spin

:realitycheck:

One can only hold your hand for so long.

outhouse

How could I fail?

I havnt even tried to ascribe historicity other then what is common knowledge.



your failing here regarding oral traditions and its importance to the poor illiterate jews who used it for every aspect of their lives

outhouse

You dont like getting what your giving? bring the conversation back into a adult nature.

You know I love you brother



but as far as Ziusudra, there's no mistake

Toto

This appears to be outhouse's source:

http://www.flood-myth.com/

Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk)

spin

At least you're hopeful.

This is not Discovery Channel.

Atheos

Nobody's arguing that there weren't plenty of people in Jerusalem for passover celebration. How many hundreds of thousands were there is completely immaterial.

What is germane to this discussion is actual evidence of the discourse you refer to: People talking about someone getting arrested at the temple for tossing tables and ending up getting his ass crucified before the Passover celebration continued. I was unaware there was any evidence of this massive swell of tongue-wagging, yet you imply that the evidence is there.

Paul's earliest writings cannot be reasonably dated earlier than AD54, and that's being generous. If the crucifixion occurred in AD33 that's twenty years, not ten as you suggest above.

Secondly, Paul's earliest writings mention absolutely nothing about the betrayal, the temple scene, the trial or even the crucifixion itself. The earliest Pauline writings only make vague allusions to a death and resurrection. Only much later do such elements as crucifixion become a part of it. I stand to be corrected but I cannot recall Paul ever saying anything about these things happening during the passover celebration or Jesus making a scene at the temple.

Finally, there's a huge difference between actual evidence of hundreds of thousands of people buzzing about these events and speculation by scholars that hundreds of thousands of people might have been buzzing about these events. I'm well aware that popular opinion favors HJ. The older I get the less persuasive I find arguments based on popular opinion to be. I'm much more interested in the actual evidence in support of those opinions.

TedM

Hi Tanya. By 'no clear record of early contrary views' I am referring to all known information about the early beliefs of Christians, which includes surviving documents regarding Christianity, but also knowledge of the Jewish culture in which Christianity begun. I think it is reasonable to conclude the following:

1. Christianity had a beginning, and therefore a history. The subject matter--the Jewish Messiah--was exceeding important to the entire Jewish culture, and therefore the entire Jewish culture would have been likely to retain a basic tradition of whether the believed in Jesus had walked earth or not. Traditionally the expected Messiah would have been on earth to usher in the 'kingdom of God' for Israel. Though differing viewpoints could have existed, an early belief in a non-human Messiah would likely have been highly controversial. And, the surviving record does show great passion among both believers and non-believers regarding the new belief, with believers willing to be killed and Jews like Saul/Paul willing to persecute the new believers. This increases the likelihood of survival of controversy regarding the basic idea of whether their Messiah was a human being or not.

2. There are some indications that the earliest Jewish Christians (the group that fled to Pella at the destruction of Jerusalem) believed the original Jesus had been a prophet and not divine--the opposite of the mythical Jesus in the sky.

3. Multiple records exist claiming to be direct (1 John) or knowing direct witnesses(John, Luke) to the events of a historical Jesus or the early tradition of Christianity, yet no indication is given of a group disputing a HJ. The earliest writings by Paul and others often address the issues of controversy (Gentile circumcision, the kind of resurrected body, docetic views, ..) but no clear indication given of a non-HJ/HJ controversy. And there is no indication that the earliest Gospel writings (sayings of Matthew, the book of Mark, large portions of John) were written as plays or for teaching purposes as 'made up' stories about a made-up character, by either believers or non-believers. Ie--no record within Christianity of a transition from belief in non-HJ to belief in HJ.

4. Multiple records attest to non-believing Jews and their negative positions about Jesus--he was a magician, the body was stolen, his mother was an adulteress, he was a deceiver, etc.. No indication that the non-believing Jews were saying that Jesus had never lived or been crucified by Pilate.

5. Catholic tradition records views of a number of people/groups considered 'heretics', some in great detail, but no record of groups claiming Jesus never walked the earth or lived roughly in the time period claimed. These records include Valentinus and Marcion. The Catholic tradition would have retained knowledge of their views, and those of Paul, whom they each were influenced by. Rather than reject Paul for having non-orthodox views, he was embraced.

Although we are missing the early kinds of documents that would help settle the issue, for me the 'big picture' must take into account all of the above. To conclude that no religious man named Jesus was on earth requires belief that several of the early records were outright knowingly lying, that the movement was not important to the early Jews, that the transition from non-HJ to HJ was relatively easily done without comment, that there was a coverup regarding the history or some combination of all of these.

For me it is very difficult to take all of these things into account and still conclude that the tradition never was able to retain the truth about something as basic as whether Jesus had been an actual person known by his culture, or not.


Philo didn't mention JTB, yet few dispute his existence or influence. Josephus was born in Galilee within 10 years of Jesus' alleged death, so he would have been a credible source for information on traditions regarding Jesus' existence despite not being an eyewitness.

It complicates, but the bigger picture requires more than this issue.

No. It is explained by natural factors of document evolution and survival.

funinspace

moved to new Noah thread I just noticed...

outhouse

Ziusudra doesnt make it that far.

its to boring and to simple.


the BSF and mythical garbage does quite frequently. As well as the rock formation a top the mountain they still try and promote as a boat

outhouse

Paul lets split it down the middle 15 years LOL hell i dont care 20 is fine.


but Paul writes a 100% mythical jesus and knows nothing of the man, his death or anything else. Paul knows theology and mythology and is quite happy to share his version.




There was a catalyst to the oral trdaition paul picked up, should we nail that down first?

It's my thought that a temple incident alone with such a crowd and a missing body would leave a trail for oral mythology to take hold.

More so then another boring preacher in a sea of thousands of preachers in almost half a million people who was arrested and hung on a cross


evidence? we have mythology and unique theology to almost this exact time period.