Doug Shaver

Probably not for that reason.

What most ahistoricists think is that they believed it even though it wasn't true.

andrewcriddle

We both agree that the passage is not authentic.

However the picture of Jesus it presents - A Jesus who shows forgiveness towards sinners and who challenges the harsh attitudes of the self-righteous - is a picture found in other passages of the Gospels.

I don't think that the Gospel presentation of Jesus is substantially changed by the addition or omission of this pericope.

Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge

OK, what we have in the NT is a bunch of writing about an entity that's heavily mythological. This entity is divine, the Son of God, sent by God to earth, born in human form from a virgin, living as the son of a carpenter, showing early signs of divinity in his precociousness, coming of age with a revelation of his own divinity and his mission, going about preaching, getting into trouble with the authorities, being crucified, resurrecting and appearing to his disciples in divine form. That's the Jesus myth.

Do you believe in that entity?

It's not possible for a rational person to believe in that entity: for example, there are no such things as miracles that abrogate the laws of physics; except in a philosophical sense (e.g. cosmological arguments and such, about which there are no firm conclusions, and about which no physical evidence could decide), there is no evidence of intrusion of the divine into the ordinary world - at least, none that withstands rational investigation. Clearly, it's possible for people to believe that Jesus myth for their own reasons (e.g. they might have a subjectively convincing visionary experience of their own, in which they meet and talk to this "Jesus"), but for a rational person who bases beliefs on publicly accessible physical evidence, who is stingy with belief, and otherwise suspends judgement, there's really no good reason to believe in this Jesus myth.

Now, of course it's always possible that there was some human being behind this myth - perhaps he was some kind of preacher or rabbi, or visionary, or apocalyptic, or philosopher, or lunatic. We can imagine some human being who's story subsequently got larded over by mythological elements. We know this has happened in the past - e.g. we know some Roman emperors had fantastic stories attached to them. So it's plausible.

But what would it mean, to believe in such a "historical core"? Is that a religion any more?

Consider: in order to prove that there was a human being behind the Jesus myth, it's obvious that you're going to need to get down and dirty with the ancient languages, the ancient texts (all of them, not just the ones a certain sect has taken as "canon"), really dig into them and see what dry historical facts, if any, can be teased from the mythological jewel-encrustations.

Now, it turns out that this area, the area of investigation of discovering a man behind the evident myth, is extremely difficult. Disregarding the question of religious bias (although that's a big problem, I'm putting it to the side for the sake of this argument) zillions of well-meaning scholars have spent zillions of man-hours on it. Is there a consensus? No. Scholar A thinks he's discovered a historical apocalyptic core, scholar B thinks he's discovered a historical preacher core, scholar C thinks she's discovered a historical mystic core - the list goes on.

The only genuine consensus appears to be a belief that a core historical Jesus can be teased out of the myth - but there is no consensus as to who this person might have been, if he existed. Nor is any good reason given for this belief that a historical core can be teased out of the myth. It's just an article of faith among many biblical scholars.

But even if you've proved that there was a man behind the myth - what does that gain you? Is such an entity, an ordinary person mythologised, worthy of worship? On what basis? S/he might be worthy of study, just like any other wise person in history - but worship? Where's the religion, if the myth cannot be believed?

If it's very difficult to figure out what such a person might have said, what is there that you can rationally allow yourself to believe in and worship?

aa5874

But, what you say can hardly be true. Virtually all my posts have excellent points, but you appear to have ignored the points that consistently contradict your position.


Now, this is a most excellent point. The HJ makes no sense. The HJ defies history or all the Church writings and the NT where Jesus was propagated as the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who ascended through the clouds, no such creature was ever on earth.

The HJ is fiction.

Jesus of Nazareth was just a belief.

Solo

No doubt, it is revelations like this one that prompt GDon to extend your title by "savant" rather than using it alone, as that clearly would not do justice to the quantity, quality and undaunted persistence of your exertions. :huh:

Jiri

Minimalist

I'm sure some scribe thought this was a great addition to the text, Andy. My problem is with so-called sacred texts which people (just plain men) feel free to amend for whatever purpose. The old concept of "when one lie is detected a thousand are suspected" comes into play.

How do we know that this was not a fictional character that men decided to make better. In the first Star Wars movie, no one knew that Luke was Darth Vader's son. The characters evolved over time....but they remain fictional.

aa5874

So, let's review the Gospel presentation of Jesus.

1. He was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

2. He walked on water.

3. HE transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

4. He was raised from the dead.

5. He ascended through the clouds.

This Gospel presentation of Jesus is substantially mythological, nothing has changed with or without the pericope.

DCHindley

Toto,

Because it is just too easy to do so. "Waving away" unfamiliar or threatening information has likely been going on since the beginning of communication between humans.

Same goes for those who uncritially accept every statement of the bible as 100% true, when they "wave away" anything that could threaten their existing belief systems.

DCH

Toto

What information needs to be waived away?

What is threatening or unfamiliar about the idea that the gospels are fiction? It doesn't threaten me, any more than the historical Jesus threatens me.

DCHindley

Toto,

Nor does it to me.

Still, MJ seems way too much like wishful thinking to me.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

...

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

http://www.lyrics007.com/John%20Lenn...%20Lyrics.html

DCH