Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Fascinating stuff here including

I would simplify this by looking more closely at Seneca.

Chaucer

In this case, it needn't even be an historic human being. Merely stating that anyone -- anyone -- has been fathered by a god is already too fantastical a statement to put up alongside not one but two attestations that one James was part of a regular human family, one of those attestations being actually secular. A previous posting actually tried to discredit these two attestations by citing another statement -- that someone was born of a god(!) -- as being serious enough to discredit these two attestations! Such a fantastical statement is not serious enough to discredit anything.

Chaucer

spin

Thanks. I guess you've done the best you can.


spin

aa5874

But your statement is just absurd.

No thing deemed not existing can have evidence of its existence.

There is no evidence for unicorns. I do not have to personally look under every shrub for unicorns to claim that they do not exist.

No credible source has sighted any unicorns. Unicorns do not exist.

There is no evidence for Homer's Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess. Achilles never did exist as described by Homer.

The same applies to Jesus of the NT.

The Church writers and authors of the NT presented Jesus as a myhtical figure, both man and God without any earthly father who did transfigure, resurrect, and ascended to heaven.

No credible source, external of the Church, has any evidence or information about the Jesus of the NT.

Jesus of the NT never did exist in the 1st century as described in the NT..

Now, you have no evidence whatsoever for the proposition that there was a human called Jesus Christ during the time of Tiberius and Pilate.

Even the Synoptics have information that is not found in gJohn. The Gospel of gLuke and gMatthew or Mark do not have the identical information about Jesus.

All four Gospels provide additional details about Jesus of the NT. The Gospel of John was included in the Canon because it represented the Church view on the origin of Jesus.

The Church did present Jesus as a myth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who existed before the world and was the Creator.

But, you must have forgotten that the Church did not posit that Jesus was only human,and had a human father, that is your proposition. You are the one claiming Jesus was fathered by a human being even though you have not even begin to show that Jesus did indeed exist.

We have information that Jesus was presented as an entity that originated mythically . See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-3.

You have no information whatsoever that Jesus of the NT had a human father or that Jesus was ever human himself.

You have got to be joking.

Once Jerome claimed Jesus had a COUSIN named James, you have no case. The Jesus in Josephus has a BROTHER called James, not a COUSIN.

And if what you say about the Nag Hammadi text is true, the text actually supports Jerome. Jesus had no blood brother named James.

Another absurd statement. Non-existence does not require evidence.

What is the evidence that mermaids, or Homer's Achilles do not exist? No evidence of their existence.

The proposition that Jesus [b]never existed in the ist century as described by the Church needs no actual evidence. It is the lack of evidence for the Jesus of the NT that supports the myth. The Church presented a myth to the world. Jesus of the NT originated as a myth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, and left as a myth, floated through the clouds.

That Jesus as described never existed.

Now, Please tell me when are you going to prove that Jesus was human in the 1st century and had a human father?

When are you going to begin to show the sources of antiquity that support a character called Jesus Christ the Messiah, our Lord and Saviour, son of God, that was only human?

When?

Chaucer

And thank you for an invigorating exchange -- WHEW!

Cheers,

Chaucer

show_no_mercy

Where is there any reference to "the Christ" outside of the LXX and Christian literature? Can you present some? The word "christ" comes from the Greek χριστου "anointed one" which comes from the Greek word χριοω which is the verb "to anoint".

The point being, that the Romans wouldn't have known what the term meant, and what it meant for a Jew to be named "the Christ" - but Josephus is attempting to eludicate why the Jews went to war with Rome. That concept of "the anointed one" is crucial to the entire war. Why would Josephus mysteriously avoid that term except when describing the Jesus of Christianity?

And the Romans weren't the ones who applied the Jewish prophecy of a God appointed ruler of the known world (also known as the anointed one) to Vespasian. It was the Jew Josephus. The term "Christ" was not local - it's used multiple times in the Greek version of the Jewish Bible to describe heavenly appointed rulers of Israel - both kings and high priests. It was even used for the gentile Cyrus. Every single Greek speaking Jew (any who were anxious for the end of Roman occupation) knew that term, since that concept is what incited the Jews into hugely bloody rebellions against Rome at least two times in recorded history. One during Josephus' lifetime and one around 30 years after his death. So the term didn't "lose all meaning".

It led to the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Jews haven't had a Temple since. It led to the Jews being evicted from their homeland and having it renamed to "Palestine". You seem to still be reading the term "christ" with Christian (non-Jewish) glasses on since you think that it's solely a "religious" concept.

And a "general epithet" in 90 CE?!? I don't think you understand the political/social/religious landscape of 1st century Palestine to think that some nobody would have been called "the anointed one". You might as well say that the President of the United States is a "general epithet". The fact that the Bar Kochba revolt happened means that the "anointed one" concept was not a "general epithet" in Josephus' lifetime.

Chaucer

Because Jesus was the only local who got to acquire that term?

But Josephus doesn't actually apply the term to Vespasian! :-)

All figures in the Judaic narrative. And it was the guardians of the Judaic culture who oversaw the Septuagint.

Evidently it did for some gentiles.

It is a concept related to their cultural customs, not those of the gentiles.

So how do you account for the fact that the first decade of the second century finds a Roman like Tacitus using the term "Christ" in -- at best -- a noncommittal way, if not downright hostile?

Chaucer

Chaucer

In your opinion. I find Antiq. 20 credible, and that is most certainly "external of the Church".

Saying something 60 zillion times does not make it so. Are you really trying that hard to convince yourself?

You should apply some qualifying adjective before saying "no evidence". We're all the way back to the OP if we're going to address this properly. There is evidence and it's textual evidence that goes beyond Scripture. The question is whether or not that evidence constitutes proof. If you insist that there's no evidence external to the Church and the Scriptures, then you're living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land; if you maintain there's no real proof, then you're being serious.

No. That's the proposition of the majority of SECULAR scholars since the time of Schweitzer at the very least.

We have such information, and it's well outside of the NT. Our job is to vet that information, not just pretend it doesn't exist. The latter is what creationists do with the overwhelming amount of information we now have on evolution.

Meet John McEnroe. ;-)

But he still had an intimate family associate, and that's what's critical here. It could be cousin, adopted brother, or wet nurse! It still entails an intimate family connection.

Neither does Creationism. Both it and mythicism are declarations ultimately grounded in faith.

Again, you're confusing evidence and proof.

When are you going to prove he wasn't?

I already have and you're willfully ignoring it because it's against your "religion": Josephus: Antiq. 20. It does not confirm Jesus as a Lord and Savior and it does not confirm Jesus as a son of God. But it does confirm Jesus as a historic and human bloke who was popularly called "Christ" by some.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy

So you're trying to say that Jesus was the only "local" (whatever that means) to have been called "the anointed one"? You seem to have learned your skill at argumentation from apologetic schools.

He applies the concept of "the christ" to Vespasian.

No it wasn't. The entire point of the LXX was so that it could be spread to a wider audience. The Jews stopped using it officially at the beginning of the 2nd century because Christians had hijacked it.

Because he's repeating the term used by Christians. And he uses "Chrestians" which means "the useful ones" - a term usually applied to slaves. I didn't call my ex gf "Sarah" because I thought she was literally a princess.

Steven Carr

And Josephus cleverly used a bit of Matthew 1 to do that, after avoiding using the word 'Messiah' in his 20 volume history of the Jews.

I wonder why Paul in Romans 10 thought Jews had never heard of Jesus , apart from Christians sent to preach about him.

I suppose for much the same reason that the world would not have heard of the Maitreya, if it were not for the preaching of Benjamin Creme about him.