Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[fallingblood]

Mostly theology, as I’ve said. And haven’t you yourself claimed that the ‘gist’ of the Jesus Story itself doesn’t change from gospel to gospel?

So, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is mostly theology? Nope. And I never said that the gist of the Jesus story doesn't change from Gospel to Gospel. That is true for the most part, but I never stated that. I said that in an oral tradition, the gist of the story remains constant.

I don’t accept the 20-year figure. My best guess is that there was no man named Jesus who lived in Judea from 0-33AD. Paul did seem to think that Jesus was historical, but his confusion about Jesus can be explained by a much earlier date for the man himself, I think. It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed that issue, though.

Paul places Jesus as his contemporary. Our sources state that Paul met the brother of Jesus (meaning Jesus was a recent figure). James, the brother of Jesus, is supported by Josephus.

So no, Paul met the brother of Jesus. Since Jesus had a brother still living, that means the Jesus was a recent figure.

And you accept that quick, unembellished claim as irrefutably true? But why?

Are you aware of the internal politics of the church at the time? Have you ever witnessed a modern Christian congregation tear itself apart, with the theological dissenters cast out? It’s all about authority, after all – usually theological authority.

If Paul had actually met the brother of Jesus, it would be a serious feather in his cap of theological authority, I think. He had motive to make a false claim.

That’s just one idea which pops into my head. My point is this: How can you possibly accept as certain truth anything which you read in a 2000-year-old, cobbled together, magic-claiming book? I’m not saying it’s untrue. I’m just wondering about your unquestioning certainty that your favorite parts are true.

One, I have never seen a reasonable argument against this claim of Paul to be true.

Two, we know from Josephus that James, the brother of Jesus, was living during the time of Paul, in the area that Paul stated.

Third, Paul didn't get authority from James, or the Jerusalem church. His authority, as he claimed, came from him having been chosen by Jesus, and having had Jesus appear to him. That is how he claims to have authority. So your suggestion simply doesn't mesh with what Paul states.

Fourth, Paul had problems with James and the Jerusalem church. That isn't something he would make up if he was trying to at the same time claim that he got his authority from James.

Finally, there is no reason to doubt such a claim. Josephus backs up the idea that James, the brother of Jesus, was living during that time. He was a contemporary of Paul, and the leader of the movement that Paul was partially associated with.

You should go tell it to the Christians. I’ve got no dog in the fight. Correct them when they claim that Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews. You’ve got quite a job ahead of you. There are millions and millions of those guys.

But don’t get me wrong. I appreciate a guy making up new terms to explain his theology. As a theologian myself, I’ve done so for years.

I'm not a theologian. As for the opinion of Christians on the Messiah, I honestly have to say that I don't care what the majority of them would say. Bandwagon fallacies simply holds little water.

So it may be a better use of your time to debate the information I have presented instead of using logical fallacies, and trying to attack my credibility.

I think you lectured me because you have a confused understanding of the nature of truth – thinking it an objective thing. Thinking that your personal opinion of things precisely matches the exterior reality. Just my opinion. I’ll explain more if you’re interested.

Because obviously, you know me better than I know myself. Instead of trying to analyze me, in order to simply discredit me, you may want to work on building logical arguments.

In your personal opinion. Yes, I understand that. You’ve made it clear that you hold such an opinion.

It’s hard to believe that you would say such a thing, so easily is it disproven.

I can show you many people who have read all about messianic expectations and have clearly seen that Jesus did indeed fulfill them.

Why should I accept your opinion over theirs? Why would I think of you as the guy who gets to instruct me in what’s true and what’s false?

I see. So everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Objectively wrong.

I don’t want to offend you, Blood, but that really is the outlook of a young mind. Paul and others have carried such certainty into old age, but I’m always hopeful that young minds will come to accept ambiguity as they age.

You have no choice. When you speak, you throw wide open the windows to your mind.

It’s not fair to accuse me of peepingtomism just because I happen to be standing out in the yard.

You actually haven't offered a rebuttal in this whole quoted area. You dismiss what I say, make "witty" remarks, sidestep issues, and attack me instead of the message I'm portraying. There are various logical fallacies included in this quoted area, such as your multiple bandwagon fallacies.

If you want to have a debate, offer a rebuttal to the information the I pose. Don't try to analyze me, dismiss me, or dodge the issue. I'm not wasting anymore time with you if you don't have enough respect for others to carry on a mature conversation.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is the Jewish Messiah. We can read about expectations of this figure from various Jewish sources. As the Messiah is a Jewish figure (they are the ones who the belief began with), it is the Jews who get to define this figure.

<donning my Cloak of Christianity>

They missed it! Jesus fulfilled every last prophecy regarding the Jewish messiah, but the Jews hardened their hearts and rejected him! They actually claim that Jesus didn&#8217;t meet the prophecies, if you can believe such a thing. So why should we Christians pretend that the Jewish messiah never came? He was the Jewish messiah, and those of us who are open to the spirit of God saw the fulfillments and recognized him right away. You dilute His power and legitimacy by speaking of a &#8216;Christian messiah&#8217;. Why do you hate us?

<ok, that&#8217;s enough. this cloak makes me a little crazy.>

Again, the Messiah is for the Jews, it is detailed in Jewish writings, and the idea came from the Jews.

And Jesus fulfilled all the criteria. Every one. Why do you insist otherwise?

Please don&#8217;t send me to some website. Assume that I&#8217;ve read them all. Stand up and argue the issue as best you can, by your own lights. Seriously, I&#8217;ll re-don the cloak and you can try to prove that Jesus didn&#8217;t meet the criteria. I&#8217;m not anything close to a biblical scholar, but I&#8217;m pretty sure that you have no chance of proving your position, even against me.

When he is called the Messiah, in context of first century Palestine, it is understood that the claim is to the Jewish Messiah. However, if we look at the expectations of this Jewish Messiah, Jesus simply does not fulfill those expectations.

I&#8217;ve already told you that it seems like a fine personal opinion. So I&#8217;m unsure why you keep repeating it. But whatever.

All that one needs to do to show this is actually read what the Jews believed about the Messiah. The fact is, Jesus simply does not fill the bill.

I don&#8217;t know what you mean by &#8216;fact.&#8217; Would you mind defining that term for me, in your own words? What is a &#8216;fact&#8217; in your vocabulary?

Now, anyone reading those verses today can see that they don't actually speak about the Messiah.

As I say, this claim is demonstrably false. I can point to millions of individuals who cannot see what you claim they will all see.

First, you would have to show that Jesus is fictional.

Been there; done that; read the thread. Anyone who reads the thread will see that I have proven that Jesus was fictional. (Well, except for those who&#8217;ve hardened their hearts against me, I mean.)

More so, Jesus was the quite recent past. For Paul, he was only writing some 20 years after the fact.

In your opinion, yes. But I don&#8217;t share your opinion.

And in addition, Paul tells us that he met the brother of Jesus. If they really wanted to make a character from the past to embrace, they did not do a very good job by placing him as a contemporary of the earliest followers, and giving him a brother who was alive and a leader among the early followers.

Why do you believe that James was an historical person? Wouldn&#8217;t the gospel writers have a strong motive to create a fictional brother for Jesus?

Really, to create a fictional Messiah, and place him in the recent past is simply ridiculous.

Maybe so, but it seems to have worked out very well for them.

Don&#8217;t retroject your modern assumptions into that ancient world. It wasn&#8217;t at all like things are today. Life was short, brutal, hectic and chaotic. Fifty years was two lifetimes of human memory back then. And even if a few folks had objected, declaring that no such man as Jesus had lived among them, it wouldn&#8217;t have mattered. They would be ignored and forgotten. Written out of the gospel histories. It&#8217;s a mistake to retroject our modern assumptions into that ancient world.

3 shepherds at birth also isn't really mentioned in other birth stories.

Take it up with the scholars who say otherwise. I found that with a quick and casual google search. I&#8217;ll give you the website if you want to go there and correct them.

Meanwhile, they seem more credible to me than you do. Nothing personal.

As for being crucified, that simply doesn't happen. It does not appear in the stories of god-men. You can read the actual sources, and you won't find such an idea.

That may be true. I admit that I simply don&#8217;t care enough about the Bible stories to do source-research. I can only depend on overviews and what the scholars tell me. At the moment, they&#8217;ve convinced me that the crucifixion stories were told about earlier godmen.

As for being resurrected, even that isn't quite true with many of the god-men.

So you&#8217;re admitting that it was true for some of them? Then why do you object so forcefully to the idea of parallels between Jesus and earlier godmen?

If one looks at various god-men, either they aren't actually dead (such as Attis who actually displays various signs of life), or they go through a cycle of dying and rising each year (in conjecture with the season), which is very different from what is said of Jesus.

No, not so different from the Jesus resurrection. It&#8217;s certainly close enough for me to think of Jesus as having been saddled with godmen features.

Prove it. For once, back up your opinion. Dismissing me with a lame retort simply doesn't work.

Oh, my. Now you want me to prove that your own personal opinion of me is just wishful thinking?

You don&#8217;t really know what that word &#8216;prove&#8217; means, do you. How about we start a separate thread, in which I will help you understand what the verb &#8216;prove&#8217; means? Do you think you&#8217;re up to that?

The fact that during one very specific moment, someone created a figure, doesn't mean anything accept that at one point in time, someone created a figure.

HeeHee... you don&#8217;t budge, do you.

The fact that humans are constantly creating heroes (see Star Wars, etc) means that humans have a lust for heroes. It&#8217;s a simple thing to admit. Why let yourself be driven into a corner about such a simple issue. Save your stubborn resistence for the important stuff, is what I recommend.

That simply is not sound logic.

Logic is another area of my expertise. It goes with the language thing. And you are mistaken here. The logic was fine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not wasting anymore time with you....

OK. If you want to drop out of the debate, I won't bother answering your other messages. Let me know if you want to continue.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I simply thought to myself, "Surely he doesn't mean blowfly - they fly about looking for piles of dung." I just thought it a very ironic choice of words.

Ironic? It doesn’t seem so to me. Hey, if someone calls me dung, I assume they must be a blowfly<g>.

But whatever. They are only words.

Visited by three shepherds? Wow, that's a new twist.

Google’s amazing, isn’t it? I recommend it to everyone. Just type something like ‘godman jesus compare’ or somesuch. If you can’t find the site, let me know and I’ll find it for you.

If God chooses to be mythopoeic—and is not the sky itself a myth—shall we refuse to be mythopathic

I have no problem with God as mythopoeic – if I’m understanding that word properly. God is my favorite Guy. We travel together everywhere.

 

[fallingblood]

OK. If you want to drop out of the debate, I won't bother answering your other messages. Let me know if you want to continue.

Read that in context. Or are you just trying to prove me right?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And yes, I can't imagine you are as educated on the matter of oral cultures as I am since you have shown very little to no understanding of it.

I was taking graduate-level courses in linguistics, including considerable study about oral cultures, surely before you were born.

Sorry. Them's the facts.

But if you believe that I misunderstand anything about oral cultures, please point to the specific place where I posted anything which made you come to such a conclusion. Message number. Text.

Vague charges of 'no understanding' just don't cut it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Read that in context. Or are you just trying to prove me right?

As a favor to you, I left out the part of your quote where you cursed me. (I use 'curse' and 'insult' interchangeably, by the way.)

Slightly paraphrased, you said that if I were going to continue to behave immaturely, you were quitting.

But since I have never behaved immaturely, I could not stop behaving immaturely.

Therefore, you are quitting.

It's pretty simple logic, isn't it?

 

[fallingblood]

<donning my Cloak of Christianity>

<ok, that’s enough. this cloak makes me a little crazy.>

Many Christians will also argue that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Honestly, I don't care about this particular opinion. It is not scholarly, it is not well researched, and it has really no bearing on first century Judaism.

And Jesus fulfilled all the criteria. Every one. Why do you insist otherwise?

All you have to do is open any scholarly book on the subject (speaking about the idea of Messianic expectations during the first century, at the time of Jesus), and you will see that he didn't fulfill them. The main expectation was that the Messiah would be a leader who would either free Israel through force, or by some supernatural miracle, from the foreign oppressor. In this case, it was Rome. Did Jesus do that? No. After Jesus died, things became worse. There was still no independent nation of Israel. Instead, Jerusalem and the Temple, the center of Jewish worship, would be destroyed.

Jesus failed.

I’ve already told you that it seems like a fine personal opinion. So I’m unsure why you keep repeating it. But whatever.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘fact.’ Would you mind defining that term for me, in your own words? What is a ‘fact’ in your vocabulary?

As I say, this claim is demonstrably false. I can point to millions of individuals who cannot see what you claim they will all see.

No real arguments.

Been there; done that; read the thread. Anyone who reads the thread will see that I have proven that Jesus was fictional. (Well, except for those who’ve hardened their hearts against me, I mean.)

Nope, and not even a strong argument. Maybe you can point to a post that shows your evidence. You did mention something about god-men, and I have offered multiple rebuttals to that claim. So nope.

In your opinion, yes. But I don’t share your opinion.
[/quote[ Not an argument.

Why do you believe that James was an historical person? Wouldn’t the gospel writers have a strong motive to create a fictional brother for Jesus?

Josephus also wrote about James, the brother of Jesus. Paul wrote about James the brother of Jesus. No reason to assume he is a fictional character.

Maybe so, but it seems to have worked out very well for them.

Don’t retroject your modern assumptions into that ancient world. It wasn’t at all like things are today. Life was short, brutal, hectic and chaotic. Fifty years was two lifetimes of human memory back then. And even if a few folks had objected, declaring that no such man as Jesus had lived among them, it wouldn’t have mattered. They would be ignored and forgotten. Written out of the gospel histories. It’s a mistake to retroject our modern assumptions into that ancient world.]/quote] Poor argument. Yes, things were different; however, not like you said. Average life expectancy may have been short; however, if one survived adolescents, then average life expectancy went up to 40-60 years even. So a human memory could stretch from the time of Jesus (his death being in the early 30's) to the 60's or 70's (possibly even into the 80's).

Also, you ignore basically all of the research on oral cultures. I've already presented you with sources that explain the idea of oral cultures, and I have given you general information.

Take it up with the scholars who say otherwise. I found that with a quick and casual google search. I’ll give you the website if you want to go there and correct them.

Meanwhile, they seem more credible to me than you do. Nothing personal.

I would love to see those sites. Also, maybe you want to point out in anyone of the Gospels where it says three shepherds went to see baby Jesus.

Also, one can find nearly anything by doing a simple Google search. Not really supporting your point.

That may be true. I admit that I simply don’t care enough about the Bible stories to do source-research. I can only depend on overviews and what the scholars tell me. At the moment, they’ve convinced me that the crucifixion stories were told about earlier godmen.

Not an argument. And really, you loose credibility by saying you don't care to actually do the research.

So you’re admitting that it was true for some of them? Then why do you object so forcefully to the idea of parallels between Jesus and earlier godmen?

I didn't say there were no similarities. Yes, there are some similarities. However, Augustus had some similarities to those god-men to. However, Jesus simply does not fit into the god-man idea.

No, not so different from the Jesus resurrection. It’s certainly close enough for me to think of Jesus as having been saddled with godmen features.

So Jesus being resurrected only once, in the context of the general resurrection (which means that Jesus was not seen as unique in the idea that he would be resurrected. He was simply the first of many who would be resurrected), is similar to a god or god-man dying each year, and then rising from the dead each year? That is definitely stretching it. Especially when one considers that that dying rising phase was in conjecture with the seasons. That is not so with Jesus.

Oh, my. Now you want me to prove that your own personal opinion of me is just wishful thinking?

You don’t really know what that word ‘prove’ means, do you. How about we start a separate thread, in which I will help you understand what the verb ‘prove’ means? Do you think you’re up to that?

Again, not an argument. And really, it just shows that you are incapable, or purposely don't try, to read what I say in context. I told you to back up your position. Your position being that Jesus was created as people yearned for a Great Hero.

HeeHee... you don’t budge, do you.

The fact that humans are constantly creating heroes (see Star Wars, etc) means that humans have a lust for heroes. It’s a simple thing to admit. Why let yourself be driven into a corner about such a simple issue. Save your stubborn resistence for the important stuff, if what I recommend.

Maybe if you actually create a convincing argument, I would budge. Saying that once upon a time, someone created Paul Bunyan proves nothing. Just because people today create fictional entertainment, does not mean they did so in the first century. You are using a logical fallacy, and it just doesn't cut it.

Logic is another area of my expertise. It goes with the language thing. And you are mistaken here. The logic was fine.

Yes oh mighty God. Just because you said it, it must be true. Really, try a little even. Again, you have left logical arguments aside, and really added little.

 

[fallingblood]

I was taking graduate-level courses in linguistics, including considerable study about oral cultures, surely before you were born.

Sorry. Them's the facts.

But if you believe that I misunderstand anything about oral cultures, please point to the specific place where I posted anything which made you come to such a conclusion. Message number. Text.

Vague charges of 'no understanding' just don't cut it.

I said you don't understand, I have even pointed to your statements which showed you don't understand. I have given you evidence and sources when you asked for them, when you said I had to back up what I was saying. I'm not going to waste my time searching back through this thread just to point it all out again.

Honestly, I don't care what you learned decades ago. You haven't shown your vast knowledge. So you can keep telling me your expertise, or you can show it.

 

[fallingblood]

As a favor to you, I left out the part of your quote where you cursed me. (I use 'curse' and 'insult' interchangeably, by the way.)

Slightly paraphrased, you said that if I were going to continue to behave immaturely, you were quitting.

But since I have never behaved immaturely, I could not stop behaving immaturely.

Therefore, you are quitting.

It's pretty simple logic, isn't it?

Nope. Especially since you just showed that you did not take what I said in context, or even understood it.

This is what I said:If you want to have a debate, offer a rebuttal to the information the I pose. Don't try to analyze me, dismiss me, or dodge the issue. I'm not wasting anymore time with you if you don't have enough respect for others to carry on a mature conversation.

Did I say you were behaving immaturely? Nope. I said that you are not respecting others (and that is qualified by the rest of the paragraph. Thus, you disrespect is shown by analyzing me, dismissing me, and dodging the issue. This would include your lack of offering rebuttals to really anything of importance).

Mature is being used as an adjective to describe the conversation, not you. I describe you as being disrespectful, or more specifically, not having enough respect for others. For someone who claims to be an expert in linguistic, you certainly aren't showing it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In fact, the ancient Middle East didn't care so much for the raw facts as they did a good story that gave them a broad idea. That's the kind of history Luke, for example, was writing: Stories that gave the audience broad brush strokes of large movements in human history, and how history was changed by the Jesus Event. Ancient history is more akin the the German Geschichte than it is to our concept of "history."

That seems a reasonable assessment to me.

And wouldn’t a fictional character slip pretty easily into those pages?

that being said, even though we know about these sorts of practices, we also know that the historical Jesus was different than the mythic Jesus. the nature of the myths cannot be used to completely dismiss the historic figure as a fact of history.

Sure. Clearly the mythic Jesus was very different from the historical one – unless lots of magic happened back then. From my point of view, though, the study of an historical Jesus is pretty unimportant. It would be like struggling to understand the historical Robin Hood. Some scholars may want to spend their lives doing that, but not me. That’s because in both cases, any historical figure who emerges will be shadowy indeed. I wouldn’t be able to say anything definitive about him. So I’d rather study other matters.

On the other hand, I’ve put considerable study and thought to the question of an historical Jesus, and I’m pretty sure that I’m deserving of an opinion on the matter just like everyone else. And my opinion is that the gospel writers created Jesus of at least 95% imagination. Maybe 100%.

That’s my opinion right now, although I love to debate the issue in order to refine or even change that opinion. It’s why I came here.

 

[sojourner]

I don’t accept the 20-year figure. My best guess is that there was no man named Jesus who lived in Judea from 0-33AD.

You'd be n the vast minority of reputable scholars. Thessalonians was written about 50 c.e. or so. That would place it 15-20 years after 33 c.e.

Are you aware of the internal politics of the church at the time? Have you ever witnessed a modern Christian congregation tear itself apart, with the theological dissenters cast out? It’s all about authority, after all – usually theological authority.

If Paul had actually met the brother of Jesus, it would be a serious feather in his cap of theological authority, I think. He had motive to make a false claim.

That’s just one idea which pops into my head. My point is this: How can you possibly accept as certain truth anything which you read in a 2000-year-old, cobbled together, magic-claiming book? I’m not saying it’s untrue. I’m just wondering about your unquestioning certainty that your favorite parts are true.

Internal politics in the church at that time were not well-developed. At all. Yes, authority plays a big part, but the Gentiles would have had no reason to question Paul's authority. In fact, not even the Jerusalem church questioned his authority with any zeal.

Correct them when they claim that Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews.

You're mixing impetuses. Christians believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. But they also believe that Jesus turned out to be different than what was expected. The Jews are still waiting for what was expected. That doesn't constitute two different messiahs. It constitutes two different points of view of the same messiah.

I appreciate a guy making up new terms to explain his theology. As a theologian myself, I’ve done so for years.

Reputable theology maintains an historical continuity. One doesn't just "dream new stuff up."

In your personal opinion. Yes, I understand that. You’ve made it clear that you hold such an opinion.

don't twist it into what it isn't and make Blood out to be a fool. It isn't just his "personal opinion." It is the considered theology of a vast group of people over time.

It’s hard to believe that you would say such a thing, so easily is it disproven.

I invite you to disprove it.

I can show you many people who have read all about messianic expectations and have clearly seen that Jesus did indeed fulfill them.

I can show you a lot of people who still believe the earth is flat. So what? If it's so "easily disproven," then there'd be a LOT more Jews jumping on the train.

Why would I think of you as the guy who gets to instruct me in what’s true and what’s false?

"Because he's correct" leaps to mind here...

I see. So everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Objectively wrong.

That isn't what he said. At all. He is simply giving you facts as they have been borne out.

I don’t want to offend you, Blood, but that really is the outlook of a young mind. Paul and others have carried such certainty into old age, but I’m always hopeful that young minds will come to accept ambiguity as they age.

Not necessarily. What's so ambiguous, for example, about a round earth? Facts are facts. Fact is, Jesus did not fulfill the criteria for what the Jews expected. Ask any Jew. The only ambiguity here is taking into consideration the hindsight that many Xians ascribe to OT prophecy in order to make Jesus "fit the mold." Which really isn't ambiguity. It is what it is.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They changed, but not as much as we might think. Our oral stories change, because our memory is geared toward visual input. Since theirs were not, they were able to regurgitate more accurately what they heard than we do.

Possibly. They were also entirely free to add and change as they pleased. Since the Jesus Stories which come down to us are full of fabulous claims, I think it's pretty clear that the stories changed dramatically between the (purported) life of Jesus and the time Luke heard them

You're living in an awfully lonely camp...

Thanks, bud. It is true that I am a (mighty) independent thinker. No one tells me what is true. They are only allowed to suggest it.

Bingo! This is why your posts are so "agitating." You make up your own rules about the way things are and then tell everyone else that they're wrong, because they can't provide any evidence to show that they're right.

My posts are upsetting because I'm challenging deep certainties. To do that is to actually challenge the personality, the self, of those who hold those certainties. Such a violent reaction is to be expected, but it sure can get ugly, can't it. I've tumbled through two heavy wash cycles in my wife's machine already, trying to clean some of the slime off.

If you were really a scholar, you'd be aware that there are accepted standards of language that are used.

Who said I was a scholar? Do you think I've come here to learn and adhere to the lingo of biblical scholars? Nah. That would be like trying to have a good talk with a bunch of academic philosophers or something. They don't know how to speak regular English. Very few of them, anyway.

I'm not a scholar. I have no interest in all that.

Terminology is important to good communication. It serves your purposes well to make up your own rules, as it provides a perfect dodge for you. "Well, that's not the way I use the term..."

If you would like me to teach you a bit about how language works and is used, just ask.

Perhaps, if you're going to argue these points, it would be more productive for you to use the terminology in the generally-accepted fashion...
Just a suggestion.

Thanks, but No, thanks.

On the surface, it makes "good sense." But let's look at some further facts. Why would a small group of Jews 1) risk being ostracized by their families, 2) risk ******* off the Romans, 3) risk losing their religious armor? To extend that, why would small groups of Gentiles 1) risk being ridiculed by their communities, 2) risk losing their religious armor, 3) risk persecution by the Romans? Why would either group risk these things by fabricating a story about a "hero" who was summarily killed and dumped in a ditch?

The answer to that is obvious, isn't it? Charles Manson, Jonestown, etc. Your description fits their followers like a tight glove. People have always been attracted to cults, no matter the other consequences. Are you thinking ancient people were immune to that?

None of this stuff makes sense when viewed in light of the prevailing political climate.

Yeah. Neither did Jonestown or any of the others.

If they had made this up out of whole cloth, they wouldn't have used someone completely fictional. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, who taught the inner, not outer, kingdom. He taught liberation, which was a HUGE concern to the Jews. He was killed for that. There is no reason to doubt any of this. That's the claim for the historical Jesus. There's no reason to think that any of it is fiction. Doesn't fit the profile for a good story of fiction.

It's a fine opinion. I don't mind at all that you hold it. In time, I hope that the other members here might feel as little challenged by my opinion as I do by theirs.

 

[sojourner]

<donning my Cloak of Christianity>

They missed it! Jesus fulfilled every last prophecy regarding the Jewish messiah, but the Jews hardened their hearts and rejected him! They actually claim that Jesus didn’t meet the prophecies, if you can believe such a thing. So why should we Christians pretend that the Jewish messiah never came? He was the Jewish messiah, and those of us who are open to the spirit of God saw the fulfillments and recognized him right away. You dilute His power and legitimacy by speaking of a ‘Christian messiah’. Why do you hate us?

<ok, that’s enough. this cloak makes me a little crazy.>

That dog won't hunt. Most informed Xians I know don't say such things. Don't misrepresent us.

And Jesus fulfilled all the criteria. Every one. Why do you insist otherwise?

The Jews were looking for a military savior -- someone who would restore the kingdom to the glory that it was when David sat on the throne. History shows us that didn't happen.

I’m not anything close to a biblical scholar,

Yet you feel eminently qualified to dis the work of those who are? And that's not hubris?

I don’t know what you mean by ‘fact.’

Stuff that's patently found in the tradition of the Jews.

Been there; done that; read the thread. Anyone who reads the thread will see that I have proven that Jesus was fictional.

You've done no such thing. You haven't said one thing that would cause any biblical historian to refuse the notion that there was an historical Jesus.

In your opinion, yes. But I don’t share your opinion.

According to the best research available. That doesn't constitute "your opinion."

Why do you believe that James was an historical person? Wouldn’t the gospel writers have a strong motive to create a fictional brother for Jesus?

What makes you think they would have such a motive? It is what it is -- no one who knows what they're talking about would ascribe such subterfuge to the writers.

It’s a mistake to retroject our modern assumptions into that ancient world.

Yet you seem to be just fine with that when you disagree with the whole oral culture thing.

Take it up with the scholars who say otherwise. I found that with a quick and casual google search. I’ll give you the website if you want to go there and correct them.

Meanwhile, they seem more credible to me than you do. Nothing personal.

And this, boys and girls, is why we who know better feel compelled to say that this person does not know what he's talking about. If you think any source who mentions "three shepherds" in the gospels' birth narratives is "credible," you have no grasp on the reality of the scholarship.

Logic is another area of my expertise.

We have yet to see the first area within this thread...

 

[sojourner]

Google’s amazing, isn’t it? I recommend it to everyone. Just type something like ‘godman jesus compare’ or somesuch. If you can’t find the site, let me know and I’ll find it for you.

Oh, dear God! You can't be serious!

 

[sojourner]

I was taking graduate-level courses in linguistics, including considerable study about oral cultures, surely before you were born.

Sorry. Them's the facts.

But if you believe that I misunderstand anything about oral cultures, please point to the specific place where I posted anything which made you come to such a conclusion. Message number. Text.

Vague charges of 'no understanding' just don't cut it.

That’s a fine personal opinion. A mistaken one, but thanks for offering it.

#222

And I thought you said you weren't "all that old," yet you seem to tout your age everywhere you think it's to your advantage. I don't believe you know how old you are..

 

[sojourner]

But since I have never behaved immaturely, I could not stop behaving immaturely.

Therefore, you are quitting.

It's pretty simple logic, isn't it?

No, because your first statement here is untrue.

 

[sojourner]

And wouldn&#8217;t a fictional character slip pretty easily into those pages?

Since we're not talking about fictional characters, I don't see that it matters.

Sure. Clearly the mythic Jesus was very different from the historical one &#8211; unless lots of magic happened back then. From my point of view, though, the study of an historical Jesus is pretty unimportant. It would be like struggling to understand the historical Robin Hood. Some scholars may want to spend their lives doing that, but not me. That&#8217;s because in both cases, any historical figure who emerges will be shadowy indeed. I wouldn&#8217;t be able to say anything definitive about him. So I&#8217;d rather study other matters.

On the other hand, I&#8217;ve put considerable study and thought to the question of an historical Jesus, and I&#8217;m pretty sure that I&#8217;m deserving of an opinion on the matter just like everyone else. And my opinion is that the gospel writers created Jesus of at least 95% imagination. Maybe 100%.

That&#8217;s my opinion right now, although I love to debate the issue in order to refine or even change that opinion. It&#8217;s why I came here.

Since, as you say, you're not remotely a Bible scholar, we don't expect you to be interested. Nor do we expect you to realize the value of such study. None of that has any bearing on the value of the study, though -- nor does your opinion count NEAR as much as those of people who are scholars.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh, dear God!

Is it my butt? Did you just catch a glimpse of my butt? It drives all of them right up the wall. You are forgiven for being unable to control your excitement.

 

[sojourner]

Since the Jesus Stories which come down to us are full of fabulous claims, I think it's pretty clear that the stories changed dramatically between the (purported) life of Jesus and the time Luke heard them

What you think is "pretty clear" is really immaterial, coming from one who doesn't see the value in researching the historical figure. You really need to go back and read Q in order to understand the nature of the stories Luke embellished. it's just not so cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be here.

Thanks, bud. It is true that I am a (mighty) independent thinker. No one tells me what is true. They are only allowed to suggest it.

You're welcome, Chief.
Or is that "Ace?"
Or "Skeezix?"
Or "Dude?"
yes, unfortunately, stubbornness is not always a desirable quality.

My posts are upsetting because I'm challenging deep certainties.

You're not challenging anything, because you have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence that anything you've posited is true. They're upsetting because you refuse to enter responsible debate, substituting poorly-formed opinion for debatable, substantive positions.

To do that is to actually challenge the personality, the self, of those who hold those certainties.

Waaaay off base, here, Cochise.

Such a violent reaction is to be expected, but it sure can get ugly, can't it.

You're a legend in your own mind, aren't you? Such reactions ("violent" is awfully melodramatic, don't you think?) are to be expected when one attempts to participate in a debate without actually debating. We've been through pages and pages hoping to get some real meat in a debate, and all you're giving us is sour milk.

I've tumbled through two heavy wash cycles in my wife's machine already, trying to clean some of the slime off.

It's the sour milk you've been spewing.

I'm not a scholar. I have no interest in all that.

But this isn't hubris. At all. You're admittedly not a scholar, and yet:

If you would like me to teach you a bit about how language works and is used, just ask.

"I'm not a doctor, but I'd be happy to remove your gizzard, if you like."
Dear God!

Thanks, but No, thanks.

Yes... that would require a little effort on your part, wouldn't it...

The answer to that is obvious, isn't it? Charles Manson, Jonestown, etc. Your description fits their followers like a tight glove. People have always been attracted to cults, no matter the other consequences. Are you thinking ancient people were immune to that?

Except that there are vast differences between the consequences in ancient Israel and modern America. If you knew anything about ancient cultures, This would not need to be explained to you.
So, long story short, the answer isn't nearly as obvious as you've made it out to be. Of course proto-Xy was a cult. The real difference is that Jesus wasn't crazy.

It's a fine opinion.

It's at the very least that.