patcleaver

Your model of man->godman is trash. Do you know of any case in history where an otherwise unknown person has been mythicized into a godman?

If Mark is intentional fiction then I would agree that there is some small probability that the Jesus of the Gospels were based on someone in the same way that Olive Byrne based Wonder Women on his wife Elizabeth or Popeye was based on Frank "Rocky" Fiegel or Tom Sawyer was based on several of Samuel Clemens' nephews.

However, fiction writers are often asked if their characters are based on anyone and in the vast majority of cases they claim that they are not based on anyone. However, all fictional characters are based in some general way on the people that the author has experienced.

Even when authors admit that their characters are based on specific people, those specific person have almost never done any of the things or said any of the things that make the fictional character famous.

If Mark’s Jesus was modeled after a real historical character, it very unlikely that the real historical character was born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, preached, did any of the things that Mark’s Jesus did or said any of the things that Mark’s Jesus said, or was crucified.

So what does it matter whether or not Mark modeled Jesus after his cousin Shlomo who visited Judea in 150 CE and maybe rode a donkey into Jerusalem and maybe took a boat ride across the sea of Galilee.

patcleaver

There is no evidence of any ordinary person whom Christianity evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

The reason that Christian apologists postulate an historical Jesus is that if you accept that there is an historical Jesus, then you will not claim that "Jesus is a myth" or "Jesus never existed" which is the strong case against literal Christianity.

Ben C Smith

That may be why Christian apologists hold to an HJ. Why, in your opinion, do Christian, Muslim, atheist, and agnostic nonapologists do it?

Ben.

patcleaver

I think there is no substantial possibility that these things are true, nearly 0%, but I voted for 0-20% because because I do not "have faith" that it is false.

I think that even if there is an historical core of "Jesus" then probably only 3 and 4 would have been true.

1) Jesus is probably a title that means Saviour.
2) Nazareth probably did not exist until after at least 120 CE.
5) Crucification is a very likely addition to the Jesus story - how interesting would the Jesus story be without the crucification?

Even when fictional stories are based on real characters, those real characters, almost always, have never done any of the things or said any of the things that make the fictional character famous.

spamandham

Who says he was unknown in his day? But, for similar examples, we have Apollonius of Tyana, St. Nick, Krishna, Muhammed... Not necessarily godmen, but close enough.

*If* Mark was intentional fiction, and if Mark was the source of Christianity, then I would say there is no historical core even if the Jesus character was loosely modeled after a historical person, because the story is not contingent on that person. Someone else could as easily have been picked in that case.

Are there qualified scholars arguing that Mark is intentional fiction, or that Mark was the originator of Christianity?

spamandham

There are descriptions that fit it, sure, but what's unknown is whether those descriptions are accurate.

The radicals have a perfectly valid hypothesis that fits all the data, but is completely incompatible with traditional 'historical core' ideas, and the Jesus Seminar showed that the more we look at it, the less we know.

IMHO, there is insufficient information to draw a conclusion regarding the existence or nature of a historical core.

spin

Training. You've seen how tenaciously and slavishly scholars have held the Essene Hypothesis for the last 50 odd years. (They don't believe in the religion of the Essenes.) Multiply the time by 38 and you'll get some depth to the ingrainedness of the notion of the reality of Jesus.


spin

spin

The notion of an operating theory is irrelevant in this issue. One doesn't need to commit to a theory to proceed.

You have, for the length of time you have claimed evidence on this forum, doggedly refused to make an exposition of any evidence whatsoever. All you have done is rehashed others' ideas and indicated that you avoid committing yourself to thinking freely about such issues. I can therefore understand your vote.


spin

No Robots

Relax, paly, it's just a discussion board.

spin

Stop projecting.


spin