Chris Weimer

False on both points. First of all, MJers do propose their own theories, and secondly, it's primarily because they have to. Or at least in rational discussion. You can believe whatever you want to believe - your beliefs are of little concern to me. However, if you're going to assert that an historical Jesus did not exist, than you're going to have to address why the evidence that points to historicity is false. I can say all day long that George Washington didn't exist, but until I address the evidence, there's no point in continuing. Merely not being convinced isn't enough - you have to address why you are not convinced, and that your line of reason is the same for any other historical figure in question.

We're not talking about the existance of God here. God has absolutely no evidence for its existance, while Jesus has a-plenty. Once again, this is in the course of rational discussion. Concerning your personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. It's what you can and cannot show through scientific and rational investigation. Can you address the concerns of Jesus Historicists? Very few do, and in their arguments come holes a-plenty, like Doherty's.

Chris Weimer

Please show the text (heck, I'll even allow a translation) where it shows Inanna and Tammuz dying and either resurrecting or being resurrected. It must show that they actually die. Also, please show how this spread to Christianity and influenced the earliest Christian thought. Furthermore, you will need to show how it originated the idea of Jesus, and not merely provided an embellishment later on. Finally, please show how you are certain the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine.

While you can argue possibility all you want, I'll take probability as my preferred choice. The bottom line comes down to it - did Christ have live and die in the heavens? No. In fact, he porbably did not. He probably lived and died on earth, which is the easiest and simplest reading of Paul. Anything else can only be inferred after you add in your own prejudices. Christ died in the heavens only after you reach that conclusion. Nothing else supports that suggestion.

First of all, the ancients also believed the demons could live on earth. Furthermore, Paul also says the Jews killed Jesus. 1 Thessalonian 2.14-16.

Doherty's interpretation is a prejudged reading. No other sensible reading can come from "came from a woman." It was the English equivalent of "flesh and bones." No one would describe a spectre of having flesh and bones and no one would say that God came from a woman. And where would a woman be in the heavens anyway? Fighting the demons?

He also explains what this means, in clear language, elsewhere in his epistles. BTW - when was Paul crucified, and does his writing after the crucifiction mean he still lived, or rather was resurrected? Since we cannot take this literally, as you butcheringly try to do, then we can only take it as the rest of Paul - exaggeration and metaphor.

Jews had to use the OT to justify the current events - it was the norm. They did it all the time. Midrashic and Pesharic literature does not negate the conquest of Alexandria - why would it apply to Jesus. The Peshar from the Dead Sea Scrolls provide excellent attestation to using the Bible as prophecy for future events.

And no, it does not explain anything. It is a forced reading which renders the text obfuscated and difficult, and instead of allowing the natural reading to take place, it instead try to place over it a convulated and prejudiced reading.

I don't like the rhetorical game, especially if you're not going to later explain what you mean. Please, oh wise Socrates, what is the meaning of "under the Law" as you interpret it?

Exactly! But it wouldn't be as near as important if all of it happened off of earth. No other dying and rising god needs to visit all those people to assure them that they did indeed live after all. That a God would need to prove his resurrection to 500 seems like overkill. Now if Jesus had died on earth, it would make far better sense that he needed to show himself to all those people to prove that he was indeed living again, which would indeed be miraculous. Paul becomes far clearer if Jesus lived and died on earth, not in heaven.

To make it all that more important. If God, the infinite and all-powerful, died and resurrected himself - whoopdeedoo! But if he became human, and was resurrected, that's something.

Paul has it read as an apologetic. Do you really think that Jesus resurrected to meet 500 people?

Could you be a little clearer?

I didn't say that. Please reread carefully.

I already pointed out why one argument failed, and you were unable to counter that. It's not my fault that you cannot bring the arguments here to show how they're relevant. If I think they're weak, wouldn't it be on you to show how they are strong? "Hey Ted, those arguments don't seem to hold weight." "No way dude! They're totally credible. Show me how they don't hold weight!"

Absolutely. I also am comfortable declaring that tectonics.org is weak and flimsy, especially if the one advocating it refuses to make it relevant to the discussion.

Argument from Authority.

Please Ted, if you can't drop the personal attacks, don't even bother trying.

I got it right the last time too. You just didn't understand it.

Hrm, everywhere he makes a prophecy about Jesus and then cites the OT?

If you had clicked on the little "historical jesus" tag on the blog, this is what you would have found. I do admit that's not as sensible as it may.

Great. You go hiding again.

The Temple Ruckus and the allusion to Nehemiah.

And this differs from what I said how?

Ted - please quit it. Please. If you cannot argue rationally, I don't wish to engage further. Perhaps we should make a new rule - you must quote exactly what I said, give your interpetation of what I said, and then try to rebut it. Your mischaracterization of what I said is approaching intentionally deceptive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

I said half of the the Christs aren't mutually exclusive. That means that some are and some aren't. How can I be wrong if we both agree on the same fucking thing!?

I was pointing out that you listed several versions of Christ that weren't mutually exclusive. Peasant-Christ is not mutually exclusive with apocalyptic-preacher-Christ. You listed all those Christs as proof that there were so many different versions of the HJ. I called your bullshit, and now you're backtracking. Poor, poor form.

Confucius - Achilles - and if I can find it again, Amaleq13 had an excellent link on the "historical Arthur" reconstructions. I'll try to find that later.

You brought up the allegation. You made the ad hom. I'd rather leave religion out of this, but you made it an issue.

Clivedurdle

The above are not in response to the other, but might illustate something.

I see the telling of a very powerful story, in the ancient tradition of god men stories, but this time with strong Jewish elements.

I assume Chris, we are agreed that "Jesus" did not rise from the dead?

Therefore what is Paul saying when he asserts he did?

"If Christ is not risen your faith is in vain."

Is Paul lying? No, he had had visions, he spoke to Jesus, God told him things - he says so all over the place - he even says - this bit is from me not God!

We know the Jews had been "messiah hunting" for a couple of hundred years. The reality was not the glories of Solomon, they were a subservient people in the fag end of the Roman Empire.

But their God is the Almighty - El Shaddai! (with a capital G!)

There might have been an itinerant wonder worker called Jesus, but in fact the whole thing makes far more sense as a story - Jesus as a character in a play.

There are several Jesi and Christi co mingled here.

To me it looks like someone took an eternal logos christ figure, fiddled around with the story and moved it to earth, added in loads more bits and pieces, used a clear passion play, used what was then seen as high philosophy and science - alchemic ideas and cynic, love neighbour stuff, and it all evolved as a religion because of its jewish roots when it was more of a proto science, a continuously repeated experiment of turning bread into flesh, wine into blood and death into life. Instead of lead into gold they were attempting to go to the stars - a new heaven and earth, eternal life!

They made comments about the coming of the Christ - a first coming (- they had only seen Christ in visions - they say so -) as the final big experiment. They had the rituals and the words and the theologies required to make the experiment work, they were even groaning, seeing as in a glass darkly (why? - if they had met Jesus?) They had the Holy Spirit as a clear sign!


Chris, in your comments in several places you write "Christ". We must be very clear if we are talking about a heavenly Christ, an earthly Jesus, or the conjoining - a theological act that must not be assumed - of the two.

And Jesus as the main character in a story makes a lot more sense than these funny Jesi!

His Noodly Appendage

You know, I saw the thread title, and wondered why MJ would want an elephant in the room while he was getting an HJ (but felt it wiser not to wonder too hard)

When curiosity finally overcame common sense, the actual topic turned out to be far less disturbing than I feared.

I feel oddly cheated.

Doug Shaver

I was referring to the assumption that the gospels in their original form were essentially complete -- which I took to mean that the autographs were more or less identical in overall content to the extant manuscripts. What evidence is that assumption supposed to explain?

Chris Weimer

The assumption is the default assumption. Is there any reason to assume that they were not more or less identical to what we have today? You wouldn't come to any other literature thinking that it must be in a totally different shape and form that it is in today. Why specifically the gospels? Allowing the obvious that scribal corruptions, whether accidentally or on purpose, does happen, that rarely ever means that the original is a far cry from the current version. And, as always, there must be a reason. What is your reason?

Chris Weimer

Sure, but just because its a good story, doesn't mean it's not based on something that actually happen.

I don't see how this is relevant.

Did the Jews write plays? I have found none from the time period.

Possible. I see it another way: someone took a man who died on Passover to be the Messiah, and his disciples actively promoted this until Paul came and preached about Jesus not the Messiah but the everlasting savior. Presumably, Paul with the earliest disciples were apocalyptics, though Paul tries to get over this by saying that this world is not going to end, but our flesh will end when we go into Christ. Someone took the message and with the early traditions mingled them together until we get something that looked like Mark - a fictionalized account of a real historical figure, using theology and scripture as the basis for this man's divine life. The added resurrection was, by all accounts, probably original to Mark, which, oddly, we don't what was written.

The flesh tends to corrupt. We cannot see in this world because we have not yet transcended this world, like Christ, to the heavens.

I'll try to be clearer.

Clivedurdle

Everyone else did and I don't remember any prohibitions against plays in Judaism. I thought Toto had shown "the fool" in Paul. The Passion is clearly a play - even if you do not accept Nazarenus, read it about the structures evident in the gospels! You do not have to extrapolate to Seneca, but I think the argument that we are looking at a play is self evident.

In fact I would argue the main form of communication was probably theatrical, reading would have been a minority sport! What is a religious ceremony if it isn't theatrical? They even repeat identical lines several times a day at Mass!

Pardon? (Never mind - got it - but that is the classic apologist response!)

Chris Weimer

What plays have been found in Judaism?

Where? And how can you construe Paul to be a play? It's epistolary genre, a far stretch from an actual play.

Please explain.

You're confusing theatre and ritual liturgy. Also, the massive amount of lectionaries seem to support the idea that readings were the norm.

But of course - how else would you read Paul? Like an Hindu?

Spenser

I'm a little at a loss here. It is clear that the Gospels are works of fiction and works of fiction make bad sources for accurate history. If this is the case then what does it matter if Paul were referring to him as in a different plane or as a human if he might still be referring to the Jesus that is a work of fiction in the gospels?

IOW, if you are so sure that Jesus really was a man and walked the Earth then I'd love for you to tell me where he went and what he actually did (for real) and how you differentiate that from the fictions of the Gospels. If you can't come up with much then your case is rather weak.

Now I am not coming here with any predisposed bias, I could care less if he was real or not cause all we know of him is myth. I am entering this the same way I'd enter the debate on God, the positive assertion of existence would need to bear a burden of proof, otherwise it is more than reasonable to claim non-existence (even if incorrect). You follow?