Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:41 am
That hardly supports Josephus exerting himself to name somebody while he was talking about somebody else.
Josephus named Jesus called Christ as an identifier for James, because that Jesus was known by his audience (around 90 CE) as the alleged founder of a new religion.
Josephus does not claim anywhere that Jesus the anointed was the alleged founder of a new religion. Christian writers admitted their Jesus had no brother called James and admit their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, was the firstborn of the dead, was the Logos, God Creator, the only begotten of God.

Christian writing do show their Jesus was never a figure of history--only a figure of belief.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:43 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:14 am Hi Neil. Could you clarify please ? Is your argument that although 1st century CE Christians believed in a recently executed historical Jesus, we cannot tell if this Jesus really existed or not ?

Or is your argument that we cannot tell whether 1st century CE Christians believed in a historical Jesus or not ?
Were there 1st century CE Christians?
andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:11 pm According to Tacitus and Suetonius there were.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:06 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:41 amJosephus named Jesus called Christ as an identifier for James, because that Jesus was known by his audience (around 90 CE) as the alleged founder of a new religion.
So, in your view, Tacitus was wasting a similar audience's time explaining to them what a Christ was? They already knew? They just had a funny pronunication for it (Chrest instead of Christ) which Tacitus had to clear up by telling them the whole story from the beginning? Interesting take.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:06 pm
Furthermore James and the pillars never were Christians
Christians is an English-language word which describes a wide variety of denominations and specific religious viewpoints. It covers the religious movement which James is traditionally said to have led.
If authentic, who or what Tacitus (in Annals 15.44) and Suetonius (in Nero 16 and Claudius 25) were referring to is (to my thinking, at least) hard to discern. There are several possibilities about the background or signficance of Χριστός (Christos), χρηστός, ή, όν (Chréstos, Chréstus), χρηστιανός / Chrestianoi, and the other possible variations of them. Even the Codex Sinaiticus (and, I think, C. Vaticanus) uses 'Chrestians'.

To borrow and bastardise Paul's terminology - they could describe a wide variety of sects / denominations and specific religious groups / viewpoints
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:13 am
Did I say I accept whatever "Mark" wrote in his gospel? No, just small parts of it.


About the alleged miraculous feedings, this is what I wrote about them: http://historical-jesus.info/88.html

It is most bizarre that you use sources which you know are not credible .Every event about Jesus [from the baptism to the resurrection] in gMark is implausible. The Jesus in gMark was not a figure of history. gMark's Jesus walked on water, instantly transfigured and resurrected.


Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:13 am However, Rosa Parks was said to have been the mother of the Civil Rights Movement. She was not credited as the leader or the founder, because she was not so. But Jesus was credited as the founder of Christianity thanks to the efforts of Paul & other apostles and the gospels.
You make me laugh.

Thanks to the Gospels and the Pauline writings we know that it is admitted their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost, was God Creator, the Logos, the firstborn of the dead, the Lord from heaven and the only begotten son of God who resurrected.

Thanks to Christian writings---their Jesus was a figure of belief--their Jesus never ever existed.
By the way, it is claimed in the NT that it was a Promised Holy Ghost from heaven which gave the disciples power to preach the Gospel.
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:13 amSo what? I certainly do not believe in that. I explained my position here: http://historical-jesus.info/12.html
Again, you make me laugh. You openly admit gMark is not credible but still use it to defend your baseless argument.
Again, you contradict yourself. It is quite absurd to suggest Jesus was considered as the king to be but was still not considered important in his lifetime.
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:13 am Yes, but that was only by some Jews and for a short time before the crucifixion, which likely led to the (mocking) sign "king of the Jews", which also could be considered as an official statement. That was more than enough to start a sect. How this king thing came about: Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist had a lot to do with that, as I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard
You contradict yourself. A sign mocking Jesus could not be an official statement. The author of gMark did not claim anywhere that his Jesus started or wanted to start a new cult and that he was considered to become a king. gMark's Jesus merely preached that the goods news that the Kingdom of God was at hand which was supposed to be a prophecy in the book of Daniel.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Paul the Uncertain,
So, in your view, Tacitus was wasting a similar audience's time explaining to them what a Christ was? They already knew? They just had a funny pronunication for it (Chrest instead of Christ) which Tacitus had to clear up by telling them the whole story from the beginning? Interesting take.
Tacitus put a few details on Chrestus/Christus in order to explain the ill-foundation of the Christian "superstition": he was a criminal terminated by Pilate, a Roman official. Josephus did not have to go into that: he used Jesus called Christ only in order to identify a "James".
How not? Supposedly he's the first head of the oldest Christian group (or Christian antecedent, if you prefer; it's still a religion focused on Jesus), in its place of origin.

Supposedly, according to Christian propaganda, but not really, according to my research. James was an orthodox Jew, considering his late brother as just a dead apocalyptic prophet.
Nobody was removed because one of the defendants was Jesus Christ's kin.
I did not say and think that.
Mentioning James especially, and not identifying the other defendants, served some purpose of its own, and saying only who James' brother was, in context, sufficient to achieve that purpose.
Josephus was living in Jerusalem at the time. So he likely knew that "James" was the leader of a Jewish sect, whose members might have been the "other defendants". That why Josephus would name the leader, but not the others.
Whether you agree or not, surely you can see why some people think James' brother was one of the Jesuses who served in the immediate aftermath of the incident. That would explain why mentioning James' brother, and nothing else about him, was both worthwhile and enough.
Why James' brother would be among the Jesuses "who served in the immediate aftermath of the incident". Why not a "Jesus" dead by then, but known by Josephus' audience?
I cannot understand what you mean in the last sentence.
Christians is an English-language word which describes a wide variety of denominations and specific religious viewpoints. It covers the religious movement which James is traditionally said to have led.
If James did not believe his late brother was the Christ, he could not have been a Christian.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

Josephus does not claim anywhere that Jesus the anointed was the alleged founder of a new religion.
He did not have to for identifying James, as long as that Jesus called Christ was known by being believed to his audience as the founder of the Christian faith.
Christian writers admitted their Jesus had no brother called James and admit their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, was the firstborn of the dead, was the Logos, God Creator, the only begotten of God.
No brothers? Not according to Paul or "Mark". That came later. I don't think Josephus non-Christian audience would believe in that conception or all that other crap. And regardless, even with the holy conception, "Luke" and "Matthew" stated that Jesus had brothers (and sisters for gMark & gMatthew), not half brothers, not cousins.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

It is most bizarre that you use sources which you know are not credible .Every event about Jesus [from the baptism to the resurrection] in gMark is implausible. The Jesus in gMark was not a figure of history. gMark's Jesus walked on water, instantly transfigured and resurrected.
Not every event is implausible in gMark. There are plausible events, even, for most of them, they have been embellished. Of course I do not think Jesus walked on water (see http://historical-jesus.info/89.html, instantly transfigured and resurrected.
Not that all plausible events, even with the embellishment removed, are necessarily all true.
That's why, in my reconstruction, I keep only a few elements (by critical analysis), do not go into details, but that's enough in order to determine Jesus' role in triggering the start of Christianity.
Thanks to the Gospels and the Pauline writings we know that it is admitted their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost, was God Creator, the Logos, the firstborn of the dead, the Lord from heaven and the only begotten son of God who resurrected.
The Pauline writings also state the existence of an earthly/human Jesus (among the religious crap). And the gospels (more so gMark) do not deny that. Tacitus, Suetonius & Josephus: they all admit that earthly/human Jesus, called Christ/Chrestus/Christus.
You openly admit gMark is not credible but still use it to defend your baseless argument.
Josephus' works are not credible either, more so when he follows the OT, or let his Jewish faith or pro-Roman stand do the talking. Even when he describes the same event in Wars and then in Antiquities, he shows some significant differences, sometimes even conflict. But that's not a reason to reject his works completely. However they require critical analysis.
You contradict yourself. A sign mocking Jesus could not be an official statement. The author of gMark did not claim anywhere that his Jesus started or wanted to start a new cult and that he was considered to become a king. gMark's Jesus merely preached that the goods news that the Kingdom of God was at hand which was supposed to be a prophecy in the book of Daniel.
NO. A mocking sign can be considered an official sign by those who believed Jesus as the king-to-be, because that strengthened their belief.
The author of gMark did not claim anywhere that his Jesus started or wanted to start a new cult
Yes and no. As I recall, according to gMark, not a cult heavily based on him, but certainly beliefs he will resurrect, and come back as Son of Man to gather the elects. And get away for the Jewish food law and other things like saying he is the Son of God (14:61).
But, after analysis, I do not think Jesus' intention was to start a new cult, far from that.
Jesus merely preached that the goods news that the Kingdom of God was at hand
I agree.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:51 pm
Josephus does not claim anywhere that Jesus the anointed was the alleged founder of a new religion.
He did not have to for identifying James, as long as that Jesus called Christ was known by being believed to his audience as the founder of the Christian faith.
Jesus called the anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20 could not have been Jesus in Christian writings since there would be no need for the forgery called the TF in the very same Antiquities.

Jesus in the NT had no human father.

Jesus called the anointed in AJ 20 was the son of Damneus.

Jesus in the NT was the son of a Holy Ghost--the firstborn of the dead.
Christian writers admitted their Jesus had no brother called James and admit their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, was the firstborn of the dead, was the Logos, God Creator, the only begotten of God.
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:51 pmNo brothers? Not according to Paul or "Mark". That came later. I don't think Josephus non-Christian audience would believe in that conception or all that other crap. And regardless, even with the holy conception, "Luke" and "Matthew" stated that Jesus had brothers (and sisters for gMark & gMatthew), not half brothers, not cousins.

Cordially, Bernard
In the NT the Lord Jesus was the son of a Holy Ghost and the firstborn of the dead so if any male had the same Ghost as father or the same mother then they could be called his brother. :confusedsmiley: :banghead:

In the Christian Bible Cain and Abel were brothers that had a father called Adam but they all never ever existed.

The stories about Jesus in the Christian Bible are not history--they are inventions like those about Adam and Eve

Multiple Christian writings admit their Jesus had no brother called James the Just or James the Apostle. Even the Lord admitted James was not his brother.


The Apocalypse of James It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.[/quote]
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

MrMacSon

Authenticity is an issue, but reasonable as a premise for engaging with a poster who accepts these writings.

I am open to the possibility that there was a Claudian-era Roman rabble-rouser called "Chrestus." If there was, then it sounds like his admirers were rough trade. Who knows, maybe arsonists for hire lurked among the remnants of his fan club into Nero's time. Tacitus is just the sort who might patronize his inferiors for confusing the words Chrestus and Christos, while he himself blithely mistakes a criminal gang from the past for another, more current, one.

Alas, the possibilities are endless, and might well include some pro-active intervention by the Holy Ministry of Truth.


Bernard

OK, but it's a tangle.

One strand is the Christian portrait of James. If it isn't so (James thought his dead brother was not Christ), then why would Josephus single James out from among the plural defendants and identify him solely by his kinship to somebody whom no stakeholder thought him to be what he was "called," for an audience that cannot really be expected even to know what a Christ is?

If James had a false reputation in the 90's as a pioneering Christian leader, then Josephus would know the truth. So, Josephus brings up the matter, alludes to the (false) reputation, but Josephus keeps the exciting truth to himself? That's a hard sell.

If James didn't have some kind of reputation in the 90's, then why is Josephus singling him out but not explaining why James would be interesting to the audience?

Example: In real life, a former Boston mob leader (James "Whitey"Bulger) is a brother to a former president of the University of Massachusetts (William). If I am writing for an audience outside New England, and had occasion to mention William, then

- I could hardly assume that my audience knows and would readily recall who Whitey is (even though Johnny Depp played him in the movie - was Jesus bigger than that in 90's Rome?), and

- If all I say about William, really all, is that his brother is a reputed mobster, then I am at best spinning and at worst being outrightly deceitful.

The first point would make me a lousy writer and the second would make me a lousy witness. Josephus is neither (or if he is that dicey a witness, then ought we uncritically accept what he thinks about James?).

If further, Wiiliam weren't such a prominent person, then why would I both pick him out of an otherwise anonymous group, and also give no explanation why I did that, except to say that his brother is somebody you may or may not have heard about? And I refrain from helping your recollection if you have ever heard of him and from giving you much of a clue if you haven't.

If really further, William was widely but falsely believed to be a former university president, but I knew the truth, then why would I bring him up, allude to his false reputation, and not tell what I knew? That would be the knowing and intentional perpetuation of a lie - back to lousy witness.
I did not say and think that.
I didn't say or think you did. You said Josephus had a purpose for writing about the trial. I replied that he also had a purpose for singling out James, and observed that that was a distinct purpose. What he supposedly wrote about James has no expressed connection to why he wrote about the trial. Thus, his purpose in writing about the trial doesn't explain what he is supposed to have written about James.

In contrast, if Josephus wrote what some people conjecture he wrote, then that would both identiify James for the audience and adequately explain what mentioning James specifically had to do with the point in reporting the trial.
I cannot understand what you mean in the last sentence.
There are two things to explain:

- (worthwhile) why identify James and only James among the defendants?

- (enough) why identify James solely by tersely describing his brother, using unexplained ethnic and in-group jargon?
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by hakeem »

In the writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius it is corroborated that the Jews expected their Messianic rulers at around c 66-70 CE so it is simply false that Jesus the anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20 could be the Jewish Messiah since the time of Pilate.

Christian writings also confirm that the Jews did not call, identify or worship anyone as the Messiah or son of God up to at least the 4th century.

There is no historical evidence, no manuscript, no artifact anywhere of Jews worshipping a man called Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that the Jesus character and stories were not yet manufactured up to at least c 70 CE.
Post Reply