Toto

:notworthy

Doctor X

Jayjay:

It seems to me that the individual authors of the gospels write for "special groups"--they each have their way of separating themselves from everyone else, even probably those who followed whatever was left of or derived from the Jerusalem group--constant ridiculing of the disciples.

So . . . that the family does not recognize his "truth" is part of the myth of non-recognition of the "special truth." Mk uses this in his story where Mum and Siblings come to sort of "take him away." He is told that his family has come for him, and Junior turns to the crowd that always seems to gather spontaneously, "but these are my family."

That has such a literary flavor, I doubt it existed.

On the other pseudopod . . . you could equally argue that some of this results from a "difficult" tradition that his own family did not follow him, and since it was "difficult" to smooth over or not include--the writer knew the question would come up--the tradition may hold a kernal of truth.

Again . . . all speculation.

--J.D.

ceb

I have seen speculation that this was a dig at other popular religions of the time. Perhaps the fig tree was sacred to a competing religion (apparently it was to the god Mars, for example), and the story was a clever pot shot from the author of the story.

One specific claim I have seen was that the fig tree was sacred to Mithras, but I haven't found confirmation of that. Supposedly he clothed himself with fig leaves when he was born, but I don't know if that means the fig tree was a symbol of Mithraism.

By the way, WinAce, absolutely fabulous!

Jayjay

Well, even though I quoted only the headlines, I was responding to the whole summary you posted. Also, my intent was not to refute but rather just express my own opinions and comments. I'm just trying to learn the basics here by asking questions, far from being in the position to debate the experts of the field.

Thanks for the offer, but I fear I must decline. I have neither the skill nor the time to undertake such a commitment, at least not presently.

exnihilo

This is a rather opaque way to argue the point. It simply destroys the justification of raising the question of a historical jesus if that historical jesus is delineated into what could be called an historically manifest inspiration for such.
The question is not whether or not there was some living person that the Christian jesus was based upon. A great many fictional characters in literature were/are based on real people. Thus, to argue that while the Jesus as portrayed in the bible may not have existed as such, that fact doesn't mean that there was not a historical jesus. To do so does little more than make the idea of jesus all but meaningless.
There either was a Jesus as portrayed in the Bible--since this is the fundamental source for such a character-- or there wasn't. It is problematic to retreat to the obscurity of ancient history for the justification for the existence of a person of whom there is no evidence. To accept this notion is to accept a decidely ahistorical means of understanding history itself. It simply does not matter if there was a person that was the basis for the bibilical jesus, when such a person would be a necessary incommensurable contradiction of that selfsame jesus. Adhering to such a position would be tantamount to claiming that there is a person who the idea of god/hercules/zeus/kali/allah/thor/etc...is based on and then claiming that the issue of immanence is not relevant. Obviously the only issue raised by such assertions refer to the processes of myth-making.
If the biblical jesus did not exist, then jesus did not exist and the relevancy of any mortal models for him are nil. Just as the existence of a real chimney sweep is illrelevant to the existence of a real Oliver Twist if anyone was delusional enough to argue for such a claim.

Cretinist

Hey! I want a free book! I'll write a review of Doherty for your site if you send me the book!

Peter Kirby

See the new thread I have made.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clarice O'C

Hi,

The best argument against an HJ would be, I think, the earliest evidence that we have which is that there were other godmen before Jesus. Seems like everything else was built on that.

Kilgore Trout

The best I've seen is the writings of the "New Testament" itself since that is the real only idea of an "existence" of jesus. Everything that makes up the idea and "life" of jesus, is written about throughout that work. That writing is just that, a written down "account", how much is myth or fantasy can not be completely logically measured. We can only establish certain truths in the work only if they hold up to the real known laws of this earth.

1. Having such extremes as miracles and healings without any evidence besides just a written account. Such a claim can not be taken serious when it has ever yet to be proven of such things being even done in todays world, not to mention in writings thousands of years ago.

2. Many different accounts of the same happening, proves against that from ever really occurring. Like the first count, it has to be really proven by those that make claims, or is only shown as a false account by all parties, because these accounts and the character of jesus, are only about all the stories put together, not by only just one. Even if all the writings did connect, that still would only show that the writer or writers were careful. This still would not in anyway, prove a real event or person. If anyone only read John's gospel, they would in many cases, be totally ignorant to many famous happenings, sayings, and people from the other writings. Besides, his version of jesus, goes well beyond what the other gospels even attempted. The christian account is to have jesus 100% god and 100% man, in reality, this is impossible. Not only against reality, but it also contradicts the Jewish well established teachings about god, a belief that is suppose to be a major base for christianity. Anyone can have a belief they wish, but when they use anothers belief system in contradiction yet claim to still be in complete connection, its well proven against that belief.

3. The extreme claims and then contradictions made by the writings' main character (jesus), shows again proof of a non- existence, or at best, this character shows a well established amount of madness. Jesus is supposed to be Jewish, yet he never shows at all that much understanding of the real culture and beliefs of that religion. This little knowledge, yet he acts and claims like he was some kind of a wise expert on the religion and its people. Anyone really familar with Judaism would see through his act, only those weak in the faith and non-Jews would pay him much mind. Since he proves himself in a fantasy, there is nothing shown in the writings to be able to at least begin to trust making a close idea of who this jesus really is.

The writings are slanted towards jesus being the "hero" of the story, as though he made no mistakes or said anything that was a lie or unwise. This again proves a non existence of this character because it is clearly shown very many times of jesus doing and saying unwise things. Because the writers had people in the story not say anything enough against him, does not hide the real facts that are well presented though. All that needs to be done is read throughout the whole book without prejudging in anyway. When given that, it should be very clear enough, that the New Testament and jesus are both false.

No one can really debate this character of jesus in the story, because he is not a serious contender to try to really defend himself or his "wisdom". When confronted many times on a certain issue, he trys to take the focus off himself and change the subject by attacking the ones who question. It is as though he is presented to be very serious about his "task" on this earth, but in contradiction, he has nothing really enough to say about it. Instead, he trys to challenge what he does not understand. Because most of the readers aren't going to understand either because it's written with its established slant, the reader assumes with ignorance, that jesus is right once again.

This is either shown to be a work of a fiction by these testaments, or proof of an actor with mental problems.

These writings could have been based on the idea of someone or many people, but it is clearly shown far too many times throughout its length, this jesus could never have existed as written in the New Testament. That exact character, is the only real one people are concerned with. Not a man that might have lived in around that time period perhaps named jesus.

the_cave

Oh, fine, I'll bite.

Iasion--for the record, I'm a Christian, and I think it's within the realm of possibility that Hercules was a real personage. I just don't think he diverted any rivers with his bare hands.

These are all possibly true, but you're ignoring Ignatius (not that his dating isn't controversial) for I assume simplicity of argument (since the interpretation of Ignatius' comments about an earthly/fleshly Christ are likewise controversial).

Besides, the failure of Paul (and Hebrews?) to explicitly equate a heavenly Christ with a real Jewish figure doesn't mean there wasn't, for example, a real Jewish figure who taught many of the things that the Markan Jesus taught.

Quote:

A) [11] The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual. A) [12] Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.

Again, perfectly compatible with the existence of an actual person (named Jesus?) who was a member (even a teacher, or leader, briefly) of the early movement. It's the identification of such a person with a spiritual (Jesus) Christ that can't quite be pinned down, according to the principles of the argument. (There is also the question of whether this person existed, and what he might have said and done. This, to me, is a separate argument.)

Quote:

B) The Gospels are pure fiction. B) [8] All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making. B) [9] The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of "midrash," a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.

Or to reflect new realities...

To say that the gospels "are pure fiction" is somewhat misleading. There are, for example, the characters of Peter (=Cephas, it is usually assumed), James, John, and John the Baptist, most of whom are assumed to have been real people (yeah, yeah, I know some suggest that John is mythical, but I think that's just crazy.) To say that the gospel of Mark is a work of fiction (which I would not agree with) isn't to say that every word in it is fantasy, or does not reflect some reality. Indeed, I believe it's Doherty who suggests that the gospel tales are "really" tales of the early Jesus movement, and reflect the acts of the early apostles, placed into the hands of Jesus in the narrative. While I disagree with this assessment, such a narrative would not exactly be "pure" fiction.

Quote:

B) [10] "Q", a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

I'm really skeptical of the idea that everything in Q, for example, is just derivative of some Cynic saying or other. The comparisions in Doherty, for example, often seem stretched and spurious to me. Besides, just because some Greek had some saying or other doesn't mean that another Near East peoples couldn't have had a similar saying. For crying out loud.

Quote:

C) No first century historian mentions Jesus. C) [2] There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions. C) Justus of Tiberias did not mention Jesus.

Nobody mentions Paul, either. (And he was quite a personality.) This is mostly just an argument about the authenticity of certain passasges in, for example, Josephus. It doesn't help the HJ cause, but it doesn't do it grevious harm, either.

Quote:

D) A heavenly divine intermediary Christ fits the cultural context. D) [5] The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly conterparts to earthly things. Paul's Christ operates within this system. D) [6] The pagan "mystery cults" of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history. Paul's Christ shares many features with these deities. D) [7] The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul's heavenly Christ.

Well, not even Christians claim that Paul got his ideas from a historical Jesus.


the_cave