mountainman

Be careful Jake. The force is strong on the dark side.

Sheshbazzar

J-D in choosing to cling to a few isolated Gospel verses as 'could be', 'maybe', 'possibly's' while willing to dismiss that by far greater majority of the texts, as well as displaying an utter disregard to considering both context and content of these accompanying texts and how they influence and affect the interpretation of those few salvaged snippets has made a complete joke of there actually being any historical figure behind the texts.
His entire version of the Gospels 'might or might not have beens' would fit nicely onto a single sheet of foolscap. Some NT that is.
I say; Let him wear it, whenever, wherever, and however he wishes, as his silly hat suits him just fine.

archibald

Sure, everyone knows that. No one suggested otherwize, and in the posts previous to this, we weren't discussing it. I was saying that the sources appeared to be close, in historical terms, which they are.


Hm. Don't think you can be any way sure of that at all, actually.

I am not repeating anything put to me by Christian apologists. I am repeating what has been said to me by posters on another rational skepticism board, at least two of which had studied history and another (whose name can't be mentioned around here for fear of locals grabbing pitchforks) who has a special interest in history. Now, I have no objection to exploring this particular question to see if it's a fair comment or not, so if you can offer something, I am happy to think about it. To me, at the moment, it does seem that eyewitness reports for events (and indeed people) are less common, and that lack of them is common.

What about, say, looking at Israelis of that period generally?



You shouldn't.

No they don't. On a previous thread I posted a chapter from a book by Dale Allison. Anyhow, them being after Jesus is not necessarily an issue which rules them out of comparison.

J-D

I don't know whether you're referring to me, but if you are, I'd like to know if there's anything in what I've actually said that makes you refer to me as a 'historicist'.

On the other hand, if you're not referring to me, then obviously your strictures don't apply to what I've actually said, which still stands.

Kapyong

Gday Pete,

Crackpot conspiracy theories of Atwill, Carotta and Brown are worthless nonsense, sorry.



What a great pity after all these years that you STILL have NO IDEA that Earl's Jesus, the one I champion over and over right here, was a REAL SPIRITUAL being.

What a pity you didn't have time to actually READ my whole post :


K.

Sheshbazzar

J-D as long as you hold onto your present, 'Jebus' mentioned- 'might or might not be an accurate account of actual events' position you will continue to be regarded as one attempting to defend some minute level of historical reality to NT Jebus character.

Whether you are able to understand the fact or not, whatever level of wavering, reservations, or uncertainty you might express regarding these few verses, no matter how small, automatically places you firmly into that 'historicist' camp.

You may not like that. But the MJ position is uncompromising; If Jebus was mythical then mythical is ALL that he was, or ever could be.
There is no room in the MJ position for any tiny little 'real' Jebus that 'might or might not' be alluded to in snippets of text here and there.

Either he was a living breathing person who walked the earth and actually interacted with people, or he was not. There is no half-way in betweens, or in one hundredth of the texts.
He was or he wasn't...... MJs exclusively conclude that he was not and never was a living, walking, talking, breathing -human being- EVER.

If that conclusion is not acceptable to you, then you are of the 'historicist' camp, like it or not, deny it or not.

Kapyong

Gday,

Thanks tanya :-)

Well, pardon me again - but I still don't think you have got it.

Earl argues MJ DID have foreskin, hair and all typical body parts of humans AND gods. But they were spiritual parts rather than NON-existent parts.

Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual foreskin,
Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual hair,
Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual body parts.
AND - Jesus DID take on 'flesh'.

Your representation of MJ simply does not match Earl's popular theory.

K.

Sheshbazzar

In my view 'spiritual' parts or 'beings' are the functional equivalent of non-existent parts or beings. In other words not real.

archibald

Jake, you misrepresent me, in error.

But I will say this. I can understand what you say, it is true that I find myself mostly arguing for HJ here on this forum. I think a lot of that has to do with my perception that there is an enormous bias in the opposite direction here, and too many who seem far too certain of a mythicist position. I guess this gets my goat, speaking as someone who aspires to be a rationalist, so I am probably reacting to that.

I honestly, when I am not (unfortunately) getting caught up in the heat of a luverly, luverly argument, do not hold strongly to an HJ position. I think that any position close to agnosticism in either direction, is the most rational.

I have, at times, attempted to court agreement on this stance. A while back I started a few threads, one of which opened on a pro-MJ question, and another in which I did in fact list my 3 three 'favourite' MJ indicators. It's a coincidence you should ask, because you were the last to post on the thread.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307327

I might also add, since you are asking, and not because I would otherwize mention it, that only yesterday I directed maryhelena to Richard Carrier's blog on which I posted something broadly pro-MJ.

There have been times when I feel I have been willing to take on board that the MJ position has its merits, and it has been my perception (perhaps I am wrong in saying this) that there are precious few occasions when many others have felt able to discuss the merits on the HJ side. Which is surely not correct, since the issue is finely balanced.

Other times I concede I am as much to blame as anyone else for polarizing matters. I do like a bit of banter and argy-bargy.

I apologize for referring to a post of yours as a load of crap. As I said later, I'm sure you have met people who limbo up and down the issue in the way that you describe. I just meant that I am not one of them, and I thought since you were replying to me that you were implying I was. Probably you weren't. Also, at that point in the discussion, you seemed to be one of a number of people trying to imply my position involves assuming an HJ. Which is, essentially, bollocks. I sometimes wonder if peoplec aren't more familiar with debating with Christian apologists and mistakenly apply that scenario. It certainly seems to be the case that anyone who wanders in here with even a mild HJ position comes in for a lot of unwarranted abuse (not from you). I know I did, when I first arrived. I'm not whining. I enjoy dishing it out if the occasion arises. Sometimes, I may, unfortunately, dish it out in the wrong direction. :]

aa5874

Again, once we DON'T know if anything in the NT is true with regard to Jesus then the HJ theory CANNOT be ADVANCED.

There is NO Credible source of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

It was a Child of a Ghost, God the Creator of heaven and earth that was BORN in Bethlehem and LIVED in Nazareth.

One cannot argue about history of an ASSUMED HJ WITHOUT a credible source.

The difference between HJ and MJ is that we have MULTIPLE sources with WRITTEN EVIDENCE that claim Jesus was a Child of a Ghost and those very sources DO NOT ever claim he was Fathered by a man.

If Jesus was NOT the Child of a Ghost, was NOT with Satan, a Myth character, on the Jewish Temple, did NOT instantly heal INCURABLE diseases, did NOT walk on water, did NOT Transfigure, Resurrect and Ascend then the NT cannot be TRUSTED.

Jesus of the NT did NOT exist as described.

The MYTH Jesus theory CANNOT ever be DEFEATED using the Extant NT Canon as evidence.