RealityRules wrote:

Ducktown wrote:
The history of Jesus is really a history of inventing an HJ. Yes, these writings are historical in the sense that they occurred but certainly do not make the case for an HJ. There is an historical HJ story but no HJ. This is the best way to explain all the disagreement and contradictions about who and what this guy was, or what inspired the stories about him. it's about the authors, not the story the author wrote.

I agree. Here's part of an review of Thomas Brodie's book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery
at Amazon

A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012

... As Brodie puts it, "If a newspaper announces cheap flights to Mars, it is important to note whether the advertisement occurs in the Travel Section or in the Cartoons-and-Jokes Page. Clarity on the literary factor is Rule One." (122)
The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. "In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data." (159)

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/product-reviews/190753458X

The reviewer, Tom Dykstra, has relatively-recently published

Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel

I totally agree - the genre of the literature is the context within which any understanding must take place.

This is a fundamental observation which cannot be ignored.

RealityRules wrote:
A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012

... As Brodie puts it, "If a newspaper announces cheap flights to Mars, it is important to note whether the advertisement occurs in the Travel Section or in the Cartoons-and-Jokes Page. Clarity on the literary factor is Rule One." (122)
The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. "In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data." (159)

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/product-reviews/190753458X
The reviewer, Tom Dykstra, has relatively-recently published

Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel

I disagree with the claim "the gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history...".

Anyone who is familiar with the Gospels will easily see that the Jesus character was not historicised.

The Gospels appear to have been intentionally written to portray Jesus as Divine.

The claim in the Gospels that Jesus of Nazareth was a TRANSFIGURING Water walker, born of a Ghost and was God Creator does not look like history, intentional or not.

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:
A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012

... As Brodie puts it, "If a newspaper announces cheap flights to Mars, it is important to note whether the advertisement occurs in the Travel Section or in the Cartoons-and-Jokes Page. Clarity on the literary factor is Rule One." (122)
The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. "In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data." (159)

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/product-reviews/190753458X
The reviewer, Tom Dykstra, has relatively-recently published

Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel

I disagree with the claim "the gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history...".

Anyone who is familiar with the Gospels will easily see that the Jesus character was not historicised.

The Gospels appear to have been intentionally written to portray Jesus as Divine.

The claim in the Gospels that Jesus of Nazareth was a TRANSFIGURING Water walker, born of a Ghost and was God Creator does not look like history, intentional or not.

I find I must agree with your analysis - histories were already being written at this stage, and they were not like the gospel tales.

RealityRules wrote:A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012

... The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. "In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data." (159)

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/product-reviews/190753458X

dejuror wrote: I disagree with the claim "the gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history...".

Sure, but the NT has been redacted to appear to be history, and has been widely portrayed as being history.

RealityRules wrote:

RealityRules wrote:A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012

... The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. "In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data." (159)

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Discovery/product-reviews/190753458X

dejuror wrote: I disagree with the claim "the gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history...".

Sure, but the NT has been redacted to appear to be history, and has been widely portrayed as being history.

I disagree with your statement.

The very Gospels show that more and more mythology were added to the Jesus story.

The Synoptics are clear examples where the supposed LATER Gospels have FAR MORE MYTH than the short gMark.

.
I'd say it was likely that both (i) myth was added, and they were (ii) written and redacted to look like history.

RealityRules wrote:.
I'd say it was likely that both (i) myth was added, and they were (ii) written and redacted to look like history.

Which part of the Jesus story looks like history?

In gMark, Jesus was the Son of God, a Transfiguring Water Walker who was raised from the dead.

LATER, the author of gMatthew ADDED that Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Afer gMatthew, the author of gLuke also admitted his Jesus was the Product of an OVERSHADOWING Ghost and a Virgin.

In the last version of the Gospel Jesus story, gJohn, the Jesus character is UPGRADED to GOD CREATOR from the beginning .

In Acts, Jesus the Son of God resurrects and ASCENDS in a CLOUD.

In the Pauline Corpus, Jesus is the LORD from heaven, God Creator and God's Own Son who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

The Jesus story does NOT look like history in any version of the NT Canon.

Even, Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" demonstrated that even stories of Jesus that appear to be plausible at face value most likely did not happen.

The stories of Jesus appear to be INTENTIONAL Propaganda.

The people of antiquity who BELIEVED the NT stories of Jesus most likely had NO historical data to contradict the Myth/Fiction stories in the so-called Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
I'd say it was likely that both (i) myth was added, and they were (ii) written and redacted to look like history.

Which part of the Jesus story looks like history?

In gMark, Jesus was the Son of God, a Transfiguring Water Walker who was raised from the dead.

LATER, the author of gMatthew ADDED that Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Afer gMatthew, the author of gLuke also admitted his Jesus was the Product of an OVERSHADOWING Ghost and a Virgin.

In the last version of the Gospel Jesus story, gJohn, the Jesus character is UPGRADED to GOD CREATOR from the beginning .

In Acts, Jesus the Son of God resurrects and ASCENDS in a CLOUD.

In the Pauline Corpus, Jesus is the LORD from heaven, God Creator and God's Own Son who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

The Jesus story does NOT look like history in any version of the NT Canon.

Even, Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" demonstrated that even stories of Jesus that appear to be plausible at face value most likely did not happen.

The stories of Jesus appear to be INTENTIONAL Propaganda.

The people of antiquity who BELIEVED the NT stories of Jesus most likely had NO historical data to contradict the Myth/Fiction stories in the so-called Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

It certainly isn't history anymore than any modern novel with names and places and events is history. But I don't think it is propaganda either, at least certainly not initially, and anymore so than any fictional work is propaganda.

What these stories are more than anything else is midrash. The parallels and similarities between these stories and the stories in the OT, right down to the composition of the dialogue is the same thing. This is the way people communicated new ideas about tradition and related that tradition to everyday life. Some detractors from this claim say that midrash didn't exist at the time and that rather these stories are eyewitness accounts. If that is so it means every OT story is an eyewitness account, and that is not a defensible position. And the gnostic influence is obvious as well.

The Israelites didn't wander for years in the desert. Moses didn't mystically duke it out with pharaoh on the banks of the Nile. These stories were composed like any other stories by authors intent on communicating a message, not relating history or trying to record history. These are stories about authors, not eyewitnesses, at least the initial accounts. Later, certainly they were altered. We know that is historical fact as forgeries abound.

The two historicist pillars are that Jesus was baptized by John - quite embarrassing but beautifully novel, and that Jesus was put to death. The first of these is easily explained and dismissed as literature. The second doesn't give historicity to Mark's story as lots of guys by this name were obviously put to death. Along with all the miraculous events contained within this anonymous narrative, it falls into the category of literature, not history, and is obviously quite fictional.

dejuror wrote:

The stories of Jesus appear to be INTENTIONAL Propaganda.

The people of antiquity who BELIEVED the NT stories of Jesus most likely had NO historical data to contradict the Myth/Fiction stories in the so-called Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Ducktown wrote:
It certainly isn't history anymore than any modern novel with names and places and events is history. But I don't think it is propaganda either, at least certainly not initially, and anymore so than any fictional work is propaganda.

As soon as one examines Apologetic writings of antiquity it easily seen that the Jesus story was propaganda.

Virtually all Christians writings which mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the SON of their own God.

The NT is a compilation of fables about Jesus of Nazareth God's Own Son.

1. "The Apology" attributed to Aristides states or implies that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

2. "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr states or implies that the Jews KILLED the Just one [the Son of God]

3. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus states that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

4. "Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

5. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

6. "Expository Treatise Against the Jews" attributed to Hippolytus states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

7. "How the Persecutors Died" attributed to Lactantius states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

8. Acts of the Apostles states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

9. The Pauline Corpus states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

10. "Demonstration of the Gospel" attributed to Eusebius states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

11. "Against the Donatists" attributed to Optatus states or implies the Jews Killed the Son of God.

12. "Against the Jews" attributed to Chrysostom states or im-plies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming.

People of antiquity who BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God were called CHRISTIANS.

The Jesus story was FABRICATED as propaganda to blame the Jews for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God.

The Jesus story is NOT history but appears to be INTENTIONAL propaganda.

The Christian cult was initiated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The myther Amen corner.

Stein

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

The stories of Jesus appear to be INTENTIONAL Propaganda.

The people of antiquity who BELIEVED the NT stories of Jesus most likely had NO historical data to contradict the Myth/Fiction stories in the so-called Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Ducktown wrote:
It certainly isn't history anymore than any modern novel with names and places and events is history. But I don't think it is propaganda either, at least certainly not initially, and anymore so than any fictional work is propaganda.

As soon as one examines Apologetic writings of antiquity it easily seen that the Jesus story was propaganda.

Virtually all Christians writings which mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the SON of their own God.

The NT is a compilation of fables about Jesus of Nazareth God's Own Son.

1. "The Apology" attributed to Aristides states or implies that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

2. "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr states or implies that the Jews KILLED the Just one [the Son of God]

3. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus states that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

4. "Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

5. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

6. "Expository Treatise Against the Jews" attributed to Hippolytus states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

7. "How the Persecutors Died" attributed to Lactantius states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

8. Acts of the Apostles states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

9. The Pauline Corpus states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

10. "Demonstration of the Gospel" attributed to Eusebius states or implies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

11. "Against the Donatists" attributed to Optatus states or implies the Jews Killed the Son of God.

12. "Against the Jews" attributed to Chrysostom states or im-plies the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming.

People of antiquity who BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God were called CHRISTIANS.

The Jesus story was FABRICATED as propaganda to blame the Jews for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God.

The Jesus story is NOT history but appears to be INTENTIONAL propaganda.

The Christian cult was initiated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

I find myself in agreement with yet another detailed and relevant post from you, dejuror.

The canonical literature (and the apocrypha and 'heretical' literature) isn't just an amusement to while away the hours, but aimed at being persuasive and authoritative. - propaganda of the first order.

While I'm willing to consider that some of the authors may have thought they were communicating spiritual truths, they certainly do not seem to have had much (if any) regard for the literal truth.

Writings attributed to Christians of antiquity confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was considered a Spiritual being without question up to at least the end of the 2nd century or later.

Christians of antiquity according to Tertullian were in agreement or conceded that Jesus was Spiritual.

Christians of antiquity did NOT agree or concede that Jesus was in the Flesh.

Examine on "The Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist?

Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

The mere fact that the existence of Jesus in the FLESH was DISPUTED by Christians of antiquity up to at least the END of the 2nd century and later suggest that there was NO established historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, in "On the Flesh of Christ" the writings of Josephus and Tacitus were NOT used at all to show that writers of the 1st century mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

The claim that Jesus had Flesh was based almost entirely on supposed Prophecies in the Septuagint or a similar source and the NT.

Even up to the 5th century Christians ARGUED that Jesus was NOT born.

Examine Contra Faustus attributed to Augustine of Hippo.

Contra Faustus 2

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly.

Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.

It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men...

There was NO historical data for Jesus of Nazareth up to the 5th century.

The argument for an historical Jesus cannot be maintained.

The argument for an HJ was ALWAYS void of the supporting historical evidence from antiquity.

Bible scholars are beginning to explore the notion of an 'early' High Christology.

Will this reversal about this alleged evidence of a man becoming a myth have any impact on the 'consensus'?

It seems that a growing number of scholars (thinking in particular here of Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham and others who approvingly cite them on this question, and now even Bart Ehrman) have in recent years been taking up the argument that the followers of Jesus took up the view that Jesus was exalted to a very high divine status almost from the moment he was believed to have stepped out of his tomb.

Why is this happening? One would think that the gradual evolutionary view that Jesus’ exaltation to the godhead would accord more with a “plausible historicity”. We are regularly reminded how Jews abhorred the notion of a human being considered divine (though with many qualifications given the Second Temple evidence for persons like Moses being thought of as divine by at least some Jewish authors) and that it must have been with the increase in numbers of gentiles joining the church that the notion of a divine human was conceived and grew.

There are, as we know, problems even with this evolutionary explanation. One of these is that the evidence we have points to a high Christology appearing in the record before we find the humanizing tendencies...

<full article at link>

http://vridar.org/2015/04/02/why-schola ... ristology/

.
Lataster, Raphael "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief PseudoBayesian
Metacritique of the Sources." Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/imwjournal/vol6/iss1/5

Conclusion
None of the sources used to establish Jesus’ historicity or to provide authentic historical material
regarding Jesus’ sayings and deeds are beyond scrutiny. All of the sources offer multiple challenges to
historians. Many of the sources show clear signs of allegory, interpolation, fraud, myth, and subjectivity ...

.

A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Zwaarddijk wrote:A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Can you give an example?

Are there any figures whose existence you consider to be questionable?

Thanks in advance!

I dont believe in jesus's existence on the same level as I dont accept the existence of a deity of any kind.

There characters from the Dark Ages that I would have problems with. There are a couple of Dutch and German ones from the same time as well.

RealityRules wrote:.
I'd say it was likely that both (i) myth was added, and they were (ii) written and redacted to look like history.

Like a Hubbard inventing Scientology?

proudfootz wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Can you give an example?

Are there any figures whose existence you consider to be questionable?

Thanks in advance!

Do you think Jesus is the most recent example of such a guy?

If Robin Hood's existence were widely accepted, I'd use him as an example - doesn't seem to be any good reason to think he existed, yet some people seem convinced he did. Maybe a better example would be Bishop Henry of Uppsala (12th century), in case he did not exist. At least a few scholars doubt his existence.

So, do you have any other candidates for ahistorical people that have been mistaken for historical ones? Is Jesus the most recent one that such a mistake has happened with in your view?

The Mormon religion is a perfect modern example of how religions are started.

The Mormon religion was able to be started BY Josephn Smith because people BELIEVE Angels, God and Sons of God Exist.


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

The Angel Moroni (/moʊˈroʊnaɪ/[1]) is, in Mormonism, an angel that visited Joseph Smith on numerous occasions, beginning on September 21, 1823. According to Smith, the angel was the guardian of the golden plates, which Latter Day Saints believe were the source material for the Book of Mormon, buried in a hill near Smith's home in western New York. Moroni is an important figure in the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement, and is featured prominently in Mormon architecture and art. Three Witnesses besides Smith also reported that they saw Moroni in visions in 1829, as did several other witnesses who each said they had their own vision.

If people in 1830 did NOT believe that Angels, Gods and Son of God existed then Joseph Smith claims may have been REJECTED as a lunatic or a liar.

Religions do NOT require historical Angels, Gods and Sons of God.

Religions REQUIRE BELIEF.

The Christian Cult of antiquity was started when it was BELIEVED that the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED or caused the Son of God to be KILLED AFTER he came down from heaven and told the Jews to REPENT.

Anyone who examines the NT story of Jesus will immediately see that there was ZERO attempt to give Jesus a human father.

God is the Father of Jesus in the NT.

Jesus is the Son of God WITHOUT a human father in ALL books of the NT.

The Jesus story was ACCEPTED because people in the Roman Empire BELIEVED Gods do have Sons.

The main difference between Mormonism and the Christian cults of antiquity is that we don't know the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the Jesus story but Joseph Smith did ADMIT he "copied" the Mormon Bible from the "Golden Plates" provided by the Angel Moroni.