fatpie42

The thing is I can already guess how Elijah will answer these issues:
1) His mother was probably illiterate
2) His father was probably illiterate
3) The people who knew them were probably either illiterate or saw no reason to write about Mary or Joseph.

4) Either he had a literate sibling known as James who felt no need to mention his relation to Jesus (though Paul might have done so). Or he had only illiterate siblings and no one saw them as important by comparison to Jesus.

5) Even within the gospel it is quite obvious that Jesus did not have exactly 12 disciples and so this number 12 is most likely a later addition.
6) The number of followers is most likely a later addition because early Christians were surprised that there were so few followers when Jesus was alive.
7) Jesus' own followers were illiterate and there are even claims that the gospel of Mark was told to its author by one of them.

The problem with these excuses, it seems to me, is that they fully admit that the source material is completely unreliable. If we can only admit the possibility of Jesus' historicity through this level of guesswork, it doesn't seem like a strong assertion.

Elijah

I’m missing the point again and feel like we are talking over each other. What is your reasoning/evidence behind Jesus being of mythical origin? Who are you referencing about believing in a non historical Christ? What is your personal theory for how it started and was confused for history?
It’s not about the power to prevent it but the willingness to die for the cause. He could have asked his followers to help him, he could have asked the women to defend him, or he could have just ran. The superbaby genie stuff is so hard to take seriously.
What evidence is that? You can do to Socrates what is done to the existence of Jesus. And I meant compare them as philosophers sacrificing their lives to set a good example.
You mean supernatural not mythical don’t you? Paul could have easily thought the dead could rise back then or do you think he is speaking only symbolically? Just like he could have thought of Adam as historical but probably was more along the lines of just illustrating that how Adam is seen as the source of death for man and Jesus is the source of eternal life. If someone says that someone else is strong like Zeus that doesn’t mean they are calling the person a mythical being they are just comparing an attribute.
How does his death relate to the mythological worldview? I figured if you were waiting for an earthly savior and it turns out he was already died then that would affect your real world view, not your mythological worldview. But I’m truthfully not sure how you understand mythological worldview.
No, you have to prove that the person who wrote them was the source of them or prove who the source is with the same level of evidence you expect from a historical Jesus. That should be obvious that is your burden here.
No, I’m asking for your personal myth theory, historically speaking. Who you think wrote it when and why/how it was confused for history. If you don’t believe in a historical core then I don’t know what you believe exactly happened and I wish you would explain.

I’m not sure why you gave me those links. Maybe a quote you think is making your point. From your link:
Do you agree with the above?

Elijah

The myths weren’t gods they were stories told of gods made up by man.

The problem is that we are approaching a month in this conversation and we are still where we started. You have presented no argument against a historical core. You have presented no theory to support a mythical origin. You haven’t demonstrated that he writers didn’t believe what they were writing was possible and you haven’t bothered to understand the son of god as a messiah and not as a pagan superbaby. You keep asking for evidence that isn’t’ expected that you don’t even bother trying to provide for your source of the Jesus story.

fatpie42

There seem to be some odd presumptions here. Even if we suppose that Jesus knew he was going to be arrested (and it's not obvious), would he have known which night it would happen? (The NT accounts claim that the disciples were asleep when he was appealing to God to 'take away this cup of suffering', so the writers do not claim that anyone actually saw this.) Even if he was arrested would he be expecting to be found guilty? You seem to be imagining that Jesus had the gift of foresight supposed in the NT, i.e. that he knew that he was going to crucified.

It seems that what are supposing, in any case, is not that Jesus willingly died, but that he was willingly arrested. You say he died for a cause, but what cause could the historical Jesus possibly believe he was dying for?

We can't compare them as philosophers since one of the ways they compare is that Socrates was a philosopher while Jesus was not (unless of course, unlike the figure in the NT, the historical Jesus was a philosopher).

The plays of Aristophanes would have been made before Socrates death. The plays were satirical and contain Socrates as a character. Two writers concerning Socrates shortly after his death are Plato and Xenophon (and that we can confidently assert the authorship of these documents is already an advantage over the gospel accounts). Both writers include Socrates' defense against the charges which led to his execution and both give the impression that they knew Socrates and studied under him. (The same cannot be said of either Paul or the gospel writers. They never met Jesus themselves.)

Later on it is taken for granted that Socrates exists, while as early as Paul there are already doubts about whether Jesus was resurrected and by the time we reach the gnostic gospels it is doubted whether Jesus even died. Aristotle makes straightforward references to Socrates and an orator called Aechines makes a speech referring to Socrates' execution and the reasons for it in a speech about half a century after his death. Athenian trials were very public, and their juries had 500 members, so it would seem unlikely that the story of Socrates' death would have convinced Athenian people. They would have known that their city had not actually executed any famous philosophers within recent memory. There is no the same distance between those writing and the supposed eyewitnesses in the case of Socrates as there is with Jesus.

Um, is it 'supernatural' to connect Jesus with Adam? That sounds like myth to me...

Well it was the ascension I was referring to. Not just rising from the dead but 'ascending into heaven'. I think rising into heaven would have to be symbolic language unless we suppose that those writing think that heaven is literally 'in the sky' (either way it could not be historical).

And that would be a mythical understanding.

Claiming that Jesus's resurrection is the "first fruits" is not simply comparing Jesus to a harvest. It is theorising on how Jesus' death will lead to salvation.

In order to prove that Jesus was not historical I have to identify who initially came up with the myth? Does that mean I have to believe that Humpty Dumpty was historical? This is an insane criteria. Just because I don't know who came up with the myth doesn't mean that it is historical truth.

I don't believe anything exactly happened. Just like I don't believe that Dionysos myths were caused by someone wandering around making wine and sending people mad. I believe that the Jesus myth works the same as other myths of the time. If you think the Jesus myth requires special treatment the burden of proof is upon you to explain why it is different.

Bultmann is often criticised because of his arbitrary decision to consider the crucifixion to be historical. It is pretty much the only thing that Bultmann takes to be historical and his reason for it is because he believes it is important to his Christianity, not because he believes it has historical backing. As a non-Christian I do not have any reason to agree with him that the crucifixion was a historical event.

If you want to assert that the crucifixion was a historical event you have the same task to deal with. When the rest of the gospel story is mythical why should the crucifixion be singled out as historical? Or perhaps you disagree with Bultmann's view of the NT as mythological, in which case this essay gives you something solid to dig your teeth into.

aa5874

You have not presented one single historical evidence for your Jesus.

I have told you since post #24 that you are just wasting time and that you will never produce any historical evidence.

And it has been shown to you that the authors of the NT, the church writers, and non-canonised writers have stated a multiplicity of times that Jesus was truly born without sexual union, truly the offspring of the Holy Ghost, truly resurrected and ascended.

You have been shown the writings of Justin Martyr where Marcion depicted Jesus as a phantom, where Jesus had no mother or father at all. Jesus just came from heaven or some place where a God lives.

You have been shown or asked to read Justin Martyr's and Tatian's "Discourse to the Greeks" to see that people of antiquity believed in mythical gods.

And further it has been told to you that Jews would not have worshipped Jesus if he was known to be only a man. During the supposed days of Jesus, it was not likely Jews would have worshipped Jesus as a God after having executed him for blasphemy.

And Jesus believers do not worship or glorify men, Jesus believers did not worship the Caesars, they would not have worshipped Jesus if he was just a man.

Jesus believers did not worship Peter or Paul as Gods, it was claimed they were crucified and suffered more than Jesus for about 30 years. The writer Paul claimed he was beaten 195 times, and even stoned, yet he was never worshipped as a God and asked to forgive sins.

Only Gods can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins in the NT.

But he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

fatpie42

What historical core? How can they argue against something for which there is no evidence?

Why don't you explain a few things here:
1) How are myths originated?
(If we know how a myth begins, we might then be able to rule out the possibility that the story of Jesus was originated in this way.)
2) What do you believe to be the difference between a messiah or a pagan superbaby (asides from historicity of course)?
3) Why don't you expect any historical evidence before asserting something to be historical fact?

arnoldo

If one can believe that life occurred on earth through natural processes and that later humans and chimps speciated from a common ancestor then how does the incarnation of Christ compare to the previous theory? Also, in addition to being the "offspring" of the Ruach Ha-Kodesh, Yeshua claimed to have existed before Abraham which may've lead to him being accused of blasphemy.

Elijah

If they wouldn’t have gotten him then he just would have said it wasn’t his time and he would have waited for them to eventually take him down. The religious authority would have got him eventually.
Well it is highly debatable which cause he was specifically about and which was attached latter to him as the faith grew. I personally believe it was about eternal life and ridding the world of rulers, but that is a minority position. Regardless of what you believe his attached message actually started as; his sacrifice was meant to be a selling point and his asking of his followers to imitate that sacrifice was his marketing strategy.
The Jesus treatment would go; tangible evidence, not stories written second hand by people we can’t tell if they are writing about a real figure or just a symbolic representation of what a philosopher should look and sound like. If he was real why didn't he leave any writings.
No supernatural can be like telekinesis, miracle healing or out of body experiences among others. Mythical, is stories representing (generally) spiritual aspects of our physical world.

I would try to understand it symbolic as well but not mythical. Symbolically speaking of a literal event, not literally speaking of a mythological even. But the writer could have taken it supernatural even though I don’t believe so.
Symbolic may be the word you are looking for but that doesn’t even really apply. He believes an actual person’s death is going to lead to actual eternal life for those who believe on him as the Christ. There is nothing symbolic or mythical about that.
Yea by destroying the authority.
You establish the criteria, if it’s insane or not is on you. But if you require a certain level of evidence for a historical Jesus then you need to provide the same level of evidence for who you believe is the historical creator of Jesus.
There you go comparing a Jewish messiah to a pagan god again. And you not having any idea how the myth started or was confused for history is why I stick with the historical core. Until another theory that presents itself with more than a vague theory and a bunch of holes, I’m going to stick with the historical core, especially since I’ve been given no rational reason to believe that there isn’t one.
I still don’t know why you put the text up there.

I don’t single the crucifixion out to be historical, but the sacrifice. He could have died any old way, I don’t know. But the sacrifice is what explains the line of martyrs that started over in that area and spread the faith. The reason you exclude the other stuff is that it isn’t physically possible.
By providing an alternate theory and providing evidence that supports it. If all you can do is be skeptical of others evidence and can’t provide any of your own then it’s doubtful that your position is on solid ground.
Usually someone trying to convey an idea symbolically in story.
The messiah is/was the expected ruler of the Jews and the pagan superbaby is a cartoon/artistic understanding of gods and the son of gods. Like a literal Thor comic book.
I don’t consider it a fact. I consider it the most likely scenario since it is the only scenario anyone seems able to put forward. When someone presents a complete mythical origin that makes some sense and isn’t just a vague concept then call me.

aa5874

But, you have no evidence for your Jesus, you have no idea what he was? Why do you think he was a Messiah?

What must a Jew do to be called a Messiah? Perform magic tricks or kill and destroy their enemies the Romans?

There are no known Jewish Messiahs that have been worshipped as a God who had the power to forgive sins and abolish the Mosaic Laws while the Temple was standing or perform magic tricks.

Simon bar Kokhba used to kill the Romans, he was a Messiah.

What did your Jesus do? He spat in peoples eyes, according to the NT.

Elijah

Living in the modern equivalent of Rome, the idea isn’t to kill Romans but to beat Rome (spiritually speaking). Rome is an awesome engine/memeplex of destruction that lives and breathes on war and the suffering of other nations and their people. There is no hope of beating it in combat only the possibility of becoming it.

If you want to come up with a plan to beat Rome, it better include you losing and that was what Jesus did. It’s spiritual/ideological/meme warfare, where he is trying to engraft a new meme into the earthly authority memeplex and that was “kill yourself”. The idea is that the leaders should serve and die for the people instead of the people dying for their leaders.

Today this idea of our leaders serving us is seen in the lip service of the American politicians pretending to be public servants all while most of them pretend to be a believer/follower of a peasant Jew 2000 years ago they think was the messiah. That is a Jewish messiah conquering Rome when her senators have to swear loyalty to him and not the other way around where the Jews or anyone has to swear allegiance to the modern Roman/earthly authority. All you would need to do to prove to any Jew then that Jesus was the true messiah is show them what modern Rome has become today and how all its politicians are trying to act the most Jesus like in order to win the people over, most of whom have never even heard the name Simon bar Kokhba.


I don't think there has ever been a messiah that was worshiped by gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish ideologies.

I can’t believe you are still having a hard time understanding Jesus was a messiah claimant and not your cartoon understanding of a demigod.

I guess your belief that Simon was the messiah would be why you don't consider the possibility that Jesus was a better candidate. Still holding out hope his rebellion is going to pull it out huh?

I don’t know what your big deal is with forgiving sins, or abolishing law is, or faith healing, or what you think that means, or why a god needs to be involved. Forgiveness of sins and abolishing of the law is ideological and faith healing is still going on today so what’s the big deal?