• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I would fully agree with that.

The writings of the NT came after the actual teaching, and either just put that teaching to pen, or explained that teaching in more depth.
I'm convinced, by all the scholarship I've read and studied, that the movement informed the writing. Oral cultures work that way.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I would fully agree with that.

The writings of the NT came after the actual teaching, and either just put that teaching to pen, or explained that teaching in more depth.
There's an interesting thing, though, about Thomas. Some solid scholarship has shown that Thomas and Q share a common source community, which would have split prior to the year 40 c.e. That places the source community less than 10 years following the crucifixion. Quotes common to both are pretty solidly assumed to be authentic. in that case, a non-canonical does provide us with some pretty serious information about the historical Jesus.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.

Not to my knowledge, no. I remember some mention of shepherds around Jesus' birth, but the canonical gospels talk about three magi, don't they?

No, the canonical gospels make no mention of a specific number of wise men/magi. As for shepherds, yes, shepherds are mentioned, but also no specific number or implied number of shepherds.

I'm confused by your phrasing. The canon of Hebrews? Can you say exactly which book you are asking me about? I can't tell if you're thinking about Paul's letter to the Hebrews or the gospel which I mentioned.

I am sorry for the confusion. I meant to say "the gospel of Hebrews," not "the canon of Hebrews." My bad. I am referring to the gospel of Hebrews that you referenced. To my knowledge, it does not contain any reference to three shepherds visiting Jesus. If you have a reference from that Gospel, or any other, canonical, deuterocanonical, or otherwise, please provide it.

In a quick googling, I can't find searchable text of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I'll look again when I have a minute, or you could do the research yourself. It's very easy to find articles and references using common search engines.

I already searched for it. As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty adept at googling or using a variety of other search engines. You are the one making the assertion, for which I cannot find any evidence. In order for it to be "very easy to find articles" which support your assertion, they must actually exist. And then, from there, of course, they must be credible. As I'm sure you know, misinformation abounds online!

No, not my assertion. You may have me confused with someone else or perhaps you misread one of my messages. .

In post #247, you said that the story of Jesus parallels that of other stories of other godmen in response to a statement by FallingBlood.

Sure I have. Virgin birth, visited by 3 shepherds at his birth, crucified, resurrected, etc.

Your words.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I already searched for it.

If you've already searced for it and haven't found it, that's good enough for me. It was a throwaway point, after all. When asked about godmen parallels, I googled it, went to a site, tossed a couple of the bullet points into a forum message, and posted it. Years ago, I studied the issue pretty closely, although I never went and read original sources. I came away from that convinced that very real parallels exist between Jesus and earlier godmen.

If you are arguing that no such parallels exist, though, I will go and do a more thorough job of researching it out, although I still have no interest in going to original sources. It just isn't important enough for me to do that.

Do you deny that earlier godmen were resurrected from the dead?

In post #247, you said that the story of Jesus parallels that of other stories of other godmen in response to a statement by FallingBlood.

Yes, I did. But you seem to be assuming only the canonical gospels. That's what you asked me about. But I'm including the non-canonicals.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
thats true, there are.

I dont think anyone can deny that fact
but I don't think we can predicate the whole-cloth idea that Jesus was only a fictional character upon those earlier myths. There is too much evidence to the contrary, mythic as much of it is.

If we read the earliest sources, we find Jesus to be much more human than Divine. The earliest sources were quite rural in nature. It's the later, mythic writings which come to us from more urban sources that begin to give us a glimpse of the godlike qualities of Jesus.

We know that rural sources are much more likely to succumb to mythic thought than are urban sources. So it stands to reason that the earlier sources should be highly mythic. They aren't. This, by itself, makes a strong case for an historical figure named Jesus, to which a later mythos was ascribed.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
but I don't think we can predicate the whole-cloth idea that Jesus was only a fictional character upon those earlier myths

never stated that

If we read the earliest sources, we find Jesus to be much more human than Divine

I agree he is human if he existed at all.

Its been slow growing for me to accept he was a real human beyond fiction. Im on the side of real but not much past the middle of the road ro disbelief
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
but I don't think we can predicate the whole-cloth idea that Jesus was only a fictional character upon those earlier myths. There is too much evidence to the contrary, mythic as much of it is.

Jesus-dressed-as-godman is only a part of my theory about a fictional Jesus. I was asked about my theory and so I began presenting elements.

The problem is that every time I present an element of my theory, that one element is denied with an unbending ferocity, so the overall theory never comes forth. I can't even get Blood to admit that humans long for heroes, must less that parallels exist between Jesus and earlier godmen.

So the whole cloth idea isn't predicated on Jesus-as-godman. There are many other swatches besides that one.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
The Jesus story is paralled by many other godmen naratives-

Thanks for posting that. A well-made video. I really can't fathom why people would deny that Jesus is paralled by other godmen -- other than simply not wanting to believe it -- but many seem resistant to the idea.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Thanks for posting that. A well-made video. I really can't fathom why people would deny that Jesus is paralled by other godmen -- other than simply not wanting to believe it -- but many seem resistant to the idea.

jesus was parralleled to some extent

that vid is junk bud and causes more damage then good because we have to go out and retrain atheist from the start.

much of what he post is not true and its highley exaggerated.

I started out just like you, but after a while learning "real history" I started seeing large holes in the zitgiest garbage
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
thats true, there are.

I dont think anyone can deny that fact
You are correct here. It would be a waste to declare that there are no parallels. At the same time though, it means very little if many of the parallels are simply made up.

The vast majority of parallels are not parallels for the simple reason that they are made up. My favorite by far is the idea that god-men are born on December 25th. To anyone a little informed, the claim is ridiculous, yet it still finds a place in so many of the lists of parallels.

At the same time, many of the parallels can be found in other historical figures. Especially if the parallels are quite vague, which many of them are, or if they are misconstrued. I'm sure if you took the time, you could even find some similarities between yourself and various god-men. I know I can.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
sure looks looks like zitgiest grabage to me, which for the most part cannot be verified.
I didn't watch at the video, but just even taking a quick look, I can see that it looks like the Zeitgeist junk. Really, I think that stuff is just insulting. Awhile back I even wrote a refutation to the Zeitgeist movie upon request (only the section dealing with religion, and I read a transcript instead of watching the movie), and just trying to wade through the transcript, I was getting frustrated and annoyed by the total lack of real research. I had a hard time getting through the whole thing without getting angry.

I find that to be the same with Brian Flemming's movie, The God Who Wasn't There. I'm currently writing an essay overing a rebuttal to that movie.

As you say though, that information just is garbage.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I find that to be the same with Brian Flemming's movie, The God Who Wasn't There. I'm currently writing an essay overing a rebuttal to that movie.

havnt seen that one


As you say though, that information just is garbage.

well you helped to get me on the right track allthough i fought tooth and nail LoL

heard carrier rip on it to
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
There's an interesting thing, though, about Thomas. Some solid scholarship has shown that Thomas and Q share a common source community, which would have split prior to the year 40 c.e. That places the source community less than 10 years following the crucifixion. Quotes common to both are pretty solidly assumed to be authentic. in that case, a non-canonical does provide us with some pretty serious information about the historical Jesus.
I have somewhat of a difficult time with Thomas. Like you said, it does seem to have at least some early layers that go back to an early oral tradition. At the same time though, some of the information does seem to come from a later date as well.

I think Elaine Pagels has argued that it was Thomas that the author of the Gospel of John was partially trying to refute (case in point, the story of doubting Thomas). Now I could be wrong about Pagels having argued this (I can't remember exactly where I heard this), but I have attached the argument to her anyway. Either way, I think this theory is interesting.

I believe John Dominic Crossan also puts quite a bit of weight on Thomas.

For me, I would have a hard time actually arguing that Thomas did in fact contain early information about the historical Jesus, so I tend to brush it to the side.
 

Wombat

Active Member
jesus was parralleled to some extent

that vid is junk bud and causes more damage then good...

The vid was put forward to support the pov that "Jesus story was paralled by many other godmen naratives"...which you conceed "to some extent" but do not indicate what extent.

The vid represents no scripture nor value to me beyond that stated- demonstrating "parrallel" narratives.

If you think it "junk" unworthy of consideration...go for it...rip it to shreds and expose its false information.


... because we have to go out and retrain atheist from the start.

I was unaware that atheists took training...is it like a Seminary nine year thing or more like a weekend commando/survival course? :shrug:

much of what he post is not true and its highley exaggerated.
I started out just like you, but after a while learning "real history" I started seeing large holes in the zitgiest garbage

Ok...we get the >zeitgeist< picture and that it's "junk", "not true", "highley exaggerated", "causes more damage then good" (are you from New Zealand?) and has "large holes" in the zit thingy.

Care to 'specify' at any point?
;)
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
that vid is junk bud and causes more damage then good because we have to go out and retrain atheist from the start.

I don't know what you mean. You think the video was made by atheists? Why do you believe that?

If you think the vid is junk, you are welcome to spend some time making your case for it. Personally, I just don't care enough to do that. I'm satisfied that sufficient parallels exist to support my views of Jesus.

I started out just like you, but after a while learning "real history" I started seeing large holes in the zitgiest garbage

If you think I'm misunderstanding some "real history", please do not hesitate to educate me.
 
Top