Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:49 pm Again since you won't answer.

Come on, Stephan. Nothing profitable can come of this sort of weird mindreading.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:49 pm Again since you won't answer. Your argument and the argument of all 'historicists' is that because Acts lays out a 'history' then there must be history.

Are you addressing me? If so: I think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the texts coming out of the First and Second Centuries. Beyond that: we can't tell with much confidence anything about what that Jesus did or said, to the point that he may as well have not existed. I'm not a Christian (though I'm a theist), and Jesus's non-existence has no metaphysical implications for me. I have no idea what you are referring to with regards to Acts (if indeed you were addressing me).

Much of my criticism of many mythicist positions begins with "assuming your particular mythicist theory is correct, then ..." If mythicism becomes mainstream, then that approach will be the natural one anyway.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:49 pmHow the hell can you parade around like some 'expert' on the historical nature of the gospel when even the orthodox don't respect the idea of a historical gospel? ... Again I am not saying it is completely mythical but surely it was recognized even by the first orthodox Christians to be of 'dubious historical value' otherwise they wouldn't have been so free to make up shit.

I agree 100%! History played second place to theology. The idea that some mythicists seem to have is that if there was a historical Jesus, then people would have been going around dutifully recording deeds and sayings is nonsense. That expectation is wrong. It's clear that early orthodox Christians weren't like that at all. The idea is a non-starter.

GakuseiDon wrote:.... I think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the texts coming out of the First and Second Centuries. Beyond that: we can't tell with much confidence anything about what that Jesus did or said, to the point that he may as well have not existed. I'm not a Christian (though I'm a theist), and Jesus's non-existence has no metaphysical implications for me. I have no idea what you are referring to with regards to Acts (if indeed you were addressing me).

An historical Jesus is by far the very worse explanation for Christian texts. It is extremely implausible that the Christian religion was started by known lies about a crucified man.

An historical Jesus is by far the very worse explanation for Christian texts. It is extremely implausible that the Christian religion was started by known lies about a crucified man.

The Christian religion did not start by known lies about a crucified man, but by a strong desire by some Jews who believed he was to become the ruling king of the Jews. Therefore, they speculated he was saved in heaven in order to come back to earth, this time as a ruling king. Selected phrases from the OT and claims of revelations from above were used to support this belief.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:47 am

An historical Jesus is by far the very worse explanation for Christian texts. It is extremely implausible that the Christian religion was started by known lies about a crucified man.

The Christian religion did not start by known lies about a crucified man, but by a strong desire by some Jews who believed he was to become the ruling king of the Jews. Therefore, they speculated he was saved in heaven in order to come back to earth, this time as a ruling king. Selected phrases from the OT and claims of revelations from above were used to support this belief.

Cordially, Bernard

Who were those Jews? You make up stuff up. I need to see historical evidence. You have none. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that a single Jew worshipped a known dead man as a God to obtain salvation from sins in any century before or after the time of Pilate.

If Jesus did live, was crucified, died, buried for at least three days then it was a big lie that he resurrected.

If Jesus did live then all the supposed miracles where he made the blind see instantly, the deaf hear and dumb talk immediately would be known lies.

If Jesus did live and was crucified then it would be a massive lie that he was God Creator.

The Jesus cult of Christians must have started by belief in fables written decades after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

I think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation

Maybe. But maybe it's the best answer in the way suicide is the best answer the night before going to the electric chair. TWO bad alternatives. Like really. The reason I am attracted to the study of early Christianity is that it is in many ways a Rorschach test for how we deal with an amorphous blob. Here's the gospel story.

Plop.

Now what do you do with it? You seem to take for granted that it must be historical. I am not so sure. But WHY are you so convinced of this fact? Clearly your personal salvation depends on it. I can see no other reason for this certainty. People can't fly. People can't walk on water. Bodies don't disappear when they are put in a tomb. But you say, all of that isn't important. Ignore that. Focus instead on the parts which resemble a hero cult or a messianic group. But why? Why is it so clear that Jesus existed? IF Jesus was a 'typical' messiah he actually would have done something that was historically significant and would appear in our historical records outside of Judea because he was impactful. Instead you have an unimpactful messiah being understood to be the messiah SOLELY because he disappeared as Daniel predicted the messiah would disappear in his nutty book.

His only impact is the disappearance in the tomb as predicted by Daniel. That's why the 'half-frantic woman' as Celsus calls her emerges from the tomb 'knowing' the salvation of Israel is at hand and the message spreads from there. Give me a break. Some 'historical' messiah.

Really the gospel story isn't a referendum on any HISTORICAL PRESENCE of the messiah in first century Judea BUT the 'veracity' of the prophetic writings. It HAS TO BE TRUE because it proves that God sends prophets into the world. WTF is that? WTF is that for a 'historical' proof? This QANON level factuality at best. There are kids, there are Democratic members of congress, those members have to eat something THEREFORE it is plausible they eat children.

Much of my criticism of many mythicist positions begins with "assuming your particular mythicist theory is correct

Yes mythicists are idiots who should IMHO be banned from the forum for the most part. We have to prove ourselves better than them by at least considering the ahistorical aspects of the gospel narrative.

The only reason I think that Jesus might have been historical is the implausibility of developing a completely ahistorical narrative. That's why I brought up Castaneda. Is it possible that he simply invented his Don Juan? I guess. But surely it is more likely that he met a Yaqui shaman of this name or that he met a shaman of some name and had similar encounters as described in the narrative. This 'hard' mythicist position that the gospel is complete nonsense is possible but unlikely merely because - IMHO - it serves a psychological function in the brains of those who promote it. They WANT this to be true because they hate Christianity, in the same way I feel you open the door too open for historicity because you love Christianity. Somewhere in the middle is my approach.

Come on, Stephan. Nothing profitable can come of this sort of weird mindreading.

Right as always.

to hakeem,

Who were those Jews?

Those who gave a royal welcome to Jesus, when he was getting near Jerusalem (Mk 11:8-10).
See http://historical-jesus.info/29.html Another Markan problem: "Mark" and Jesus as "the king of the Jews"
Did "Mark" invent Jesus as believed by some contemporaries to be (or will be) "the king of the Jews" And for his gospel audience which appears to be mostly Gentile? It is most unlikely, for various reasons ...

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that a single Jew worshipped a known dead man as a God to obtain salvation from sins in any century before or after the time of Pilate.

I thought the subject was about "who were these Jews". Why do you bring "Jew worshipped a known dead man as a God to obtain salvation from sins in any century before or after the time of Pilate"?

If Jesus did live, was crucified, died, ... then it was a big lie that he resurrected.

Not a lie, a belief, a wrong belief, but still a belief.

If Jesus did live then all the supposed miracles where he made the blind see instantly, the deaf hear and dumb talk immediately would be known lies.

Very likely for all of them. Most of that were invented by "Mark".

If Jesus did live and was crucified then it would be a massive lie that he was God Creator.

God Creator was an outrageous speculation, in order to massively increase the stature of Jesus.

The Jesus cult of Christians must have started by belief in fables written decades after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Many of these fables were claimed much earlier by Paul and other preachers. No need for the fall of Jerusalem in 70 to have Jesus believed to be resurrected, Son of God, co-creator of the universe, sacrifice for atonement of sins, etc.

Cordially, Bernard

Those who gave a royal welcome to Jesus, when he was getting near Jerusalem (Mk 11:8-10).

You read this account Bernard and you believe that it actually happened? Really?