The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

It seems CraigB and GDon are trying to assert the NT narrative viz.

"god became man became god" (as being euhumerism, which is an incorrect assertion)​

 

[dejudge]

Then he must have declared himself a liar when he stated in Romans 1 So he was a man of human lineage on earth, exalted by God as his Son, after the resurrection.

You write excessive fiction.

How many times must we show you that the Pauline Jesus was the LORD from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:47-- The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:48 ---As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.

Again, please get familiar with the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT support the Heresy that Jesus was a mere man with a human father unless you think that those who Canonised the Pauline Corpus were complete idiots.

The Pauline Corpus was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus.

Please, just go and read the writings of antiquity not a phrase taken out of context.

Please, at least read "Against Heresies" and Refutation Against All Heresies".

You obviously don't have a clue of the Canonised Pauline teachings about the Lord God Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

'Euhemerism' is a type of analysis done by ancient writers (and some more modern writers) where they claim that myths about the gods were inspired by mortal men. In this case, the myths are the Gospels.

GDon has admitted the Myths are the Gospels.

Now, where is the historical data for HJ?

The Myths called Gospels.

HJ is a direct product of ADMITTED mythology.

 

[maximara]

My only concern right here is trying to get the definitions clear.

Which as I have shown with just exactly what the Christ Myth theory even is is impossible as there are definitions all over the map (which I have listed several times).

The main problem is "myth" which Remsburg citing David Strauss and John Fiske stated in his 1909 book The Christ that myth fell into three types: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.


A Historical myth is "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical."

"A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths."

"A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class."


Remsburg also stated that "(i)t is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"

While he doesn't break down myths as Remsburg did, Biblical studies professor J. W. Rogerson covers much the same ground in his paper "Slippery words: Myth" (in Dundes, Alan (ed.) (1984) Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth University of California Press ISBN: 9780520051928 62-71) which shows just how complex the word "myth" really is.


Things aren't any better with the definition of "historical Jesus".

If we take what Remsberg touched on in 1909, was classified by Rudolf Bultmann in 1941 (and used by Richard Carrier in 2014), and reiterated by Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in 2004 and mesh them together we get this:

1) Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who'

2) Triumphalist theory (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.


Changing "Christ" to "Jesus" doesn't help as you still wind up with 'Jesus [Historical] Myth theory' vs 'Jesus [Philosophical] Myth theory'.

In fact, if you go over the literature one get less the impression of arguing over agreed definition and more each author using his own.

 

[maximara]

No, I think this is Ehumerism. Apotheosis is the opposite. Behind the stories of the man, Jesus, there is an actual (non-man) God, who as a secondary procedure, chose to assume human form.

Ehumerism is the structure while Apotheosis is the mechanic.

 

[dejudge]

Ehumerism is the structure while Apotheosis is the mechanic.

A Euheremist would say the stories of Satan in the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were based on a real person.

1. Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

2. 1 Corinthians 5:5 ....hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord

3. 1 Thessalonians 2:18 ---For we wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, did, again and again—but Satan blocked our way.

4. Matthew 4:10 ---Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only

 

[GDon]

It seems CraigB and GDon are trying to assert the NT narrative viz.

"god became man became god" (as being euhumerism, which is an incorrect assertion)​

Euhemerism is "those which are (now) thought to be gods, were really just men. But after the men died, stories and legends grew around those men, to the extent that they were deified."

I don't understand how you keep misunderstanding this, as I've repeated it a number of times now. That is the standard definition. If you reject the standard definition for your own, that's fine, but it will make it impossible to further the discussion since we will be talking pass each other.

I'll make this my last post on this matter to you in this thread. Thanks.

 

[GDon]

And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

No he doesn't.

"But just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. Indeed, just as with historicism, there are almost as many Jesus myth theories as there are experts to pronounce them" (sic) - OHJ page 7

"The more complex a theory has to be be, the less likely it is to be true. Hence I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible then historicity, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed." (sic) - OHJ page 8

Carrier not only acknowledges the huge range of Jesus Myth theory but states why he went with the particular one he did.

And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

Let me put it this way, paraphrasing Carrier <clears throat>: "Just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. But I find my 'minimal historical' Jesus the most plausible theory. Hence I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible than historicity/mythicism, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed."

See there! I've acknowledged the huge range of historicist/mythicist theories. Done!

 

[dejudge]

Euhemerism is "those which are thought to be gods, were really just men. But later on, stories and legends grew around those men, to the extent that they were deified."

Again, a Euhemerist may think that stories about God, Satan, the Angel Gabriel, Romulus, Remus and the Holy Ghost were really about actual men.

What Christians of antiquity stated is what matters.

The Christians of antiquity state THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost, was God Creator and a transfiguring sea water walker.

What evidence can a Euhemerist present to show that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?

Satan, Jesus, Romulus, Remus and the Holy Ghost were on earth.

 

[Mcreal]

Euhemerism is "those which are (now) thought to be gods, were really just men. But after the men died, stories and legends grew around those men, to the extent that they were deified."

I don't understand how you keep misunderstanding this, as I've repeated it a number of times now. That is the standard definition. If you reject the standard definition for your own, that's fine, but it will make it impossible to further the discussion since we will be talking pass each other.

I'll make this my last post on this matter to you in this thread. Thanks.

What word do you give to mythological figures that were later described as or later thought to be human or have human form?

 

[dejudge]

And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

Let me put it this way, paraphrasing Carrier <clears throat>: "Just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. But I find my 'minimal historical' Jesus the most plausible theory. Hence I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible than historicity/mythicism, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed."

See there! I've acknowledged the huge range of historicist/mythicist theories. Done!

GDon Your post is the flagship of "nit-picking".

You appear to be terrified to admit that the Pauline Jesus was the LORD from heaven.

Where was Jesus the LORD from heaven and Creator crucified GDon?

You are good at nit-picking!!!

By the way, didn't Irenaeus say that the son of the Ghost was crucified when he was about 50 years old??

It is most fascinating when a Christian argues contrary to his own Faith and uses the very Christian Bible to do so.

The Pauline Jesus was not a mere man with a human father.

The Pauline Jesus was a Celestial God who came down from heaven and was KIILED by the Jews in the myth fables called the New Testament.

 

[maximara]

And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

Let me put it this way, paraphrasing Carrier <clears throat>: "Just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. But I find my 'minimal historical' Jesus the most plausible theory. Hence I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible than historicity/mythicism, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed."

See there! I've acknowledged the huge range of historicist/mythicist theories. Done!

You are ignoring the fact that Carrier does give justification. Here is a more proper rewording of what Carrier is saying:

"The more complex a theory has to be be, the less likely it is to be true."

Above is what I regard as the simplest and therefore per Occam Razor the most plausible theory for the Christ Myth theory. Per Occam Razor, "I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is [also] the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. Hence For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible then historicity, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed." (sic)

 

[maximara]

What word do you give to mythological figures that were later described as or later thought to be human or have human form?

I agree with some aspect of what you are saying. But I think both you and GDon seem to be confusing the structure (Ehumerism) with a mechanic (Apotheosis) used to validate that structure.

We see the same issue with the term Evolution (change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual)

Evolution itself is merely the structure while Darwin provided a mechanic by which Evolution happened. There are other mechanics: Lamarckian, Progressive, Punctuated equilibrium, and degenerative (also known as the Fall from Grace) just to mention three.

It is the same with myth where you have have the historical (legendary) and the philosophical mechanics and Poetical (take the previous two and mix well)

Columbus saying west to prove the Earth was round is a poetical myth because it isn't just a "real event colored by the light of antiquity" but it is also an "idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative". The idea being the great explorer overcoming obstacles both natural and man made to make great discoveries that further man's knowledge of his world.

George Armstrong Custer as the brave soldier manipulated by politicians and a corporation to ride with his men to certain death at the hands of the Native Americans he is trying to help (They Died with Their Boots On (1941)) or as the narcissistic egotistical maniac who leads his men to certain doom because he is essentially a military idiot (Little Big Man (1970)) are also poetical myths using ideas of the time and clothing them in the caress of a historical narrative.

In fact, all historical myth seems to fits into the poetical category

 

[GDon]

You are ignoring the fact that Carrier does give justification. Here is a more proper rewording of what Carrier is saying:

"The more complex a theory has to be be, the less likely it is to be true."

Above is what I regard as the simplest and therefore per Occam Razor the most plausible theory for the Christ Myth theory. Per Occam Razor, "I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is [also] the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. Hence For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible then historicity, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed." (sic)

I've highlighted above what I think is key here. What you call "justification", I call "waving away". I think that GA Wells' mythicist theory is stronger than Carrier's. But Carrier doesn't address GA Wells' mythicist theory.

Anyway, it is a moot point in a thread about the historical Jesus. My bad to keep this going here. We can continue this discussion in the thread I created on Carrier's book if you like.

 

[dejudge]

I've highlighted above what I think is key here. What you call "justification", I call "waving away". I think that GA Wells' mythicist theory is stronger than Carrier's. But Carrier doesn't address GA Wells' mythicist theory.

So, you do what you accuse Carrier of.

You not only ignore other HJ/MJ theories BUT you do not discuss an admitted stronger mythicist theory.

Anyway, it is a moot point in a thread about the historical Jesus. My bad to keep this going here. We can continue this discussion in the thread I created on Carrier's book if you like.

We will continue to discuss the HJ/MJ argument without you since you have nothing but a massive amount of nit-picking.

The Pauline Jesus was a Celestial Being, the Lord from heaven, the Son of God, and God Creator from the beginning in the Myth Fables called the New Testament.

Please GDon tell us exactly where the LORD from heaven was crucified before he resurrected on the third day?

 

[maximara]

I've highlighted above what I think is key here. What you call "justification", I call "waving away". I think that GA Wells' mythicist theory is stronger than Carrier's. But Carrier doesn't address GA Wells' mythicist theory.

Well, that is in likely in deference to Wells who has gone on record that his theory from Jesus Myth (1996) on is NOT a mythicist one. In fact, as early as 2000 in a reply to J. P. Holding's rambling and grossly inaccurate mess of a book (Shattering the Christ Myth) (side note you should see the pure venom Holding inflicts on anyone that dares to challenge his points with logic in the low reviews on Amazon; it's pretty bad and even would be ministers are not safe from his wrath) Wells expressly states "it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court." (sic)

In fact, in the preface in Jesus Legend (1999) Wells expressly states regarding his earlier works "I agued that Paul sincerely believed that the evidence (not restricted to the Wisdom Literature pointed to a historical Jesus who had lived well before his own day; and I leave open the question as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure live that Paul supposed of him" - page 19

So Wells is leaving open the possibility that Paul's Jesus was a flesh and blood man who had actually lived in the 2nd century BCE even in Did Jesus Exist? (1975) which nearly everyone classifies as a "Christ Myth" book.

But if the Christ Myth is either Jesus never existed as a human being or that he was first a celestial being later given historical garb (the two most common definitions out there) then NONE of Wells work qualifies as Christ Myth because Wells was willing to accept Paul's Jesus was a legendary figure with a flesh and blood man behind him who had lived centuries before rather then a celestial being given historical garb.

Carrier in fact in a hand out calls Wells works of The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Who Was Jesus?, The Jesus Legend; The Jesus Myth and Can We Trust the New Testament? as Ahistorical RATHER THEN Mythical which is an important distinction.

 

[Mcreal]

I agree with some aspect of what you are saying. But I think both you and GDon seem to be confusing the structure (Ehumerism) with a mechanic (Apotheosis) used to validate that structure.

It is the same with myth where you have have the historical (legendary) and the philosophical mechanics and Poetical (take the previous two and mix well)

In fact, all historical myth seems to fits into the poetical category

I think the problem is that there are contradictions among various dictionary definitions of Euhuerism, as well as contradiction between what wikipedia says and what some dictionaries say.

Essentially, I am talking about anthropomorphism ie. attributing human aspects to something that isn't or wasn't human to begin with.

This applies to some notions of angels. Whether it applies to Jesus is the basis of these discussions. Regards.

 

[dejudge]

It is evident that Euhemerism is completely useless in the HJ argument since NO actual hiostorical data can be found for Jesus of Nazareth, God Creator born of a Ghost.

Euhemerus argued that the Myth God Zeus was really a mortal King because his tomb was found.

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

Euhemerus argued that Zeus was a mortal king who died on Crete, and that his tomb could still be found there with the inscription bearing his name.[9] This claim however did not originate with Euhemerus, as the general sentiment of Crete during the time of Epimenides of Knossos (c. 600 BCE) was that Zeus was buried somewhere in Crete. For this reason, the Cretans were often considered atheists, and Epimenides called them all liars (see Epimenides paradox). Callimachus, an opponent of Euhemerus' views on mythology, argued that Zeus' Cretan tomb was fabricated, and that he was eternal:

“ Cretans always lie. For the Cretans even built a tomb,
Lord, for you. But you did not die, for you are eternal

Euhemerus would probably argue that Jesus God Creator, the Lord from heaven was mortal because his burial SHROUD was found in Turin.

It is clear that Euhemerism is practically a bizarre attempt to historicise fiction and mythology.

Since Euhemerus historicised Myth Zeus then he could have historicise Satan, Jesus, the angel Gabriel and the God of the Jews.

 

[Craig B]

Euhemerus would probably argue that Jesus God Creator, the Lord from heaven was mortal because his burial SHROUD was found in Turin.

It is clear that Euhemerism is practically a bizarre attempt to historicise fiction and mythology.

Since Euhemerus historicised Myth Zeus then he could have historicise Satan, Jesus, the angel Gabriel and the God of the Jews.

And you disagree with Euhemerus, so you accept the word of his opponent

Callimachus, an opponent of Euhemerus' views on mythology, argued that Zeus' Cretan tomb was fabricated, and that he was eternal

That is, you acknowledge the Eternal Divine Jesus, Who will conduct your Spirit to the Realm of the Blessed Ones, where you will eternally enjoy the Beatific Vision, after a relatively short period in the purifying Fires of Purgatory, to cleanse your Soul of Sin.

 

[maximara]

I think the problem is that there are contradictions among various dictionary definitions of Euhuerism, as well as contradiction between what wikipedia says and what some dictionaries say.

Well wikipedia is only as good as the sources it cites and which sources the various editors deem valid. I still say that Euhuerism is the model or structure rather then the process in of itself.

Essentially, I am talking about anthropomorphism ie. attributing human aspects to something that isn't or wasn't human to begin with.

This applies to some notions of angels. Whether it applies to Jesus is the basis of these discussions. Regards.

Given the huge range given to the Christ Myth theory nearly from the get go that doesn't help.

One of the process as that the historical trappings included "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added to an already existing mythology. (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58; Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

Something like this happened with Samuel Wilson with regards to Uncle Sam. We know thanks to an obscure journal entry dated March 24, 1810 that the idea of Uncle Sam being a personification of the United States predated Samuel Wilson's involvement in the War of 1812.

Over the years a myth grew up that Samuel Wilson's shipments labeled "U.S." were referenced as coming from "Uncle Sam" until it was stated that Samuel Wilson was the source for the idea of Uncle Sam.

It is possible that there was a preexisting celestial being Jesus that was conflated with an obscure teacher of that name who came later which means you could have the Christ Myth and [obscure] historical Jesus coexisting.