did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

Hey Oberon,

Do you think that the historical Jesus is related in any way to the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew or Luke)?

Are you asking if I think these teachings were clustered together in the tradition, or were originally grouped by Jesus as a full sermon?

 

[Oberon]

There is no solid evidence for jesus at all. Hearsay is the best you have.

This isn't a courtroom. Journalism and history use hearsay.

Did you bother to read those threads?

 

[waitasec]

i love it!!
thanks guys...opcorn:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you asking if I think these teachings were clustered together in the tradition, or were originally grouped by Jesus as a full sermon?

I think that it goes without saying that it's a cluster of teachings, but I'm asking you if there's any relationship of the teachings to the historical Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First of all historical jesus reconstruction is on ongoing tedious proccess. The problem is people believing what the want based off a few slivers of works that are not original documents. [gospels atleast] I dont know how you can paint a picture of a majestic mountain with one color.


There is no solid evidence for jesus at all. Hearsay is the best you have.

First of all, the evidence is proponderous. Historical Jesus scholars don't sit around re-reading the one quote in Josephus which is the only "external" evidence. They critically examine the NT based on textual criticism, interpretation theories, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, and many other disciplines. Then they reconstruct Jesus based on these studies. If you can't respect that, fine, but your contempt is based on ignorance.

 

[Oberon]

I think that it goes without saying that it's a cluster of teachings, but I'm asking you if there's any relationship of the teachings to the historical Jesus.

I think that most of the teachings likely go back to Jesus, yes. However, I am less convinced by arguments that state Jesus actually gave a sermon in which he himself clustered these teachings together.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that most of the teachings likely go back to Jesus, yes. However, I am less convinced by arguments that state Jesus actually gave a sermon in which he himself clustered these teachings together.

Oh yeah, me too.

I'll give up a lot, but not the Sermon on the Mount.

This thread reminds me why I chose early on to be a Pauline scholar. Not much textual problems, his historical existence is not muddled with myth, and if I don't like one of his epistles I can just say he didn't write it. :biglaugh:

 

[Oberon]

This thread reminds me why I chose early on to be a Pauline scholar. Not much textual problems, his historical existence is not muddled with myth, and if I don't like one of his epistles I can just say he didn't write it. :biglaugh:

Good point! I should have gone with Paul. Or just stuck with classics. You can build so many arguments based on thin air in classics ("this coin has caligula on one side and his sisters on the other, which shows the stories about him and his sister are true! Because there's no possible way that Caligula WASN'T involved in the images on the coin, even though there is no evidence he was...")

 

[outhouse]

Oberon I read your links

you make some solid points, But why debate? you seem to have all the answers and according to you no one else has the authority to play.

Not sure what your trying to accomplish, it seems your following where other scholars have been and debating for quite some time.

Maybe it would be better for me to ask what you think about the historical jesus and his life.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon I read your links

you make some solid points, But why debate? you seem to have all the answers and according to you no one else has the authority to play.

Anyone can participate in the debate, obviously. But it makes no sense to either come at the debate with no or little background knowledge, or to rely nearly entirely on non-expert views at the exclusion of academic views. How does it make sense to make the declarative statements about any person or moment in history without study, or to (with minimal study) declare that the vast number of experts are wrong and enormous amounts of scholarship are as well?

Not sure what your trying to accomplish, it seems your following where other scholars have been and debating for quite some time.

That's kind of the point. One builds off the works of others, whether we are talking history, math, science, or whatever. There's no point in trying to approach say, dynamical rates, by working from the ground up. One builds off Newton and Leibniz and others. Same with Cantor and infinite sets. And the same with the historical Jesus. A lot has been written and argued and it makes no sense to start from scratch and ignore the work of others.

 

[dogsgod]

First of all, the evidence is proponderous. Historical Jesus scholars don't sit around re-reading the one quote in Josephus which is the only "external" evidence. They critically examine the NT based on textual criticism, interpretation theories, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, and many other disciplines. Then they reconstruct Jesus based on these studies. If you can't respect that, fine, but your contempt is based on ignorance.

And after all is said and done, what have you got, Sherlock? All we ever get from you guys is Jesus had a brother named James, and Josephus clinches it. That's it. That's all we ever get, over and over, repeated like a mantra as if it will become factual if repeated enough times.

Yes, there are sayings and somebody took the trouble to write them down but there is no possible way of knowing anything about the person or persons that collected them and for what purpose. It appears to have been a long standing tradition to collect sayings and teachings and attach "Jesus said" to them. Other than that, if you have something, then it would be known. There is evidence of a preacher in one of the layers of Q but even so, that still raises many questions that have gone unanswered. There are no doubt some real people involved that really said these things and we're dealing with real movements and cults but there is no evidence nor has any scholar or group of scholars been able to put their heads together and shown how Christianity is based on a single founder. Until then, you're just ******* in the wind with your silly little certainties.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And after all is said and done, what have you got, Sherlock?

Right over your head Watson.

 

[outhouse]

Im using known scholars conclusions.

I have an open mind to the possibility of a real jesus, I know the bible has it all wrong and "that" jesus is a myth.

For me, there was a man possibly not named jesus "maybe" that was a jew that may have been baptised who was a wood worker and decided there was more then what judaism offered.

Nothing special, no miracles ect ect. historical jesus is no where near the christian myth which parrallels to many other ancient text

 

[dogsgod]

Right over your head Watson.

You've attributed less than anyone, all you have proven to show is your little quips.

An historical Jesus is so far unknown, there are far too many uncertainties involved, that's why it's called a quest and so far a single founder for Christianity is as allusive as the holy grail itself, and you guys have your heads so far up your ***** that you haven't even got that much figured out yet.

 

[Oberon]

There is evidence of a preacher in one of the layers of Q but even so, that still raises many questions that have gone unanswered.

How do you even know there is evidence of Q? Again, the theory of Q is based not on the fact that the gospels have similar parts, but on the similarity of the greek and arguments based on this. You can't read the greek. And all the sources you use take Q for granted because the consensus that Q explains similarities in Matthew and Luke resulted from much earlier intense arguments and scholarship.

So you take it for granted, without seeing the detailed arguments for it (or against it) because it is the consensus position. So you don't have a problem going with the consensus when you lack the expertise. You only have this problem when you don't like what you find. Then you value guys like Doherty or Wells over actual experts.

 

[outhouse]

Josephus = controversy as well as current scholars views on the information regarding jesus at hand.

As it stands very little can be said with certainty

Its all a guess, again trying to paint a picture with 1 color

 

[outhouse]

Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

 

[Oberon]

Josephus = controversy as well as current scholars views on the information regarding jesus at hand.

What's the controversy with the reference in Josephus to James, the brother of Jesus?

As it stands very little can be said with certainty

That's true. What we can know for certain (as much as anything in history is certain) is that Jesus lived in first century palestine, that he was jewish, that he inspired a following, and that he was executed. We can know quite a bit more than that with a fair degree of certainty, but it begins to get into controversy rather quickly.

Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

The reverse is true.

περι του υιου αυτου, του γενομένου εκ σπέρματος Δαυῒδ κατα σάρκα/peri tou hiou autou, tou genomenou ek spermatos David kata sarka/ concerning his son, the one born from the seed of David according to [the] flesh. So he was born in the flesh. And, in fact, born jewish: γενόμενον υπο νόμον/genomenon hypo nomon. And he died. And if Paul thought he never walked on earth, it is especially strange that he ate with his followers: ο Κύριος ᾿Ιησους εν τη νυκτι ᾗ αρεδιδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον.../ho kyrios Iesous en te nukti e aredideto elaben arton.

So despite the fact that Paul isn't interested in the earthly Jesus, isn't writing a gospel, and so forth, it is nonetheless quite clear from his letters he believed Jesus walked on earth. And, of course, that he had a brother.

 

[outhouse]

a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure

 

[outhouse]

That's true. What we can know for certain (as much as anything in history is certain) is that Jesus lived in first century palestine, that he was jewish, that he inspired a following, and that he was executed. We can know quite a bit more than that with a fair degree of certainty, but it begins to get into controversy rather quickly.


[/size]

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

I believe the execution to be a stretch as well as his name.

again all based of copies that may not be historicaly accurate