Toto

luvluv - have you actually read Doherty? If you had, you might have a better idea of what his arguments are.

I see the "counterclaims" against Christianity as a form of taunting, not as designed to convert anyone. Claiming that Jesus was the illegitimate child of a Roman soldier is more insulting than claiming that he did not exist.

How can you talk about this evidence from silence when 1) you yourself have heard of at least one group that claimed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, and 2) Christians selectively saved, discarded, or burned evidence that according to whether it fit their agenda?

In the first place, "trained, qualified, historians" does not describe most Biblical scholars or most of the people who have believed in a historical Jesus.

As for mythical figures who were later historicized, William Tell comes to mind. Confucius may have been a mythical source of authority turned into a person by Jesuit missionaries.

For many mythical figures, it is impossible to tell if they were based on a historical figure or not.

Greg2003

William Tell is an example of a mythical figure that was believed to be real. Of course, King Arthur also, though more people have always believed he was mythical than not. But throughout history I am sure there are many other examples

luvluv

That doesn't really help the fact that MOST trained, qualified, historians do believe in an historical Jesus.

This is adding more assumptions to a big pile of assumptions.

As far as William Tell goes, was there ever a consensus among trained historians who had viewed all of the evidence that he WAS real? What I'm trying to ask is, has there ever been a case where so many historians were so wrong about the existence of a person? Did historians always take the story of William Tell to be likely mythical or did they discover that he was likely mythical based on accumulated evidence?

Toto

luvluv - are you trying to claim that any modern skeptical historians, using modern forensic methods, have examined the case for the existence of Jesus and decided that he must have existed? If so, please supply their names.

I think that if you look at most historians, the case for the existence of Jesus is based on wisps of evidence plus lots of faith, or else just on going along with the crowd. That's why you can't find a decent refutation of Doherty from a professional historian, and that's why there was such a buzz about the James ossuary.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Greg2003 wrote :
Actually Greg, there are NO such Jewish authors on record who claimed that.


luvluv wrote:
Firstly luvluv, lets remember what was happening to the Jews at this time - in 70AD the Temple was destroyed, and in the 130s the entire Jewish nation was deported and Jerusalem was razed to the ground.

This period brought great destruction to the Jews - and it wasn't until the period AFTER the destruction that the Gospel stories started to arise. By the 130s there were no records and no people left who could challenge the myth of Jesus - later critics mostly ASSUMED he was real.

There were no challenges to Jesus' historicity before thus period, because there were NO claims of his historicity until then - no early Christian makes clear reference to a physical literal Jesus of Nazareth - even Paul's comments can be taken to refer to a spiritual being (no dates, times, places, names).


luvluv wrote:
But that's just not correct -

There were numerous attacks on the reality of the Jesus stories - both by Christians and pagans :


2 John warns against those who DON'T
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Showing that even some Christians did NOT believe in a literal, physical Jesus.


The Jew Trypho (perhaps Rabbi Tarphon) clearly doubted the reality of Jesus in the very period when the Gospels first arose :

But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."


Marcion argued Christ was a spiritual being, not literal and physical :

“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ..."

This is in accord with Doherty's argument - that the original Christ was seen as a spiritual entity, not a literal, physical person - many others argued for a non-physical Jesus.


Celsus, in late 2nd century, specifically attacked the new Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

His criticism was so damaging the Christians set out to destroy every copy.


Porphyry later claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Opponents of 4th century Hilary of Poitiers denied Christ was ever born a physical being :
“You assert His creation, proclaim His adoption, deny His birth.”


Julian claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


Heretics, mentioned in the 4th century Constitution of the Holy Apostles, denied Jesus was born in the flesh :
“ ... avoid all heretics who ... also deny His generation according to the flesh”



In short luvluv, there were many critics who doubted or denied a literal, physical, historical Jesus - both Christians and pagans.


Quentin David Jones

Celsus

I've just got my hands on Alvar Ellegård's Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ. Is he a Jesus Myther or just another one taking an unconventional historical look? What exactly is a Jesus Myther anyway?

Greg2003

Iasion, sorry. I always thought the stolen body story was jewish. Just goes to show my point that people don't use critical thinking skills enough.

Peter Kirby

This is in Matthew, not Mark.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Greg - a real apologist would use the statements in Matthew as evidence that the Jews were saying that the body was stolen, in spite of the fact that they forgot to record that in their own documents.


Matthew 28: 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

(Does this sound like a Just-So story or what?)

Celsus: A Jesus Myther is not a well defined term. It generally refers to a person who thinks that early Christianity involved the worship of a mythical risen savior, and was not started around a real person or his disciples.

Ellegård is a linguist. I don't know that he considers himself a Jesus Myther, but Doherty has reviewed Ellegård here , with a response from him, and seems to want to include him.

Jayhawker Soule

Clearly? How does a transcription of Justin's rendition of a self-serving story of a long past discussion with a Jew who was (only) "perhaps Rabbi Tarphon" rise to the level of "clearly"? Is there any reason to believe that Trypho/Tarphon said anything close to this?