arnoldo

According to this extrabiblical source below these phenomenons were noted elsewhere.. . In the following passage Eusebius quotes Phlegon as stating the following:

mountainman

Dear LogicandReason and Fatpie,

The historicity of Jesus is essentially an unexamined postulate. It is a postulate because we do not have any evidence, and it is regarded as unexamined because there has never been any hard evidence by which an examination has been, or can be, conducted. We have a list - miles long - of forged and fraudulent evidence which gets longer as the centuries come and go. The One True Cross Fragments, The Passionate 6 inch nails, the Holy Grail, the James Ossuary, the Vatican Tour Guides and the Catacombs ... what will be next?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear ApostateAbe,

Confirmation of the HJ postulate has been restricted to conjectures in the minds of its proponents. It certainly has not been confirmed by any archaeological evidence. Without dealing with psychology and theology, the HJ position is a position in the field of ancient history, and such a position requires confirmation by the citation of ancient historical evidence by its proponents. That a bunch of self-convinced HJ commentators think and conjecture the same way is not evidence of history: it is apologetic polemic.


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

Your topics are not huge at all.

Your failed prophecy cannot be assumed to be from Jesus, it could have been fabricated by the author himself, that is, it may have been complete fiction.

The authors that wrote about the failed prophecy also wrote confirmed fiction.

The existence of the characters called Peter, James and Paul cannot be assumed since the stories about these characters are also directly dependent on the very existence Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist then Peter would be a fictitious character. Peter was a witness and participant in fictitious events with Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist as described in the NT, then it would be obvious that James was not the brother of Jesus, or a fictitious character.

If Jesus did not exist, the writer called Paul wrote fiction when he claimed Jesus died and rose again. The writer Paul wrote fiction when he claimed over 500 people saw Jesus, and it would be fiction when the writer called Paul claimed he met Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

The historical accuracies in the NT has no bearing whatsoever on the historicity of Jesus. Virtually all the historical information found in the NT can be found in the writings of Josephus.

Why don't you name one single cult of antiquity that claimed a God became human, died and resurrected?

You have no historical evidence for Jesus but must assume that you know what is true in the NT.

ApostateAbe

That is the nature of the beast, I think. We don't go with the theory that is absolutely certain. And we don't discard the theories that are absolutely false, because there are none. We go with the theories that are most likely, most consistent with itself and everything we observe in history. If we are going to apply the scientific principle of falsification to historical studies, then we must adapt to the ambiguous nature of historical studies.
As far as I know, Paul never claims that Peter was a direct disciple of Christ. He merely implies that Peter has a leadership role. If Jesus were a myth, then we would expect that likewise his proposed associates are nowhere to be found. You can propose that the real Peter was woven into a fictional account of Jesus, but it is an ad hoc explanation and you need evidence for it. Once again, this is about likelihood, not about certainty, and the fact that Paul knew Peter tips the scale toward the side of HJ. Same with James the brother of Jesus. It is possible that "brother of the Lord" really meant "good Christian fellow", but once again probability leans toward HJ, because James is listed as one of Jesus' brothers in the gospels, and "brother of the Lord" seems to be used as an identifying title (there were many men named James).

Crucifixion was an embarrassing thing, and it was also a common thing for criminals in the time and place. It is unlikely that a myth of a hero would start with him being crucified, except with some unusual creativity (again, probability, not certainty). It is much more likely that the real cult leader was crucified for his threat to the conservative Jewish religion, and his followers had to spin that into something good (sacrificial atonement and the myth of the resurrection).

The gospels contain many accurate details of the social and geographic environments of Jerusalem and Judea--the Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law, Roman leadership, balance of power, the temple of Jerusalem, Jewish laws, Jewish traditions, scriptures, landmarks, social roles of women, social roles of fishermen, tradesmen, tax collectors, cultural and religious rivalries, and so on. There are also plenty of inaccuracies, and the HJ position and mainline scholarship accounts for both (the myths developed in Greece and Rome). These details don't disclude MJ, but it narrows the scope of a good MJ theory to one that involved Jews to a great extent, and furthermore it confirms a prediction of HJ (a good HJ position is unlikely to exist without these details).

There are similarities with other myths that would provide evidence to MJ, such as a list of other mythical characters that are crucified, have 12 followers, are resurrected and so on, where it can be shown that there are connecting mythical links. And there are similarities to other cults that show a natural human social tendency for a minority of people to gravitate to an authoritarian leader, believe his every word, and continue to follow his character beyond death (transition from a cult to a religion). This would support the HJ position. The Jesus I propose was an apocalyptic cult leader who taught that the world would end very soon. This matches a type of cult that is very commonly observed in history and the present day, and it matches what is seen in the gospels. You do not see that much in mere myths.

aa5874

An eclipse of the sun cannot occur at the Passover or at the 14th day of the Lunar calender.

An eclipse is virtually impossible at the Passover since the earth would be between the sun and the moon.

For an eclipse, the moon must be between the sun and the earth.

And further an eclipse cannot lasts for more than a few minutes, not even 15 minutes.

fatpie42

Your answer to this one seems a little confusing:
Is it an ad hoc explanation to claim that John the Baptist and Pilate were woven into the story later too? I'm sorry, but what you've just said sounds more like it tips the scale towards MJ to me...

ApostateAbe

My wording was a little confusing, so let me see if I can rephrase. Peter is attested by the gospels to be one of the disciples of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, then we would expect that Peter was also a myth. But Peter existed as surely as Paul, because Paul was associated with Peter. That fulfills an expectation of HJ, but MJ must accomodate for it ad hoc. Perhaps Peter was real and he was woven into the story? Sure, you can accommodate anything. But, given that the expectations of HJ are fulfilled and the expectations of MJ are not, then HJ comes out with more probability. The greatest division between the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul was that Peter wanted to restrict the church to Jews and Paul wanted to extend the congregation to gentiles. Given MJ, we may otherwise expect the greatest division to be, "Hey, you never really knew Jesus, did you Peter?" Evidence like that would be smoking gun. But we don't have that.

arnoldo

Does the Gospels state that an eclipse happened sometime during a crucifiction event? From what I've read so far the gospels merely state that "darkness" (skotos) occurred--not an eclipse.

aa5874

The character called Peter cannot be assumed to have existed because the writer called Paul claimed he met him.

You cannot assume that it is impossible for the writer Paul to write fiction.

The writer called Paul is not credible. He wrote about events with respect to Jesus that are known to be fictitious. The writer claimed Jesus rose from the dead and that over 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected.

The writer could have fabricated his meeting with Peter.

And further, no church writer mentioned that they were in the company of Peter or Paul, spoke to them personally or saw them talking, walking (on water), or even sleeping.

Paul, the letter writer, is not credible and maybe from another century, or sometime after Justin Martyr.