steve_bnk

Barring a stupendous written or artifact find there is no possible corroboration as to any HJ, but the flip side is given Christianity came into being there is no proof of gospels as total fabrications either.

If JC and the gospels were a complete fabrication then one has to ask why someone would write such a tale centered on a wandering Jew in Judea as a backdrop. Jews were not exactly popular in the empire.

It is certainly possible unknown agents wrote a complete fiction.

As literature the gospels are essentially an action adventure story bolstered with the supernatural. It is technically a tragedy, the hero dies at the end. The Acts are the epilogue and sequel.

The hero JC as a demigod has Roman and Greek precedent. Born of a deity and a human the demigod saves the tribe or clan, dies in the end, and goes to be with he gods or something similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod

'...A demigod (or demi-god) is a divine or supernatural being in classical mythology. The term has been used in various ways at different times and can refer to a figure who has attained divine status after death, a minor deity, or a mortal who is the offspring of a god and a human...'


http://ancient-literature.com/rome.ht

The gospels may well have been originally a parody or satire of the Jews. A wandering raggedy rabbi who turns water to wine, walks on water, and makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. Romans who read the gospels may have been rolling on the floor laughing.

Or the gospels can be viewed as what we call today a docudrama. The two movies from the 90s on Queen Elizabeth are playing on Showtime. It is a dramatization with the literary license and and departures from known facts online. Obviously not possible with the gospels, but it provides a possible analogy to the gospels.

There are plenty of modern historical novels and movies based on ancient Rome, a recent popular movie was Gladiator. An historical novel 2000 years ago for lack of better words written in the times based on events or at least oral recountings of events is not implausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...n_Ancient_Rome

My argument was and is that given Christianity exists along with the known geopolitical conditions in Judea it was likely IMO there was an HJ, or the gospel character as a composite of oral stories and a movement. It makes more sense to me than a complete fabrication.

One can be dismissive and declare fiat by loudly proclaiming there is no evidence, but then one avoids and ends any discourse on the gospels.

spin

Major problems:

1. The underlying logic in no way deals with the need of the person asserting historicity to make a substantive case for the historicity of Jesus, so it fails without jumping the first hurdle, ie it is irrelevant. If you assert existence the onus is on you to show the evidence for that existence, not to plead ignorance as to why something else might be the case. This is sufficient to fail your effort.

2. When you use a term such as "complete fabrication" it contains implications that are irrelevant to the issue. A fabrication implies intentional deception (lie, falsehood, forgery), and there is no necessity to assume such intentionality. Talking of a "complete (fabrication)" implies that there was some singular effort--as does "someone"--to construct the edifice of christianity, which cannot be derived from most alternative theories as to the origin of christianity, as most contemplate some sort of evolution of ideas and theology. Again an irrelevant notion. You therefore fall over your own attempt to clarify as you confuse the issue with irrelevance.

There are other problems, in your implied assumptions, but these two problems are sufficient to show that you are not dealing with the subject you want to and that you are in fact impeding yourself from dealing with it.

This is an assertion of what seems likely in your opinion. You don't provide a scrap of evidence for the existence of Jesus, but assume from the existence of christianity that there was a HJ. As you cannot see that there is no evidence but merely an assumption here, you make it difficult for yourself to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

Oral traditions indicate notion more than a pre-written stage of dissemination of the religion. Their orality in no way indicates anything about the veracity of the traditions. Very few have argued for a complete fabrication, so I don't know why you have used it as a shovel for the hole you're in.

:banghead:

You cannot build up a case for something by avoiding dealing with it. Your interest here is to create a straw man complete fabrication and oppose it with your asserted historical Jesus. There is no methodology here, let alone evidence. Your job is to demonstrate that there was a historical Jesus. Forget the straw men. Forget the nonsense that a religion has to be founded by the central figure of the religion. Allah is the central figure of Islam. Is it your humble opinion that he founded the religion? To demonstrate the historicity of Jesus, you need to supply tenable sources that point to the existence of Jesus, not assumptions about the religion.