You're misrepresentation of other's arguments is tedious.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
dejudge said:
Again, your post does not contain any historical data for your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.
You will NEVER EVER be able to present any historical data for your DOHJ because there NEVER was.
Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of the tribe of Benjamin were ALWAYS 2nd century or later fiction characters.
One? Only ONE reference in such a long post?!? Dear me. That's not good at all.
Well I am not the one here calling people "mythicists". It's you who is doing that!
So do you say I am a Mythicist or not? How would you describe my position on a supposed HJ? After all I have told you probably 50 times or more exactly what my position is regarding the possible existence of a human Jesus.
And in case it helps you, and in view of the condition which you state above re. Paul "inventing Jesus" (highlighted above) - what I have said about Paul's letters, is that there really is no clear statement there of "Paul" regarding Jesus as a human person. And about that I have just been saying to you, that it's quite clear that Paul was claiming to have got his messiah beliefs from what he thought was in the OT scriptures ... and that includes the quite obvious possibility that like Philo before him, the writer of "Paul" may have believed that passages such as Zechariah were naming the messiah as someone called "Joshua" = "Jesus".
So does that make me a "mythicist"?
Last edited:
Well -
It is highly unlikely there will ever be historical data for Jesus of Nazareth as there probably never was.
Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of the tribe of Benjamin were highly likely to be 2nd century (or later) characters developed by cumulative elaboration over a century or so, starting from the 2nd century.
I don't think Paul invented Jesus. I think the Pauline texts were initially about another entity, another Christ; and were later redacted to be about the same Jesus as the Synoptics.
The Pauline epistles could have been about different entities, too (ie. all 13 epistles; but not necessarily about 13 different entities).
Last edited:
You are becoming very repetitive with that exact same one-line type of complaint, aren't you!
You must have repeated that same sort of single line complaint, using almost identical wording, at least a dozen times now on the last few pages alone. Perhaps you would like to report yourself.
However, that long and very detail post was not really for the benefit of totally committed wilfully "blind to the facts" HJ believers like you. It was more for the benefit of non-posting readers and occasional posters such as Greater Fool and others who say they are not actually very familiar with the arguments being presented by both sides, and who genuinely do want to know in more detail what is being said in the sceptical view of a proposed HJ.
I'm stating that there are such things as Mythicists. If you're saying you're not one, fine. There is nothing in my understanding of this general question that would be changed one way or another if you are a mythicist or not.
You "reckon there's a chance of that", do you?
Do you not have any idea of what you think about that in your mind then?
No idea of what you yourself think about whether I am a mythicist or not? You don't even know your own mind on that?
I think you are missing the point I am raising.
One of the many takes on the Christ Myth is that an obscure teacher was "plugged into" what originally stated out as a fictional being.
This seems to have been what happened with Samuel Wilson who in 1812 was plugged into the already existing Uncle Sam myth. Eventually a new myth where Samuel Wilson was the basis for Uncle Sam formed.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stated that his teacher Joseph Bell was the basis for Sherlock Holmes and during both men's lifetimes Joseph Bell was presented as 'the real life Sherlock Holmes'.
Also Conan Doyle commented "At the same time a man cannot spin a character out of his own inner consciousness and make it really lifelike unless he has some possibilities of that character within him" and we know Conan Doyle was involved in several real like cases with George Edalji being perhaps the best known.
But we don't say Sherlock Holmes was "historical" even though heavy amounts of Joseph Bell and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle went into his creation.
In the matter of whether you are a mythicist, it is your mind and not my mind that exercises authority.
What I am saying is, my views of mythicism are in no way changed if you are a mythicist or not.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
There are many possibilities. How do you calculate the most likely?
I'm glad my work was of use to you.
The highly improbable hypothesis that Paul was referring to Serapis, of course requires no more evidence from you than that? It is simply another of the "contrarian" stuff you blurt out as soon as it enters your brain.
How "likely" is that, and why? This is all very loopy stuff.
The highly improbable hypothesis that Pauline writers were referring to your Dead Obscure HJ requires evidence which you cannot ever present.
The Pauline character with the NOMINA SACRA IU XU was the Lord KU who is God from heaven.
Serapis was God from heaven.
Dead Obscure HJ is the very least likely character with the Nomina Sacra for the Lord [KU] who is GOD in the Pauline Corpus.
See Papyri 46.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-7.html
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
So you would conclude that he didn't exist, right?
I don't know if the numbers are suspicious, because there are certainly a lot of occurrences of the name Jesus. However, I wonder how many times the name Jesus appears on it's own, i.e. as distinct from it being written a "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"?
And I also don't know whether what was actually written was the specific name "Jesus Christ" (for example), or whether what in fact appears is a so-called "Nomina Sacra" or some other abbreviation or other translated word.
But afaik, we are of course talking here at the earliest about P46 circa 200 AD. So what was actually written by Paul around c.50-60 AD, if anything at all was written by him, we do not of course know.
But as I said before - this is one of the problems that is pervasive throughout every last tiny bit of this entire subject. I.e. the fact that we are always dealing with late anonymous copies, and with modern translations into English, made from texts written in early Greek, and sometimes also Greek translations of much earlier Hebrew, and where you do not have to read very far in this subject without discovering all sorts of disagreements about what the correct translations should really be etc.
No. Why should I have any idea of whether he existed or not?
I have barely even heard of the name of that figure,
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I don't think they are parallels but I do think they only meet at infinity.
- Status