Dave31

So Ehrman raises a straw man here because there is no course teaching the case for mythicism and mythicists are not typically going to be hired, in fact, if anybody comes out of the mythicist closet they're more likely to be fired. There is no requirement for New Testament students to even study the case for mythicism to get their Ph.D. in this area as explained in the following links:

Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History

The "No Serious Mythicist Scholar" Fallacy

The Mythicist Challenge Petition [Draft]

Preachers, priests quietly embrace the Christ myth

The Mythicist Position / History of Mythicism

Chili

That is the whole problem Dave.

You cannot teach that it is in your head, because the listener has not crucified him yet, or he would not be reading what you write. I.e. he would not be here trying convince the others that all is fairy tale at best.

And I do not think that anybody on this DB is sober enough to agree with with that, because our faculty of reason is the high horse we are riding that itself must be crucified to see. And so the argument will go on forever.

In fact, most people here do not even believe that we have a soul, least of take up residence there to 'see the see-er see,' now as the son united with the father that cannot be undone.

Nicodemus gave us a hint on this that Jesus did not deny: "Can he return to his mother's womb and be born over again?"

"Yes, but this time 'born of the spirit'" Jesus answered, albeit in different words, to "bring heaven down to earth." And 'duhhh,' we are looking for a historic Jesus now?

That is called the mystery of faith wherein Jesus is the second Adam but Adam nonetheless, who, unlike the first Adam who opened our eyes to see, this second one will close our eyes again so that heaven on earth can be.

And so now who the #$%& is he that we should worship him, and think that he is more real than we? while in fact all we need to do is crucify him and be that wich remains and Eden will again be ours.

It is just that simple, but the problem is that telic vision as the final cause must find its cause in aestetic materialism first to make us the sacrificial lamb, or there would be no sacrifice to be made at all.

More tragic than anything really is that now we have reversed aestetic materialism into material aesteticism and remove the human condition in us that must first qualify to see, and so gawkers we will remain.

mountainman

The specific truth here in NHC 11.1 is that Jesus is to be found in "the dead writings" of the “the rulers and authorities”.


The context is discussed by Philip L. Tite, from McGill University in An Exploration of Valentinian Paraenesis: Rethinking Gnostic Ethics in the Interpretation of Knowledge (NHC XI, 1). Philip L Tite demonstrates that the author of the text is describing two diametrically opposed groups (the author is part of Group 1 - the generation which is fleeing), the attributes of which may be summarised as follows:

1.0 GROUP 1

1.1 Group 1 is described as “a great church” associated with life (imperishability) described as “a living school”

1.2 This was the great group (generation) who fled "the rulers and authorities".

1.3 Their large and universal church had been split apart by the Nicaean monotheism.

1.4 This large group was from "the church of the Living school".

1.5 They were reproached and humiliated; they did not believe the "dead writings" about Jesus.

1.6 "They fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified".

1.7 "But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive."



2.0 GROUP 2:

2.1 Group 2 is described as “a small gathering” associated with death (arrogance or ignorance) “teaches us about dead writings”.

2.2 This was the small group of “the rulers and authorities” from whom Group 1 fled.

2.3 The small group wanted power: “they split the Church so as to inherit . . .”

2.4 The small group was from “the church of mortals”

2.5 They reproached and humiliated before they “taught about dead writings”.

2.6 They crucified Jesus in order “to keep him in the church”.

2.7 They chased down an entire generation - all who would not believe their "dead writings" to be true.

I am not avoiding implications from context.

The context is a confrontation between these two groups.

Group 1 is fleeing from the "dead writings" and the tyranny of Group 2.

Jesus is found in the "dead writings" of the “the rulers and authorities”.

The generation that fled these "dead writings" (Group 1 and the author) "does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive".

Is this "Christian speak"? I don't think so. Its obviously very political.

mountainman

I am quite aware of how the tyranny in Biblical scholarship defines and deals with these issues. How they can make up their own stories. You are missing my point of first removing the Christian glasses. We are essentially allowing the Christian glasses to define who the docetists were.

For example

Say for example there were a large bunch of people in the early centuries who thought that Jesus "never appeared in the flesh" meaning that he never appeared in history. What's to prevent the victorious Christian heresiological history writers terminologically defining this class of vermin heretic as docetists?

The formula for how to deal with such anti-Christian behaviour is furnished in 1 John 2.

The people who were antichristian would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh."

We are told there were plenty of them around in the time of 1 John 2.

Where did they go?

I don't believe for one minute that the belief in the historical Jesus was not challenged.

I don't think Jesus got a free ticket to the history stakes without someone speaking up and asking the obvious fucking question.

What happens when people as recently as Friar Tom Brodie speak up and ask the obvious question?

What would have happened a few hundred years ago to Friar Tom Brodie?

The answer is fucking obvious. Friar Tom Brodie would not have spoken up.






The hypothesis that nobody questioned whether Jesus actually was an historical person is too good to be true.

It's some sort of fairyland hypothesis. It does not make sense. (If there's sword above your head one might not question .....)

There are other hypotheses to investigate to explain the same material.

I think that it is far more reasonable to investigate the hypothesis that the victors tyrannically suppressed and concealed any and all controversy related to the questioning of the actual historical existence of Jesus.

outhouse

Why would it be? there were different beliefs though by different communities at different times. Marcion had his own decent sized sect that went its own way.



No one spoke up because its bloody obvious he existed.

There were to many witnesses to his death all through the Roman Empire and Israel for anyone with sanity to question.




I think its perfectly fine to question his existance now since we know what was written about him was heavily steeped in mythology and theology, to bad there are no decent replacement hypothesis that dont raise more questions then they answer.

Toto

We went through all of this years ago.

The idea that you could challenge Christianity by challenging Jesus' existence is a modern idea, because we are modern materialists, and if something isn't material or didn't exist in history, it is worthless. That was not the case 2000 years ago. They believed in demons and spirits and Platonic forms.

The critics of Christianity in the first 3 or 4 centuries felt they were making the most telling points against Christianity by showing that Jesus was merely human. The Christians would have convicted anyone who claimed Jesus was merely human of heresy.

You keep talking about investigating hypotheses, but you never actually investigate them. Just floating an idea is not investigating - it gets to be annoying.

Toto

None of those witnesses wrote anything or talked to anyone, or left any record. How do you know this alleged factoid?

mountainman

Greek academics were taught to be sceptical. .......................................[unlike Christians]




The books of the canonical new testament are unsigned and undated.

What sceptic would not question their provenance?


Did the Holy Spirit guide the authors?


I don't think so.




Are you referring to the mass resurrection of zombies in Matthew?

outhouse

Because every bit of epistle and scripture is based from oral tradition. Not only that, evolution of oral tradition.

Its not a factoid, it is opinion.

stephan huller

I'm not sure that's a coherent argument. More like a belief or supposition, John as you admit. Read Vinzent's recent book on the Resurrection. No one seems to know very much about anything