Many Mythicists use logically invalid methods

[Stephan Huller]

It has to be acknowledged by any reasonable person that it is extremely difficult to actually prove a lowlife, one of the rabble, didn't exist two thousand years ago. Already Celsus ridicules the claim that Jesus had royal pedigree. So we are left arguing whether a "nobody" existed in antiquity. I don't think either side in this debate can produce conclusive evidence for their position. Best to be agnostic here and elsewhere with respect to disputed unresolved questions

[outhouse]

. Best to be agnostic here and elsewhere with respect to disputed unresolved questions

I don't buy it.

Conspiracy mentality can throw out the most credible evidence, in favor of imagination.

I don't think either side in this debate can produce conclusive evidence for their position

One side has a hypothesis that has stood tall for a very long time, and remains the status quo.


Despite the vast minority barking up a tree, no replacement hypothesis comes close to the martyred man at Passover that generated mythology for hundreds of years.

[Stephan Huller]

It's not a conspiracy theory or conspiracy theory logic. As there is no evidence that comes to us that doesn't also assume that he was god - and among the earliest who assume that he was only god and specifically not human - it is trickier than you may likely admit. It is impossible to determine whether the 'both God and man' Jesus, our Jesus derived its origin from an original narrative which assumed the gospel was about a heavenly visitation which was subsequently refashioned into a human-who-was-also-God narrative or a human Jesus who subsequently became divine. You shouldn't live in your own thoughts and assumptions. If Paul was first (and Marcion the first Pauline exegete) then the former. If the so-called (but never specifically identified) 'Jewish Christian' Ebionite tradition was first and Paul a heresy of that sect then the opposite. But neither proposition can be definitively proved or disproved. Best to be agnostic about the whole question and move on - and investigate the exact development of each 'supposition' without pretending to have conclusive evidence or conclusions from which to pontificate.

[MrMacSon]

.
Conspiracy mentality can throw out the most credible evidence, in favor of imagination.

The narrative of Jesus developed at least half a century after his alleged existence, without credible contemporaneous textural evidence, and without other evidence at the time the narrative was developed - no 1st or 2nd C archaeological evidence; no 1st or 2nd C 'Christian-artifacts'.

It is more plausible that the narrative is mostly, if not all, imagination. The eventual cementing of Christianity as the state religion, by Constantine, to thwart other 'religions' or belief systems such as Arianism, is where conspiracy is more plausible.

.
One side has a hypothesis that has stood tall for a very long time, and remains the status quo.

Yes, the existence of Jesus as a man is an hypothesis, which remains unproven, as the now 3rd-quest-to-prove-it shows.

.
Despite the vast minority barking up a tree, no replacement hypothesis comes close to the martyred man at Passover that generated mythology for hundreds of years.

Yes, a man martyred at Passover is an hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis is that the narrative is myth elaborated over a century or two. It is significant that 'Jesus' means "saviour". It is significant the narrative developed out of a widespread sacrifice and salvation theology that was diversifying. Christianity is one version of that diversification, as was Arianism and other concurrent Gnostic theologies.

[MrMacSon]

.
It is impossible to determine whether

• a/ the 'both God and man' Jesus, our Jesus derived its origin from an original narrative which assumed the gospel was about a heavenly visitation which was subsequently refashioned into a human-who-was-also-God narrative; or
  b/ a human Jesus who subsequently became divine.

If Paul was first (and Marcion, the first Pauline exegete) then the former.
If the so-called (but never specifically identified) 'Jewish Christian' Ebionite tradition was first, and Paul a heresy of that sect, then the opposite.

But neither proposition can be definitively proved or disproved.

I think that's a good summary, but there is a 3rd possibility - the Pauline tradition and the 'Jewish Christian' Ebionite tradition developed separately and virtually concurrently in the milieu of neo-theologies of the time.

Best to be agnostic about the whole question and move on; and investigate the exact development of each 'supposition' without pretending to have conclusive evidence or conclusions from which to pontificate.

[outhouse]

As there is no evidence that comes to us that doesn't also assume that he was god -


.

That is weak as hell brother. You know it to.


He did not start out as god, but "son of god". Just like the living Emperor. Yet son of a different deity. Mortal men could be divine.

These Hellenist competed against his divinity, and we have many parallels. '

The diversity was all over the board, it took hundreds of years and a semi court hearing to unify belief and definition.


Juts because some minor gnostic sects held that position, does not mean the character was 100% mythological anyway. There ignorance defined him that way.

- it is trickier than you may likely admit.

Nope, people want to complicate this based on personal opinion, want and desire. The reason KISS applies is because it works without mental gymnastics.

If Paul was first (and Marcion the first Pauline exegete) then the former.

Faulty logic.


Paul was not the first. His communities epistles were the first to be saved.

The gospels are compilations that have the ability to have sections going back earlier.

Paul started nothing.

Paul joined a movement in progress.

Second. Marcion is not second, he is just who is known to use Luke and Paul. And we know he was not alone by all the people who claimed "Shame on Marcions erasor" b for trashing the text we know.

[outhouse]

The narrative of Jesus developed at least half a century after his alleged existence

.

false but thanks for playing.

Pauls community, within a few decades

Mark 70CE ish, was a compilation that could have parts that go back earlier then Paul.

Yes, the existence of Jesus as a man is an hypothesis

Yes and it has stood the test of time, and is accepted to almost a complete consensus by those with educations on the topic.



All other hypothesis to date require mental gymnastics, and are simply laughable.

[MrMacSon]

.
The narrative of Jesus developed at least half a century after his alleged existence

false but thanks for playing.

Pauls community, within a few decades

Mark 70CE ish, was a compilation that could have parts that go back earlier then Paul.

Yet in the previous post (in reply to Stephan) you said

He did not start out as god, but "son of god". Just like the living Emperor. Yet son of a different deity. Mortal men could be divine.

The diversity was all over the board, it took hundreds of years and a semi court hearing to unify belief and definition.

[outhouse]

Yet in the previous post (in reply to Stephan) you said

It took hundreds of years for the definition of god to be defined outside scripture.

That has nothing to do with the Aramaic Jew from Galilee, nor scripture.

[MrMacSon]

.
That has nothing to do with the Aramaic Jew from Galilee, nor scripture.

It has everything to do with scripture! as stated by the Catholic encyclopedia.

The reason we know about the central character of the NT 'scripture' is because of that NT 'scripture'.

The NT scripture fulfils OT scripture, by way of theology around the central character.