Clivedurdle

Is not the problem here that the theological arguments are being consistently confused with historical ones, and the HJ position does look almost entirely based on theological arguments!

Jung proposed collective unconscious for this repetition of "archetypes" throughout different societies. I tend towards commonalities in ways we think and feel about life the universe and everything, and a much wider sharing of ideas and ways of thinking - some very ancient - amongst us all.

Inventing a christ to save us all is a common motif, to understand the history we must look closely at the theology - because that is evidence of how they thought.

And "Ghost" "Spirit" are clear theological ideas that have had direct historical effects on how we think now - myriads of people believe they have been Baptised by the Holy Ghost. That is a historical fact - to understand why and how people got to that belief requires looking at theology and psychology and anthropology and history of ghosts and witchcraft and sociology and history.

And xianity again looks like a quite ordinary set of beliefs within the context of the time that for various reasons took off - not requiring a big bang solution of a leader figure - which is really also an apologetic theological proposal.

post tenebras lux

But doesn't the (original) greek just say sacred/holy spirit/breath, Chris?

That's not quite a 'Holy Ghost' true, but aren't you being a tad disingenious with aa5874?

Do sacred breaths have children? :huh:

Toto

I think that one can think that the gospels are 100% fiction and still believe that there was a historical Jesus at the root of Christianity.

A mythicist believes that the earliest Christians talked about a non-historical Son or Savior figure, with no historical roots at all.

One might compare this historical Jesus to Zorba the Greek, who was a real person and a friend of novelist Nikos Kazantzakis. While Alexis Zorbas was real, the events in the novel (and movie) Zorba the Greek are entirely fictional. We know from Kazantzakis' autobiography and from other sources that Zorba's strong personality influenced Kazantzakis' narrative. There are some liberal historicists who discount the gospel as a source of history, but assume that Jesus had that sort of personal influence on his followers.

Didymus

Rubbish. Liars often tell the truth. If you apply that silly generality to life, you end up discarding much that is valuable.

Since we're up to our eyeballs in glittering generalities, I'll engage in one of my own. Your "proofs" are pathetic, exactly the sort of "evidence" that evokes comparison of mythicists with Creationists and Christian evangelicals. I suggest deleting Acharya S from your Favorites.

Didymus

aa5874

Are you telling me that the Christian Bible cannot be refered to on this forum?
Unlike you and others, all my references will be made from the Christian Bible, namely the KJV. I am familiar with this Bible and this forum deals specifically with Biblical Criticism and History. This forum as far as I understand is for discussion and different view points, one does not have to be a scholar.

My views are based on my own way of looking at the issues, even if you think that they are just steam. I will continue to post my inputs regardless of what you think. I do not regard this forum as the 'new society' as if only the learned and scholarly can partake.

I view the Christian Bible as a sophisticated Ghost story book and all the main characters, namely, God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and Paul are of that entity.

spin

No.

That is not the christian bible. It's one (old) translation into English of it. You should note that some people here are looking at the original languages to understand the text. Quoting from the KJV is accepting old, often erroneous, translations.

You are correct.

However, viewpoints are not simply unsupported negative opinions here.

When the word "biblical" is contextualised with "criticism and history", scholarly methodology is required. This doesn't mean you have to be a scholar. It means that you follow the rules of evidence. What you say should be anchored in evidence. In this case the biblical texts, historical and archaeological data.

The irony of my phrase "new society" was missed.

What was being asked of you was to partake in... to follow the rule of evidence.

The issue at hand here is not how you view the christian and Jewish literature, but whether you are prepared to do biblical criticism and historical analysis of the bible. The issue is also how you communicate with your peers. I think this latter issue has been highlighted by some members' reactions to some of your communications.

By all means, contribute, but I think most people here will ask that members do so in a way that shows them why you understand what you do about BC&H.


spin

aa5874

In order to establish whether Jesus was historical or not, we must examine carefully the Christian Bible. If one can establish that it is higly unlikely that Jesus' father does not exist, then it is equally unlikely that Jesus was even born, much less lived.

The Son of a God cannot be half historic and half fictitious, it's either all or none. Humans can be historic and yet have fictitious elements said of them, but God ,whose recorded words are claimed to be true,can have no element of fiction.

The name Jesus was used 2000 years ago, I do not know how many persons had that name in Nazareth. I do not how many persons were named Mary who had a son named Jesus. I cannot conclude that the Jesus in the Bible is historic because the name Jesus is prevalent in Nazareth.

We can make simple determinations of the historicity of Jesus by examining the recorded acts of His father in the Christian Bible. There is no evidence whatsoever that his father flooded the earth, no evidence that he created the earth, no evidence of the exodus. No prophesy from the father about the son. No evidence his father exist. No evidence his father had a ghost that impregnated Mary.
All evidence points to fiction.

Amaleq13

It seems to me that this approach confuses the Jesus who possibly existed in history with the theological figure depicted in the Gospels. Eliminating the latter really does nothing to eliminate the former.

That is a dichotomy that is only true for those of a particular sort of Christian faith. It has been my experience that the Christians who offer substantive discussions here do not tend to be of that variety.

The father of any historical Jesus was either Joseph or another man. Here, you appear to me to confusing determinations of the reality of the God of the Bible with determinations of the historicity of Jesus. They are separate endeavors.

Again, this addresses the reality of the God of the Bible rather than the historicity of Jesus. I reject that god along with all others but that really says nothing about the possibility that an actual man by the name "Jesus" inspired the Gospel texts and the Christian religion.

The sooner you grasp this differentiation, the better off you will be in these discussions, amigo.

aa5874

The Christian Bible is not only claimed to be theological but historic. It is not possible to eliminate any one and find the next. The gravity of the situation eludes you. The reason the historicity of Jesus is being sought is because of the very same Christian Bible accounts of Him.
I would like to imagine that the historians are searching for the Jesus who is the Son of a Ghost and ascended into heaven directly from earth, and not just a name.




That the father of the Son of a Ghost is a man is absolute fallacy , according to the Bible. Again, you have lost track of the gravity of the problem. The Jesus that we seek is the Son of a Ghost. We do not seek a man born of flesh and blood. The historicity of the Son of a Ghost is in question.

It is inconceivable that the reality of God has nothing to do with Jesus. That statement has no rationality. If you reject god, then you must reject the historicity of the Son of a Ghost.

The sooner you grasp the gravity of the problem, the more rational your statements will become. There is a biographical account of Jesus (the Son of a Ghost) in the Christian Bible. I await the day an historian can verify that such a ghost existed.

Dean Anderson

And that is exactly your problem.

What you would like to imagine that the historians are searching for is not what the historians are actually searching for.