Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[outhouse]

Actual Jesus was unknown to most people who accepted Christianity. Those people did not know if there was an actual Jesus or not and had no way to confirm what they were told. They just accepted it.

Nonsense

Dribble based on bias and ignorance.


When Paul was alive, it was common knowledge as many people could have witnesses the trouble at Passover and or crucifixion.


That may be true later in the movement, but its obvious by the movements enemies, his existence was never questioned by anyone.

[Sheshbazzar]

Was it common in Hellenistic societies to question or challenge the existence of, or the mythology other cults gods?


From what I have read, that would have been a quick way to get yourself quickly arrested and executed for blaspheming the gods.
NO gods were to be blasphemed under Greek or Roman rule, to do so was regarded as an act of Treason endangering the entire people.
Anyone could worship and serve whatever god or gods they wished, but could not get away with denouncing or questioning the existence or mythology of the god(s) of others.
ALL of the gods and their stories were to be respected. Or else.
Any such literature calling a god or his (her) existence or mythology into question would have been sought out and destroyed along with the person or sect stupid enough to publish it.
Exactly why Christians were hunted down and executed as a menace and a danger to civilized society.

[MrMacSon]

Actual Jesus was unknown to most people who accepted Christianity. Those people did not know if there was an actual Jesus or not and had no way to confirm what they were told. They just accepted it.

When Paul was alive, it was common knowledge as many people could have [witnessed] the trouble at Passover and or crucifixion.

"could have witnessed"; or may not have witnessed

That may be true later in the movement, but its obvious by the movements enemies, his existence was never questioned by anyone.

his existence may not have been questioned later; or it may have been questioned.

The main point is that such an alleged important existence was not documented.

[Leucius Charinus]

Conformity to status quo 'consensus' is what that is all about.
Any opinion that does not bow down in conformity before majority opinion must be 'uneducated' and 'ignorant'.

Aristotle's Three Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric are:

• Ethos - Appeal to the audience's sense of honesty and/or authority (See above ... appeal to the Grand Authority of the Status Quo)
  Pathos - Appeal to the audience's sense of emotions (examples include the NT, the martyrologies, Eusebius, Apologists, etc)
  Logos - Appeal to the audience's sense of logic (examples include Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry and Hypatia)

Of course not all rationally thinking persons are going to persuaded by that kind of argument.

Thank fuck.



LC

[Bernard Muller]

to cienfuegos,

Even by minimalist historicism, actual Jesus doesn't matter. Actual Jesus was unknown to most people who accepted Christianity. Those people did not know if there was an actual Jesus or not and had no way to confirm what they were told.

I do not think an actual Jesus doesn't matter for minimalist historicism. His last year of his life, more so his last days, is was triggered Christianity, slowly first, then faster in the time of Paul (not only in numbers of Christians, but also for the ever expanding Christian beliefs).
If Peter went to Corinth (as strongly suggested in 1 Cor 1-4: he had followers there), they would have known at least a bit about Jesus (and Jesus was so small historically there was little of significance to know about him). Also, the Church of Antioch was visited by Peter. Info about Jesus could be gleaned from non eyewitness apostles, including Paul (I'll come back to that later).
Quite a few times, Paul dropped down to earth attributes about a human Jesus (Jew, poor, ministering to Jews --& not Gentiles, which goes against Paul' gospel--, etc.) in order to make points, as if these attributes were already known & accepted by his audience.
The same goes for "Hebrews", which I am certain was written at the same time than the Pauline epistles.

Paul seems to know very little about Jesus. More on that later. Please use source criticism to establish gMark as a suitable source from which to derive historical data.

Paul's epistles are not about telling all of what he knew about the human/earthly Jesus. And I already demonstrated that "Mark" was reacting to eyewitness' accounts which were not in his favor, that is about Christian beliefs, more so that the like of Peter and James, and likely the whole church of Jerusalem, were not Christians (because the eyewitnesses had no reason to be such).
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1166&hilit=nazarene ... 110#p25592
I already explained why I think "King of the Jews" and the disturbance in the temple were real facts:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1178&p=25822#p25822
and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1178&p=25822#p25824.
Furthermore I used very little of gMark for my backbone reconstruction of Jesus' last year, and nothing above what Paul said about Jesus (poor, with brothers, of no reputation, humble, not giving sign he was the Son of God, dealing with Jews only, crucified as "Christ", etc).
And gMark, despite the embellishments, explains very well how Jesus became an accidental (credited) healer. Also the relationship between the time of John the Baptist and Jesus' last year, etc, etc.
Of course everything is explained on my website, more so on:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes2.html & http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1x.html
As far as source criticism, if you read my website, you'll find I practiced that a lot, which led me to reject a lot of stuff (with stated series of reasons) from the gospels, including gMark (such as Jesus not a teacher, not speaking in parables, not an itinerant preacher, etc.)

Who is the author of gMark? How reliable is that author? How is that author thought of by his contemporaries? Is he cited by his contemporaries? Josephus never mentions Jesus.

I already explained myself about "Mark". Of course Josephus would not mention a flash in the pan uneducated Galilean in his proper chronological niche. And even if nothing is known about the author, that does not mean all he wrote is not true. And the author had many reasons to be anonymous, in view his gospel was packed with fiction and embellishments. However that does not mean his gospel did not contain authentic items (as already accepted by his audience), meant to give an air of authenticity to his work. Even anonymous writings can provide truth among lies, I don't see why not.

Both the TF and 20.9 are interpolations. 20.9 is dependent on the TF. If Josephus doesn't mention Jesus in Book 18, there is no reason to think he would introduce Jesus called Christ in Book 20 without explanation.

The TF is an interpolation for sure, but not Ant. 20.9. Did you read my arguments against Carrier & other in my previous post I made yesterday (mountain time, North America). Josephus did not introduce Jesus called Christ but used "Christ" as a name to identify James to his audience. Of course that implies somebody known as "Christ" (as alleged founder of the Christian faith) was known to his educated audience around 93 AD, but that's most likely it was so, more so after the persecution of Nero.

So there actually having been an unknown man crucified doesn't really matter.

Oh yes, that would matter a lot to have this man known to have existed. Since so much depended on the crucifixion (at first shameful, then glorious), the earliest Christians could not accept that crucified man was unknown.

As Paul says (in the Last Testament of Christ), "If you never existed, we would have to make you up."

Who is that Paul? do you consider what he wrote as evidence?

I'll answer the rest tomorrow.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

The main point is that such an alleged important existence was not documented.

Oh you mean the most documented man on the planet, a legend that has lasted for over 2000 years and going strong?

[Leucius Charinus]

Hey, it's Christmas eve.

Shouldn't all you guys be worshiping the birth of the baby Jesus instead of posting?

Thanks steve43 but I'm still busy trying to track down the name and address of the mid-wife.
Besides I cant see the point in worshipping both a birth and a death if Big J is fictional.
All we could worship is a publication date, and we don't exactly have one (yet).

JUST KIDDING!!!!!

LC

[outhouse]

"could have witnessed"; or may not have witnessed

.

Following what is currently known, its is "did witness".

Like it or not, the man has historicity at this point in time.

[Leucius Charinus]

What do you mean by "most" educated and how do you know everyone's educational background?

It takes an education to know an education.

JEDI: "From authority, educated I am"




LC

[Sheshbazzar]

Oh you mean the most documented man on the planet, a legend that has lasted for over 2000 years and going strong?

You said it; "a legend that has lasted for over 2000 years"

A totally horse shit made up legend that appeals to the Alexamenos' like yourself.