How? ediited While the gospels contain a number of allegories in the form of Jesus' teachings, the gospels are not allegories themselves as you erroneously assert, and in literary form they conform to the ancient category of bios, which narrated the life of a significant historical figure.You previously edited
What emotions cause mythicists to deny the historicity of Jesus? Maybe they're afraid Jesus will cast them into hell.I would not put them in the same league as holocaust deniers and YECs. There is some evidence that Jesus mythers and holocaust deniers believe these things for political and emotional reasons. YECs usually believe in it because of what they believe is actual evidence plus also they feel like they are being true to the Bible, whether they actually are or not and whether there actually is evidence for a young earth or not.
You are EDIT personal attackI could care less what "everyone" thinks of my position... some will share it, some will oppose it, some will respect it, some will mock it --- that's life. I value the opinions people have of me within my sphere of influence, those of random people on the Internet not so much. I do think it sensible to reject, as you refer to them, "superstitions and myths" as there is no good evidence such things exist or have any bearing whatsoever on my life or that of others. Now if those others want to believe in such things, that is their business and I respect and would defend their right to believe so, just as they ought to show me the same courtesy not to believe in such things.
The correct interpretation of ancient texts is not there for "all to enjoy" but to fairly represent what the authors meant to convey. You have shown time and again you have no respect for this... you distort the plainest of readings to support your position, all the while inferring reverence for these texts and the individual who wrote them. Talk about hypocrisy within one's position...
How previously edited
While the gospels contain a number of allegories in the form of Jesus' teachings, the gospels are not allegories themselves as you erroneously assert, and in literary form they conform to the ancient category of bios, which narrated the life of a significant historical figure.
Yet again, it is perfectly consistent for me to have my beliefs and Paul to have his beliefs... I can accurately describe Paul's beliefs and demonstrate that they cohere with those of the gospel authors on the matter of the historical Jesus and his alleged resurrection from the dead without subscribing to any of the supernatural elements. This is not a difficult concept to grasp...You don’t believe any supernatural events occurred in the Gospels from beginning to end, eg., from the virgin birth to the resurrection, YET, you want others to believe Paul taught what you don’t believe.
I doubt it.Does anyone besides me see a problem with that?
A rather condescending intention.I prefer to elevate awareness of everyone to a level I hold myself.
If it's so rational and evidence-based, why is no one following the path to embrace your rather bizarre reconstruction of Christian origins and idiosyncratic blending of the supernatural and atheist claptrap about a mythic Jesus?Moreover, I offer a rational, evidence based path for everyone to get there.
Your understanding of my post is no better than your understanding of the biblical texts. The poster challenged your categorization of the gospels themselves as allegories, which they are not... they are bioi that happen to contain a handful of allegories embedded within Jesus' teaching such as that of the sower or the wicked servants.Because he erroneously asserts that there is “NO” evidence for allegory, which you admit is wrong below when you agree that there is evidence for allegory.
Because s/he is not wrong in challenging your claim about the gospels being allegories.Why don’t you tell him he is wrong then...
I've made no secret of the extent of my participation in this thread... I am defending the existence of the historical Jesus sans the supernatural.Your ok with them remaining in ignorance because you appear as their defender, even when you deny their beliefs.
Your understanding of the criterion of embarrassment appears deficient as it focuses too narrowly on the concept of authorial shame and not enough on the strategies used to overcome it. Let's start with an overview of the criterion from within historical Jesus studies:As you may know Jesus historians use this "criterion of embarrassment" to try to decide what parts of the Gospels are factual. The reasoning is that if somebody writes something that that writer would feel ashamed of, then that writer must be enduring the shame because he wants to get the truth out. There are many difficulties with this criterion. As I have just mentioned, an astute propagandist knows better than to make up a story that's too "clean" and so will include some uncomplimentary parts in his story. Also, we really don't know that the crucifixion story was embarrassing to the Gospel writers. If there are embarrassing facts about a real Jesus that might turn people off about him, then logically his biographers would have omitted those facts.
The same stratification of Christologies touched on above in the gospels is found in the epistolary traditions of the New Testament, which is a major stumbling block for the mythicist position, which posits a cosmic divine Christ followed by a historicized human Jesus... precisely the opposite trajectory undergirds both gospels and letters. In terms of the former one need only compare the repentant Jesus who is endowed with the divine spirit at his baptism and thereafter works wonders in Mark with the creator who descends to earth and walks around as an omniscient deity among people in John. In my previous post I pointed to Rom 1:4 as evidence of such stratification in the Pauline corpus, which came up elsewhere in the thread and what I posted there bears repeating:You lost me here. Why is it unlikely that "diverse Christologies" would emerge if Jesus was not historical? A mythological Christ might have easily been created as the Son of God at the resurrection. That sounds pretty mythological to me! How many historical people can fit that description?
Your post here is way too verbose. If you want me to respond to it, then please post the main points you want me to critique.Your understanding of the criterion of embarrassment appears deficient as it focuses too narrowly on the concept of authorial shame and not enough on the strategies used to overcome it. Let's start with an overview of the criterion from within historical Jesus studies:
Material in the Gospels is sometimes judged to be historically accurate if it is likely to have caused some discomfort among the early Christians who treasured the earliest traditions about Jesus and wrote them down. The point of this criterion is simply that Christians would not have made up stories that caused problems for the church...
In such instances, the Gospel author clearly would have no incentive for inventing the tradition about Jesus that he is reporting; rather, he must struggle to explain some piece of the tradition that he acknowledges to be ostensibly accurate. (Powell 61, 62).
Perhaps a propagandist might slip in a few unsavory details just to keep things "real" (do you have any undisputed examples of this from the first century comparable to what you allege of the gospel authors?), but this misses the point that they would hardly do so using something at cross purposes with their own agenda. Your scenario also doesn't take into account that the earliest form of the tradition does not always appear to cause embarrassment for its author or the community within which and for which he wrote, but rather for those engaging with it outside that circle and with different Christological ideas (more on that below). For example, Mark narrates Jesus' baptism by John nonchalantly... only the other three gospel writers seem to have a problem with the implication of Jesus undergoing a baptism for the forgiveness of sins --- Matthew makes it clear Jesus does so for other reasons, Luke distances his protagonist from the agent of that baptism and John omits narrating the event entirely, at best implying it took place. It is no coincidence that these three gospels roll Jesus' divine sonship back from his baptism (Mark) to his birth (Matthew and Luke) or even earlier (John).
With respect to crucifixion:
Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on a well-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, denied burial, and left to be eaten by birds and beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule. (Green 3:2392)
It strains credulity to suggest that early Christians might not be embarrassed by the notion that their founder was executed in a manner aimed to maximize the condemned individual's shame in their society. That the early believers built an ethos around a subversive challenge to ideas about honor and shame speaks to the aforementioned strategies that factor little to not into your understanding of the criterion. Further to this is the embarrassment of the charge of sedition itself and the political implications... as the story evolves, more and more blame is pinned on the Jewish people to the point that they are the implied executioners in the gospels of Luke and John --- see further my expanded analysis of anti-Judaism and the execution of Jesus from six months ago here. That this process is already in its nascent stages in Mark speaks to a period of oral development of the strategy, which complicates the hypothesis of a historicizing tendency initiated by Mark, particularly one (still) infused with political embarrassment that later authors must disarm.
The same stratification of Christologies touched on above in the gospels is found in the epistolary traditions of the New Testament, which is a major stumbling block for the mythicist position, which posits a cosmic divine Christ followed by a historicized human Jesus... precisely the opposite trajectory undergirds both gospels and letters. In terms of the former one need only compare the repentant Jesus who is endowed with the divine spirit at his baptism and thereafter works wonders in Mark with the creator who descends to earth and walks around as an omniscient deity among people in John. In my previous post I pointed to Rom 1:4 as evidence of such stratification in the Pauline corpus, which came up elsewhere in the thread and what I posted there bears repeating:
Virtually every phrase represents language or theological understanding not found elsewhere in Paul, which is why scholars think Paul adopted the language from others. Who would be concerned to identify Jesus as the son of David? (Other) Judean believers, so the words in 1:3b-4b are identified as part of an early Judean Christ-believing creed utilized by Paul. (Taylor 225)
In my previous post I focused on Jesus' designation as 'Son of God' at the resurrection (to which I will return momentarily), but here I want to focus on the element in the previous verse... namely Jesus' physical descent from David --- the notion that there would be a descendant of David who would restore his ancestor's monarchical line was one of several competing messianic ideas that developed during the post-exilic period. The concept is demonstrably pre-Pauline and turns up at the beginning of his letter to the Roman believers as a fragment of shared tradition between them. A similar stratification is found in Luke's two-volume work, which juxtaposes a number of Christologies, including one in which Jesus is a physical descendant of David through his natural father Joseph. In speeches attributed to Peter and Paul in Acts Jesus is said to be of David's loins (2:30) and the promised seed (13:23) respectively, which echo the aforementioned pre-Pauline tradition:
Luke's rendition of early Christian preaching, then, reproduces this conviction of Paul and the earlier Jewish Christian credo that the Davidic line of descent continued down to Jesus through his father's seed. (Lincoln 641)
In all three cases, this physical descent of Jesus from David is then connected to post-resurrection exaltation (Acts 2:36; 13:33; Rom 1:4). As noted in my earlier post, this is the earliest Christological formulation, both juxtaposed and subordinated in each collection to a later and higher Christological formulation in which Jesus is born the 'Son of God' (Luke 1:35) or sent into the world already as divine son (Gal 4:4), a preexistent such being (1 Cor 10:4; Phil 2:6). The point is not simply that there are diverse Christologies, but that they appear stratified in both the gospel and epistolary traditions with trajectories moving from low to high Christology. This is not what we should find if Jesus begins as a cosmic savior god according to the mythicist position and its proponents have failed to adequately explain this evidence in the primary sources... the historical Jesus position, on the other hand, can explain all this evidence.
Green, Joel B. "The Death of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (4 vols; Brill, 2011)
Lincoln, Andrew T. "Luke and Jesus' Conception: A Case of Double Paternity?" Journal of Biblical Literature 132.3 (2013) 639-58
Powell, Mark Allan. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Second Edition; WJK Press, 2013)
Taylor, Walter F. Paul: Apostle to the Nations: An Introduction (Fortress Press, 2012)
My post stands as a critique of your position... whether you respond to it in whole or in part or not at all is entirely up to you.Your post here is way too verbose. If you want me to respond to it, then please post the main points you want me to critique.
It was prophesied that the Jews would reject Jesus as their Messiah, the chief cornerstone. The Jews are still looking for their Messiah to come.Read Dohertys, “Jesus: Neither God nor Man”, a poetry of logic which demolishes any idea of a historical Christ, as written in the Gospels stories.
Most of his evidence comes from the Bible itself. To get to the point, does anyone actually believe Jesus was Superman flying through the clouds according to Gospel myths? Nope, so there was no historical Superman, named, Jesus. The Gospels are allegory, mythical constructs, written in genre of scriptural histiography, and many scholars recognize this.
Of course, there were individuals who had the anointing of Christ, for example, Paul, and the Teacher of Righteousness (67 B.C.), and others. So, in that sense, Christ is historical, having indwelled specific individuals.
If one categorizes the epistles distinct from the Gospels, one can easily discern the former describing a cosmic Christ who died at the foundation of the world, and the latter personifies the Christ as manifesting in the first century. The reconciliation between epistles and Gospels is that the Gospel authors canonized Paul’s epistles through personifying Paul’s inner Christ (Galatians 2:20) as the Yeshua manifest in the first century. As a genre, it means the Gospel authors INTERPRETED actual history and rewrote their interpretation into the Gospel narratives, —scriptural histiography. Simply, actual historical Paul in the first century = mythical Jesus in the Gospels anchored in the first century. Accordingly, the Gospel of Paul = the Gospel of Jesus.
The confusion starts when people assume the Gospel stories came before the epistles. Truly, the epistles came first then the Gospel narratives. The Gospel stories are mythicizing the cosmic Christ described in the epistles. The true Christ is cosmic and never a solitary human being.
The problem with Biblical scholars is that they are not likely to invalidate their own beliefs and practices of going to church every Sunday where Jesus is taught as historical, that is, the flying Superman Jesus. It takes someone willing to think ”outside the box” (i.e., outside the indoctrination of Christian orthodoxy) to objectively arrive at the truth.
I did the research and it led me away from believing in superstitions and myths. There is a better way of understanding what the authors intended in scripture but it is a long explanation and probably something you are not interested in. Not until someone is open to a better explanation will the explanation be known. I respect the choice to believe what you do but there is a better explanation. It cannot be forced on anyone. People must be seeking it.It was prophesied that the Jews would reject Jesus as their Messiah, the chief cornerstone. The Jews are still looking for their Messiah to come.
In Zechariah 12:9-10 has the Lord coming back to do battle against those who march against Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews will see Him Whom they had pierced and mourn, finally knowing that Jesus Christ is their Messiah. in Zechariah 14:1-5, This same Lord God returns touches down on the Mount of Olives with His feet. So as His ascension appear incredulous to modern scholars, yet His return from the skies has been foretold even in the Old Testament.
Again, the Book of Zechariah is in the Old Testament. There are other verses that testify to the Jews that Jesus is God and that Jesus had appeared to them in the Old Testament as the Lord, men had seen BEFORE His incarnation as the Son of Man to give His life as a ransom for many.
I doubt those modern scholars looked for the truth regarding Jesus Christ. Thallus, a secular historian, was reported by Julius Africanus that the unexplained darkness at Jesus crucifixion was an eclipse, but Julius Africanus, a Jewish turned Christian historian, said it was unlikely because there was a full moon as they hold the Passover per Jewish traditions 15 days from the New Moon, so there was no eclipse.
Feel free to examine 2 other historians about that unexplained supernatural darkness at His crucifixion.
Is there historical evidence for the darkness & earthquake at the crucifixion?
It is easy to mock by looking for other mockers claiming to be honest researchers, but God's promise is true that all those that seek, shall find.
So maybe you ought to do your own research rather than rely on unbelieving researchers if you really want to find the truth that the unbelieving world would rather keep hidden. Yes, there are people who hate God that would keep the truth from you. You need to wake up, and even ask God to help you find the truth in Jesus Christ.
And that is all we can do as humans under the laws for flesh in government. But the laws of God for Spirit is another matter.I can only speak for myself, but I'm a very responsible person and try to live within society's rules and laws the best way I can. I recognize the authorities as ruling over us to keep order.
Yes, but if Christ exists then even things you do in private will be judged. That is what many unbelievers dont want to be judged.I can only speak for myself, but I'm a very responsible person and try to live within society's rules and laws the best way I can. I recognize the authorities as ruling over us to keep order.
If that is how you had researched it, then that is all you had researched it.I did the research and it led me away from believing in superstitions and myths.
If you judge others like that, you mat set the standard for how you may be judged as your mind made up.There is a better way of understanding what the authors intended in scripture but it is a long explanation and probably something you are not interested in.
I can testify that I have been led astray by the church, the world, and my own sinful flesh. Thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd, He has made me hear & see His words about how bad it will be for the churches in the later days before He comes in how there will be a falling away from the faith. Paul, Peter, & John also warned that this would happen. So I am not representing any church, but the truth in Jesus Christ.Not until someone is open to a better explanation will the explanation be known. I respect the choice to believe what you do but there is a better explanation. It cannot be forced on anyone. People must be seeking it.
I am ok being judged and judging others by the evidence and right reason. If we judge by emotional testimony only as below then I have that too but then it is only opinion versus opinion at that point.If that is how you had researched it, then that is all you had researched it.
If you judge others like that, you mat set the standard for how you may be judged as your mind made up.
Good testimony with a lot of emotion, but entirely subjective. I have seen grown, educated, good men in the LDS give the same heart-felt testimony about Jesus in their lives. Does their heart-felt testimony warrant my faith in their sect? I also know Muslims too who feel the same about their religion. Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The point is that emotion is not a measure of truth. It is a measure of feeling. At the end of the day truth must be measured by evidence and right reason. It is the only thing that matters.I can testify that I have been led astray by the church, the world, and my own sinful flesh. Thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd, He has made me hear & see His words about how bad it will be for the churches in the later days before He comes in how there will be a falling away from the faith. Paul, Peter, & John also warned that this would happen. So I am not representing any church, but the truth in Jesus Christ.
I can share spooky supernatural events that I had to call on Jesus for help. Evil spirits exists, but unless you experience them, you would never know.
The fact that I was exposed to the "holy laughter" movement at my Aunt's church several states away, feeling a hand pushing me to go forward when no one was in the pews near me behind me, three times, made me wonder what was going on. Nothing happened when that person pushed me on my head to knock me back for 2 catchers to lower me to the ground, & I was praying for healing to my deaf left ear and my constant tinnitus in my right ear. So I got up, walked away mad. Then the Lord led me to read a newsletter from David Wilkerson on the role of the Holy Spirit in that He would never seek the spotlight nor draw attention towards Himself, but testify of the Son in seeking His glory.
Then 1 John 4:1-6 about testing the spirits led me to discern that any spirit felt outside of us is the spirit of the antichrist. So all testimonies of the spirit coming over saved believers later in life, even to bring tongues for why they assume is for private use, was not the Holy Spirit and why that tongue was babbling nonsense as found in the world of the occult, and idolatries way back in Roman days. The Bible warned against it.
So the spirit of the antichrist is by how it is used in scripture means "instead of Christ" or to be precise "instead of the Son" rather than against Christ. Jesus pointed out the iniquity of broadening the way which I was led to discern including the worship of the Holy Spirt with the Father & the Son and so with the devil roaming around like a devouring lion, they that believe the lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation, will be suffering a thief to break through, hence God is permitting that strong delusion to occur. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15
So phenomena like slain in the spirit, holy laughter movement, Toronto's Blessings, Pensacola Outpouring, and Ernest Angeley's Healing Crusade that puts the focus on the Holy Spirit in worship is why those spirits of the antichrists came as their visitation brings about signs and confusion which God is not the author of.
It is for this and other iniquities for why God will judge His House first. This is why when He comes back as the Bridegroom, many saved believers will be denied by Him for being in unrepentant iniquity which denies Him and be left behind for the fire that is coming on the earth that will burn up one third of the earth ( the western hemisphere ) serving as a catalyst for the New World Order and their mark of the beast system which is a biochip to buy & sell as it will be the only means to do so in order to survive during the great tribulation for the rest of the world.
So when you see Jesus Christ at the rapture event, and then afterwards, hearing the angel sharing the everlasting gospel heard all over the world, you still have a chance as an unbeliever to call on Jesus Christ to be saved, and your spirit will be with the Lord after you die to await along with other saved believers that will die that gets left behind, to be resurrected after the great tribulation to serve the King of kings on earth.
I have personal experiences as well as knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and so I know it is not a myth or superstitions seeing how He came to my rescue.
Indeed, I was reading something in the Upper Room or the Daily Bread booklets that said "Decide this day whom you will serve; the Lord Jesus Christ or something else in His name". For some oddball reason at that time, I felt an urgency to make that decision, and so I said out loud, You, of course, but that sense of urgency remained. So then I said "Please help me to do this" and that sense of urgency was replaced with His peace. A week later, I was confronted with the supernatural at my Aunt's church and it took me a while afterwards to figure out that was what the Lord was warning me about. Duh. Definitely needed Him to keep me from serving that in His name in seeking the glory of that movement. Big wop. I got pushed from behind by an unseen hand 3 times. So what? But the supernatural was what the other believers in that church were falling for. Even though I did not believe in it, thanks to the Lord, I know these apostates movements are real for why they are wanting to believe that was the Holy Spirit when it wasn't. Anti Christ as "instead of Christ Jesus Himself" happened & they are astray, but Jesus kept me from going astray in serving that movement in seeking the glory of that movement.
Anyway, Jesus is my Good Shepherd & Friend and not just my Savior. I hope you will be honest with yourself because God's promise is true that all those that seek, shall find. I am not going to any church because of iniquities abounding within them, but thanks to Jesus Christ, I am serving Him in seeking His glory while He keeps me from my sins from having dominion over me and my life to abide in Him to be fruitful & have joy while He enables me to suffer the times I am living in.
May God lead you to search anew, and find Him to believe in Him, otherwise, at the rapture event, you will know the Truth to call on Him to be saved when that fiery calamity comes to burn up one third of the earth so that your spirit will be saved and be in Heaven present with the Lord Jesus Christ.
In effect, I did testify that you have to experience the relationship with the Lord in order for you to know Him.I am ok being judged and judging others by the evidence and right reason. If we judge by emotional testimony only as below then I have that too but then it is only opinion versus opinion at that point.
Good testimony with a lot of emotion, but entirely subjective. I have seen grown, educated, good men in the LDS give the same heart-felt testimony about Jesus in their lives. Does their heart-felt testimony warrant my faith in their sect? I also know Muslims too who feel the same about their religion. Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The point is that emotion is not a measure of truth. It is a measure of feeling. At the end of the day truth must be measured by evidence and right reason. It is the only thing that matters. BTW, “Jesus” is Truth, according to the scriptures. That is where I am at.
Best of luck to you.