a questionable truth. Those who accept the HJ as an unquestionable truth have to explain why Plotinus failed to mention the Jesus story in his writings. Those who do not accept the HJ as an unquestionable truth are permitted to formulate other hypotheses on the same issue. Its called the historical method.



HA HA

sotto voce

So why is

'The Emperor Galienus sponsored the Platonic theologian Plotinus in the later 3rd century'

of interest? Of relevant interest?

mountainman

That fact was introduced in response to your statement regarding the commodity of theology - namely "The kings of Rome, the 'republic' of Rome, the empire of Rome, had no use for such a commodity, at any time.". Plotinus was a Platonic theologian sponsored by the Emperor.

sotto voce

You were aware that I referred to the theology of the Bible.

mountainman

Heresiological theology?

sotto voce

Seems we finally have a white flag.

mountainman

The heretics and the orthodox have their own flags.
Who's waving the one that appears to your eyes?

Shafeesthoughts

So Jesus (as) is perfect as he did not sin.

And you are equating that perfection with GOD.

Did Jesus (as) not fear?
Did Jesus (as) not eat and drink, and void, as all men do?

This is the reference to Jesus (as) being a man, as all men are.
Whilst the reference to him being masoom, innocent of sin, is in reference to his being a prophet and messenger from GOD.

This is fundamental to a true definition of a transcendental GOD,
One who is not in need, needing no sustenance and does not fear.
The provider of all, who is in need of no provision.

Such an understanding of the nature of the Creator, even the aboriginal people had.

Pity then, that my brothers the Christians have lost it.