ApostateAbe

That seems to represent the established position among critical scholars of the New Testament, and it seems to be the position of those who argue for a historical Jesus in this forum--myself, Chaucer, GakuseiDon, No Robots, and others. Do you have in mind an in-between of mythicism and orthodox Christian dogma? We don't seem to have so many of the orthodox Christians.

No Robots

Brunner's all I'm ever talking about. And all he ever talked about, as he says himself, is the doctrine of der Geistigen and das Volk. And he credits the Gnostics as the first to have crystallized this doctrine:

Up to now the Gnostics have been the only ones to take seriously, as a special problem, the inner differences between men; they alone put this anthropological distinction at the basis of everything.--Our Christ, p. 328.

Brunner is the only one to have laid out this doctrine in terms consistent with philosophy and science. By doing so, he provides an explanatory basis for all human phenomena. It's still stupefying to me, 10 years after coming across him, that his work has such reach and power. The fact that it is largely ignored is itself accounted for by his doctrine. All the same, he is starting to seep through. See for example the recently published article, "Constantin Brunner, le plus juif des philosophes allemands ; le plus allemand des philosophes juifs" (pdf) by Jacques Aron. Aron writes (my translation):

[T]he pertinence of his thought appears to us intact, at the moment of the construction of an open and multicultural Europe, at the moment of the overcoming of the conflicts that led to its ruin.

My intention is to make his name as well known as I can, in order to make it easier for people who would benefit from his work to find it. I also use his work as a most effective tool in all kinds of discussions.

sion

@ApostateAbe:

I am an atheist.

However, my position is not dependent on the historical existence/nonexistence of Jesus.

I find the supernatural portions of both the OT and NT extremely unlikely to put it mildly. But the historical kernels of truth on which the stories are based that can be uncovered through archaeological/historical/geological study are fascinating to study.

It is possible for such a person/combination of persons to have existed without the existence of God. If such a person, or group of persons, existed they would have been the product of their environment and his/their influence (or perhaps Constantine's and Eusebius') on western history is undeniable, not to mention world history through colonialism.

Unfortunately, most academic theories concerning such a person are extremely difficult to prove one way or another through the distorted lens of contradictory and likely self-serving sources.

It would be interesting to return 2,000 years from now and see what miracles/superhuman feats have been attributed to contemporary figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and/or Ronald Reagan in certain circles.

show_no_mercy

I'm not a mythicist (I'm not a historicist either), but it seems as though NT scholars have their own historiography that skips a couple of steps done by other non-biblical historians. I tend to think that they do this because of the quality of their evidence/subject matter. The New Testament is shit evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But this is the only evidence we have. The writings of crazy religious people who wrote "so that we may believe", not because they were CNN reporters... or at least trying to be objective like say Hippolytus or Plutarch.

The mythicists in my view are simply going where the evidence goes and not adding any other unnecessary assumptions. At least in the beginning They are reading the NT exactly how believing Christians read it. And on top of that, reading extra-canonical Christian documents. One aspect of this tyranny of NT scholarship is to arbitrarily accept the canonical four gospels and Acts of the Apostles as history and reject all other "heretical" Christian gospels and "Praxis" material. Why do they do this? It's simply one of their unfounded assumptions that these four gospels and Acts of the Apostles are "historical" and all other writings are "unhistorical". There's no basis for this distinction... other than following the methodology of late 2nd and 3rd century heresiologists; assuming that "orthodox" works are early and "heretical" works are late.

There certainly could have been a historical Jesus, but the evidence we have does not force this conclusion. And I mean all of the evidence - this includes every single bit of gospel/homily/praxis written by the early Christians.

aa5874

What historical kernel of truths have you found about Jesus through archaeological/historical/geological studies?

Perhaps every one knows what is possible but what evidence will be used to support such a possibility.


It is possible that Jesus was the product of fiction.

It is possible that Jesus was not the product of fiction.

There is no obligation to prove that Jesus did or did not exist WITHOUT any doubt.

It is ONLY NECESSARY to show that the theory that Jesus of the NT was mythical/fictional is FAR BETTER than an HJ.

MJ is well supported and based on EVIDENCE supplied by apologetic sources of antiquity. HJ is based on the HJer's own imagination after discrediting the sources of antiquity about Jesus.

But, such a return is really not even possible but people today believe Jesus may do it. He was a myth.

Now, instead of looking at 2000 years from now, let us look at perhaps the Emperor Tiberius and Jesus of the NT. These figures were supposed to be on earth 2000 years ago.

What do people today say about Tiberius? Have Tiberius become supernatural 2000 years later. Not at all. Tiberius is still regarded as a figure of history.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

Well, look at Jesus 2000 years later. He is still supernatural. He is Still described mythically.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Now, let us look at Julius Caesar, Augustus, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. They too are ALL still considered figures of history 2000 years later. Nothing has changed.

It can be reasonably assumed that the historicity of Martin Luther King, Jr and Reagan would also be the same as today even 2000 years later.

sion

Let's see, some kernels of truth within the OT and NT supported by historical/archaeological evidence, the key word here being 'kernel':

Evidence that the Black Sea and Persian Gulf experienced catastrophic floods/significant rises in sea level during/since the Pleistocene which caused abandonment/destruction of a significant number of coastal settlements (a phenomenon occuring worldwide likely giving rise to other flood stories) which could have spawned the 'flood of Noah' story or its Mesopotamian predecessor.

Archaeological finds which appear to have discovered carved seals and settlement gate construction associated with the figure King David as described in OT though this is possbily a description of these structures as they existed in the time of the transition from oral tradition to written text (likely a significant time after King David would have lived) similar to the anachronistic description of the armor worn by Goliath in some versions of that story.

The mention of a person identified as Jesus, brother of James in the writings of Josephus (excluding the addition within those in the possession of Church leaders that supposedly documented his resurrection). Granted there are a number of Jesus references in the writings of Josephus, most referring to leaders of military groups. With so many 'Joshuas' running around it just might be possible one, or a combination of several (plus James?), may have formed a basis for the character in the NT with supernatural embellishments and supposed OT prophetic symbolism added.

Would you agree that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Hal Lindsey, Jack van Impe, James Dobson, etc. exist and have influence over others, even to the level of the head of the United States government with/without the existence of God?

What evidence will survive to prove that they existed? Perhaps documents written by their followers claiming that Pat Robertson diverted a hurricane from Virginia's coast through prayer found while perusing through a 700 Club archive, since none of these individuals are likely to deserve a mention in future U.S History texts?

You don't see the possibility of a figure with significant religious connections and arguably limited historical significance such as Dr. King being embellished to the point of supernatural status by certain groups in the future (even with Liberation Theology)? How about Mother Teresa?

Of course, a Ronald Reagan figure would likely be elevated in such a way only if the separation of Church and State collapses and the Texas Board of Education determines the content of textbooks found by some future historian.

Who knows, maybe with the Hadron Collider and some intelligent folks like Stephen Hawking, you could verify/debunk my proposal completely.

It seems both sides of the debate have a great deal invested in the existence/nonexistence of HJ.

I am perfectly satisfied that a HJ can exist and not be a divine entity without it affecting my conclusion that supernatural beings do not exist.

Even though the probability of such supernatural beings not existing is demonstrated consistently, this will not affect the true believers.

However, your approach is likely the best way is to shake the faith of these individuals, making them continue to examine the contradictory nature of their resources while attempting to counter your argument.

aa5874

I did not ask you about "kernels of truth within the OT and NT.

Look at the question.

You were asked to identify kernels of "truth" with respect to Jesus but you have given me a kernel of "fraud" or forgeries. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is a most perfect example of kernel of lies.

Josephus wrote not one thing about a character called Jesus the Christ when Josephus was fighting with the Jews expecting a Messianic ruler at around 70 CE.

How is it that possible? What evidence makes what you say possible? Some of the Joshuas running around lived after the supposed Jesus was already dead.

And, in the NT Jesus was DEMONIZED and CRUCIFIED as a BLASPHEMER after his disciples ran away and Peter had denied him. So much for embellishments.

I am not really arguing that it is not possible that Jesus did exist. I am arguing that the EVIDENCE supplied by apologetic sources support that Jesus was a MYTH or Fiction and is far better supported than a historical figure.

In other words, the historical figure is by far the least possible.

But, when dealing with evidence what you believe is immaterial. The Evidence supplied by Apologetic sources claim Jesus was Truly the offspring of the Holy Ghost and was witnessed walking on water.

Jesus most likely was just a story believed to be true.

I am not really interested in what people believe. I cannot control belief.

But, I can show you the EVIDENCE supplied by sources of antiquity.

Was not Jesus described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was God, equal to God, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds?

Well, the Evidence is one of MYTHOLOGY.

If Apologetic sources did say Jesus was ONLY a man , then I would have probably changed from MYTH to history but they wrote that he was God the Creator.

Tough luck. They described a MYTH. My theory is that Jesus was a MYTH.

Well, I only deal wth Evidence from sources of antiquity and it was the Jesus believers who claimed Jesus walked on water.

Too bad. Jesus was a Spirit.

Mt 14:26 -

sion

@aa5874

I apologize for apparently missing out on the Council of Nicea for atheists that you attended, which provided the Canon for the community, and dogma for the atheist position on HJ versus MJ.

Apparently I am some sort of atheist heretic for even considering the likelihood, based on sources presented in history courses by a decidedly agnostic professor, geomorphological study, and archaeological courses taught by an atheist professor at a non-religious university.

I used to wonder, being exposed mostly to members of the religious right in the region where I live, how they could be so deluded as to think that atheism was a 'religion' which would imply dogma, canon, and intolerance to alternate interpretations.

Well, guess I know now. Thanks for making them almost seem like they know what they're talking about.

bacht

hello sion

Religion in general and Christianity in particular have been under challenge since Copernicus and Galileo. Modern believers have taken a defensive position, either emphasizing the historical reliability of Biblical scripture, or allegorizing the material to preserve the books without getting stuck justifying questionable ancient practices. The fastest growing Christian groups are the Evangelicals and fundamentalists, who follow the literalist approach.

Theoretically the only "side" that matters in this or any other subject is the search for truth.

Yes, it's possible the Christian movement began with a real person. There's been a lot of suggestions, ranging from the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness to a Q-community Cynic and more. But it's just as easy to read the NT and see a mythical/mystical figure behind the stories, especially the epistles.

You may be aware of the Minimalist school of reading the Hebrew scriptures. Whether they're on the right track or not, they have raised valid questions about the historical reliability of scripture. Skeptical analysis of Christian literature is also a useful tool, wherever it leads.

sion

My apologies for the earlier emotional outburst. Perhaps I do have some emotional reaction to the subject of HJ Versus MJ after all, or at least my position.

I would like to address the Josephus issue with aa5874. Please note that, as a newcomer to this forum, I may not be familiar with some of the debate or sources you are that make Josephus an illegitimate source in this discussion.

That being so, let me revisit the Josephus references. I have been led to understand that the reference concerning Jesus' (brother of James) resurrection in Josephus was found to have been an altered in copies possessed by Church leaders attempting to use it as historical proof of a supernatural event, but that earlier versions discovered without the alteration still contained the reference to Jesus' execution.

If this is not another fabrication or proven forgery, (constructive instruction concerning this versus attack would be appreciated, please direct me to sources so that I may research this), then the possibility still exists for a historical figure named Jesus who was physically present during the appropriate time frame whose image was idealized or embellished by his subsequent followers.

Some examples for how I find it possible for this phenomenon to occur:

If I were to write now that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., brother of Alfred, was assassinated would you find that historically accurate despite the event occuring decades ago? I hope so. Now, if I were to claim that he was the initial leader, even the overall leader of the Civil Rights Movement, or that he finally made African-Americans free as many seem to think now, despite evidence that he was under investigation as a possible enemy of the state and was hated by a majority population where he operated, then that would be an idealized version of an existing historical figure.

If I were to write now that Abraham Lincoln, brother of Thomas who died in infancy, was assassinated would you find that historically accurate despite the event occuring nearly two centuries ago. I hope so. Now, if I were to claim that he walked sixteen miles to return a penny to a customer in an early business venture, or that he freed the slaves as many were taught when I attended elementary and secondary school, despite evidence that the return of change was an election campaign ploy and the Emancipation Proclamation freed zero slaves, then that would be an idealized version of an existing historical figure. Please don't forget the stories of the supernatural visitations by Lincoln as his body lay in state, his spirit haunting portions of the White House, and the spectral funeral train experienced by a grieving, emotionally shocked following after his death.

Perhaps you believe that I am comparing apples and oranges with these examples. You are free to believe so. However, human nature hasn't changed to the point where these examples could not be applied to members of the early Christian community or political leaders whose agenda was to promote their alleged founder.

Perhaps you might consider that you are suffering from tunnel vision, discounting human nature and the environment surrounding the time in question as you focus on the one issue concerning the discussion which means the most to you.