tanya

Hi J-D,

Thanks for your comment, always appreciated.

Which 'plot' am I writing about? Well, J-D, that's precisely what (at least my understanding of) the word "hypothetical" means:

an imaginary scenario, as opposed to a genuine sequence of action.

I asked you to imagine ANY plot, not one confined to the gospels.

Then, I invoked ANY character, in order to clarify the distinction between "historical", and "mythical", where "historical" refers to actual, measurable DNA, and "mythical" refers to a creature without DNA.

I hope that you can move forward now, having finally grasped the distinction between HJ and MJ. Folks who believe that the four gospels and Paul's letters describe HJ, believe that there was once living on the planet earth, some guy with Semitic DNA, enjoying the good life, until the nasty Romans executed him. Folks who believe that the four gospels and Paul's letters describe, contrarily, MJ, believe that there was never a living, breathing, DNA containing person, named Jesus, from the non-existent town of Nazareth. The whole bit is make believe, in other words, for "mythers", like me. I perceive the gospels and Paul's letters as Koine literature.

My point is that the evidence from the gospels and Paul's letters, points to a mythical, not human, character, named Jesus, hence MJ, rather than HJ. I deny that the gospels/Paul's letters/ACTS represent accurate historical records, though, I have no doubt that, like all good works of fiction, there are genuine characters, place names, dates and so on, embedded within the fictional framework. These genuine elements, within a mythical construction, serve to lend a sense of realism to the production, and increase sales of the merchandise.

Thanks for that, very clear explanation, very logical, methodical, and precise. I should have thought that J-D, in particular, would have found this definition to be extraordinarily suitable.

I have difficulty with analogue circuitry, (scale of 1-100), so I would have invoked a slightly different variation, on your theme:

+ DNA = historical
- DNA = fictional
- DNA & superhuman qualities = fictional AND mythological;

Thank you for this clarification and interpretation, very well explained...

Chili shall have the last word then....

gurugeorge

Yes I think that's broadly on the money - except with the caveat that many Christians evidently believed their (what we understand as) fictional supergod existed and sojourned on Earth for a time, and some believed he "had DNA" (so to speak) while others didn't. i.e. the ideas on precisely what the substance of his sojourn was, varied, from "divinely possessed man", to magical illusion).

And also, some believed they were still in visionary contact with the supergod.

archibald

Since the extant ones are indeed Koine literature, I don't think anybody is going to argue with you on that one. :]

J-D

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, by the historicity of a character as something which can be measured on a quantitative scale.

gurugeorge

That's tanya not me.

J-D

Well, then, what if the plot I imagine is the plot of the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms? Are the characters of that story, Liu Bei, Cao Cao, and the rest, 'historical' or 'mythical', in the sense of those words you are using?Is that what you're saying, that there never was any person who lived in Nazareth and whose name was Jesus? How could you possibly know that, without knowing the names of everybody who ever lived in Nazareth? And by your definition of 'HJ', are you saying that there was never anybody of Semitic ancestry executed by the Romans? Nobody? Ever?But you have not explained what you mean, in this context, by 'points to'.You can see what I said above: some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place; it is not possible that there was a real living human being to whom all those things happened; it is possible that there was a real living human being to whom some of those things happened. What you say now does not make clear whether you agree or disagree with that.Well, you're wrong about that; hopelessly wrong; but I am still curious to know what made you imagine that I would find 'suitability' in what mountainman said.What, rocks don't have DNA, so they're fictional?

jakejonesiv

HI J-D,

I am not going to weigh in on your discussion with Tanya. I want to see where it goes.

But I think your suggestion to define terms is a good one.

Sheshbazzar

Such as?
Please provide some specific examples of the texts and verses that you think '-might- be accurate reports of events that actually took place.'
Where? Which?

Designate exactly which texts it is, that form the basis of your support for a HJ.

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, what you mean by; '-might- 'be accurate reports of events that actually took place.'
Without this you are only suppling an empty generalization with no discernible substance.

Without these specifics being supplied, by YOU, so that the context and likelihood of any them being 'accurate reports of events that actually took place.' can actually be by others (us) examined and weighed as to their likelihood.

Most of us have also read these selfsame texts (repeatedly) and are quite certain of their fabricated nature. What we then need to know, is what specifically it is that causes you to differ?

Without this, this thread is also doomed to become another loop of endless, unspecified, and thus unanswerable generalizations.




.

archibald

Whoops. Edited.

archibald

Being certain of their fabricated nature is just being dogmatic, not rational.

As for 'which parts are true and which aren't', this is a red herring. In this regard, the means for assigning probabilities is no different than for countless other figures from ancient history. Yes, even in religious texts and for magicians and those thought to have been divine. Unless you are willing to deal with these on a similar basis, then you are being inconsistent as well as irrational.