Toto

Too much confusion on your part, too little time on mine.

Just this: "There is a church history that may not be accurate but has always considered him historical."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The church history has always considered Jesus to be a godman on earth, not merely historical. The historical Jesus is a theory developed after the Enlightenment. There have been about 3 "quests" for the historical Jesus, all of which have come up rather empty handed.

But I don't see the point in continuing this until you do some work on your own.

spin

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you're buying into an unhelpful use of "historical". Elijah seems to be using the term to be functionally the same as "real" or "having existed", whereas "historical" in a scholarly sense is more in this case like "shown to have existed".


spin

Elijah

Your contributions will be missed.

A "godman on earth" is still historical no matter if they thought of him in the most superstitious light or an alien from outer space, it doesn't matter. <edit>

Like come up with a myth theory that makes sense on my own? Which I have considered.

Toto

No - like actually understanding what the theories of the historical Jesus are based on, or the details of any mythicism theory, or what history involves - as opposed to just flinging little insults.

Toto

Can you demonstrate this? You are assuming what you are trying to prove - that stories about a godman on earth must have a historical core, or be understood as historical.

spin

(Braces for blather about it being the best explanation money can buy. :constern02


spin

eheffa

Elijah, surely by now you can see that this discussion keeps on circling around the same issues.

If the Jesus of the NT was based on an historical person one would expect certain features or pieces of historical evidence to verify this hypothesis. One would expect a peasant carpenter with a Messianic message who subsequently becomes a local celebrity to have been noticed by the authorities and historians of the day. Indeed, Josephus pays attention to many rather insignificant "Jesus" types in his accounts of that era but fails to notice the "true Messiah" of the Christian story. The Jews and Romans in their extant literatures & histories also fail to notice this man.

THIS IS EVIDENCE. This supports the hypothesis that the Jesus Messiah of the Gospels was a post hoc creation of the mythical type & not an elaboration or magnification of some obscure peasant who did nothing to attract anyone's attention. Your anonymous peasant hypothesis to explain this is as verifiable & as unfalsifiable as Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.

One would expect that, as opposed to a historically derived hero worshipping movement, a mythical Jesus movement could start from a celestial logos cult & eventually concretize the object of its worship & begin to fabricate details of its founder's earthly life. The mythical movement would likely have rather vague details of their founder's life initially & find them embellished & eventually standardized over time. The Historical Jesus movement with its (postulated) carefully preserved oral history should on the other hand demonstrate better detail early in the history of the movement. (Kind of like the way the Book of Acts tells the tale.)

What does the data suggest? Apart from the Gospels (which cannot be reliably dated to the first century), we have no hard evidence of any sort of Christian writings before the turn of the second century that have a clear understanding of Jesus' earthly life story. The literature & history we have from that era shows us a Christian movement that isn't even noticed until the turn of the first century by outsiders & then only as a vague logos cult. Even in the early second century many people called themselves "Christians" on the basis of some sort of baptismal rites & have no understanding of the supposed founder of their movement. We have lots of evidence of a second century Christianity without the Jesus of the Gospels. (See Doherty's Second Century Apologists @ http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/ )

It isn't until the mid to late second century that those calling themselves Christians begin to identify and relate to the Jesus of the Gospels with direct references to these works.

How would the Historical Jesus hypothesis explain these findings?
With a lot of convoluted conjecture is the short answer.

How does the Mythical Jesus hypothesis explain these findings?
Quite easily; as it is exactly what one would expect if this was how Christianity got its start.

Anyways, I have to agree with Toto, Spin & others. There is plenty of data & evidence to support the Mythicist position. You just seem to be stubbornly unwilling to read it for yourself.

-evan

Elijah

Cool move on to why my opinion is incorrect besides I don’t have evidence.
My position is the only position right now.

You should say “subjectively considered credible concrete evidence”. Or explain why what we have isn’t evidence.
Another simple question another dodge.
You have admitted having problems with the credibility of the material in regards to the history in question.
What? Did you understand my point?


Yea but hopefully at some point you will take a look in the mirror at what you believe and see if it makes rational sense.
Another honest question. Another pitiful dodge.
Mere possibility has to do with the possibility of the data being historical or not. I don’t know what you mean by historical datum.
Um so let me get this straight by your understanding people can be real in history but if they don’t leave evidence then they are not historical but still real? Man, do you think the story of Jesus was based on a real person?
Still not getting that lower class isn’t expected to leave the same evidence as the ruling class?


I’ve heard most of them used as well. Anyone of them you want to go to bat with?
Having a position on an issue in order to debate is necessary for the debate. I don’t have to have a position or even disagree with your position but still want to argue with you is kind of, ridicules.
Regardless of your list it still comes down to real or made up. Two options.
Quit playing stupid with the evidence that is out there and act like I’m not providing something for you to argue against. You don’t get one thing to argue against if you want to argue against a “real” core you have to argue against it all.
Depends on if you want to move on or stay stuck in the same hole.
What occurs most often.
What does it matter if he did or didn’t? Do you think that helps the myth case that they have possibly forged letters?
Yes people can be wrong.
Don’t know. Not sure on your real/historical divide.
Know what, that he was thought of as fiction?
What people think doesn’t change if a person is real or not but it should be entered into evidence.

What do you mean we have a literary tradition that fades off in the 13th century? You mean that’s the oldest copies we have?

He wasn’t conjured into existence. The name of the religion was thought to belong to the founder of the religion.

So you think Paul made up the Jesus story and he is the originator of it?

Elijah

Demonstrate what??? What I'm saying is that regardless of your understanding of Christ it still happened in history? Regardless if you consider him a political messiah or a genie's superbaby. Are you a believer in the Myth plane?

Toto

Need one say more?