did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

its funny, the only arguement he has for the parrallels of jesus is that we did'nt read the original doc's, what a croc of horse sheet. mithras didnt have much written history so scholars are useless as well as many other ancient religion/cults.

he states confidently there wrong, i dont think he has real clue what the original's state in anything non christian. Even if %90 of the parrallels I posted were right instead of the %98 he claims, chrsitianity is still stolen and %90 fiction

 

[outhouse]

Me thinks the bible as translated and the gospels are pretty dang close to what the originals are trying to say.

christianity will not let the real meaning be lost due to translation errors.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What's so intelligent about copying Greek, just to show off that you can read Greek?

I don't think that your asking the right question.

I've known a lot of scholars, and only one of them sits around copying Greek. I couldn't believe that he did it - but now he's able to pic up a fragment and correct its grammar.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Me thinks the bible as translated and the gospels are pretty dang close to what the originals are trying to say.

christianity will not let the real meaning be lost due to translation errors.

Well, you're wrong.

 

[dogsgod]

Celsus had something to say about the originality of Christian myth:

"Is your belief based on 'fact' that this Jesus told in advance that he would rise again after his death? That your story includes his predictions of triumphing over the grave? Well let it be so. Let's assume for the present that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead the simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolix, Pythagoras' servant convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead, having hidden himself away in a cave for several years, and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy - or Phamsinitus in Egypt? Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, and above all Heracles and Theseus? But quite apart from all these risings from the dead, we must look carefully at the question of the resurrection of the body as a possibility given to mortals. Doubtless you will freely admit that these stories are legends, even as they appear to me; but you will go on to say that your resurrection story, this climax to your tragedy, is believable and noble."

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."

180CE

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think that the tendency to think the historical Jesus is unimportant, or even unknowable beyond a few basic facts, is actually greater among christian scholars? I know for me as a non-christian the history is more important, and the theology only in how it shaped the understanding of Jesus and christianity among early christians, and therefore the history of early christianity. I have found similar tendencies among other non-religious scholars of religion in general and christianity in particular. I also sometimes think that views in which we can't access the historical Jesus beyond the barest of facts serve to protect Jesus from historical inquiry, and allow him to remain an item of faith alone.

I know that this doesn't answer your question, but this got me thinking about the state of "historical Jesus" scholarship. I think that for NT interpreters, it is critical to distinguish the difference between what could be historical (and its significance) and what is theological (etc). That's the basic divide, and as you know it gets exceedingly more complex. Anyway, I think that "historical Jesus" scholarship will thrive for some time, and possibly fall out of style in a few generations.

The "historical Jesus" scholarship is starting to utilize multi-facted disciplines and methods. We're going to see not monographs but books of articles written from various disciplines, making the research a bit more interesting IMHO.

I thought that the Jesus Seminar was the biggest failure in the history of NT scholarship, but I think that they are picking themselves up and using better methods. One of my mentors is working on a piece on Galilee for the Seminar, and I think that's very exciting. I don't know if you've heard of him - Dr. Ed. McMahon - we call him "uncle Ed" because he helped my class through the red tape of our doctoral studies. It's so cool to see him every day in the library.

 

[outhouse]

Well, you're wrong.

not that wrong.

Its still stolen fiction as a whole.

As it stands only a little non fiction has been pulled out. this fact really isnt in arguement.

The sheer amount of imagination, lack of it and outright lies shows it was written to propagate christianity. Original documents cannot hide that fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I know for me as a non-christian the history is more important, and the theology only in how it shaped the understanding of Jesus and christianity among early christians, and therefore the history of early christianity.

Here's a rule that I use: it's easier to say what something is not than to define the thing.

Koine Greek is devastatingly imprecise - as you are painfully aware - and I think that Greek grammar and syntax teach us more precisely what the text does not mean than what it actually means, because we still have other possibilities (that we can limit by other means...) for interpretation.

By the same token, historical studies often tell us more about what couldn't possibly have happened than what actually did. Therein lies the frustration for the historian - the reconstruction of what occurred can only help us determine what did not occur when someone else (or ourselves) want to make a claim.

That's the problem with many of the claims that we see all the time - someone finds a website and (too often) plagiarizes it here (which is against the rules of the forum btw), and we see all of the ancient myths that supposedly influenced Christianity. And we know the historical delimitations that make almost all of these claims untenable, and we repeat them over and over and over again...

I have found similar tendencies among other non-religious scholars of religion in general and christianity in particular. I also sometimes think that views in which we can't access the historical Jesus beyond the barest of facts serve to protect Jesus from historical inquiry, and allow him to remain an item of faith alone.

I'm very tempted to come to that conclusion myself. I know, however, that the believer can actualize the myths existentially - and that's how Christianity can be beautiful.

And it's just so interesting. The historical figure of Jesus is captivating, and there will never be a shortage of want to describe him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

not that wrong.

Its still stolen fiction as a whole.

As it stands only a little non fiction has been pulled out. this fact really isnt in arguement.

The sheer amount of imagination, lack of it and outright lies shows it was written to propagate christianity. Original documents cannot hide that fact.

Oh, I agree that the original documents will be what they are.

The point is that you said the current translations more or less accurately represent what the original documents said, which is impossible because we know that no two copies of the extant remains match each other.

And there are about 65,000 manuscripts or so.

The probability that the translations match the originals is zero. Impossible.

 

[outhouse]

Im not alone in my beliefs

Others like g.r.s.mead and ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. Rolf Torstendahl, professor of history at uppsala university, has stated that the evidence for existence of Jesus is too weak for a historian to be able to say anything on Jesus' existence.

First I understand everything you read on both sides of the fence are not reality, Its funny you read christian scholars that claim the translations are so close even among the thousands of NT doc's at hand. most discrepancys are that of how a word is phrased or spelling differences.

If what you state is true then the bible at hand that everyone worships is a outright lie.

I learned long ago translations simular to this are common. "let there be light" "let light be made"

why isnt the bible being rewritten ?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

WE dont have christian blinders on, we see left, right, up and down.

You realize that Oberon is not a Christian, right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Im not alone in my beliefs

Others like g.r.s.mead and ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. Rolf Torstendahl, professor of history at uppsala university, has stated that the evidence for existence of Jesus is too weak for a historian to be able to say anything on Jesus' existence.

First I understand everything you read on both sides of the fence are not reality, Its funny you read christian scholars that claim the translations are so close even among the thousands of NT doc's at hand. most discrepancys are that of how a word is phrased or spelling differences.

If what you state is true then the bible at hand that everyone worships is a outright lie.

I learned long ago translations simular to this are common. "let there be light" "let light be made"

why isnt the bible being rewritten ?

The "little differences" in the texts are actually quite important... you say yourself: "If what you state is true then the bible at hand that everyone worships is a outright lie."

Yes, it is a big deal when the grammar changes or words (sometimes entire chapters or books, sometimes added books) in varying manuscripts. We have entire Christian churches that disagree on various passages in Scripture because of a grammatical issue.

 

[dogsgod]

You realize that Oberon is not a Christian, right?

Regardless, his indoctrination is so thorough and complete that he can call himself what he likes.

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

You can use that in a song if you like.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

why isnt the bible being rewritten ?

It sorta is, depending on which Christian Church one is a part of.

Most Christian Churches have "Scripture" and "Tradition." The Scripture is usually canonized and the tradition is the authoritative or normative interpretation of Scripture.

The Tradition changes, and the Scripture essentially stays the same. But because Tradition is the normative interpretation of Scripture, Scripture changes with time without any addition of books and such.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Regardless, his indoctrination is so thorough and complete that he can call himself what he likes.

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

You can use that in a song if you like.

haha that's funny.

Something I learned a while back: Just because someone holds an odd view, that doesn't mean they are indoctrinated.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have failed to cite any academic work which convinced you that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark and Q.

Yes! Have you read "The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg et al?

I had the pleasure of talking with him at length about his many works on Q and my dissertation last November (time flies!!).

Anyway, that's the most excellent work on Q that will be produced for quite a while - Kloppenborg has sworn it off - it's an Abington commentary, published in 2007 if memory serves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well since you put it that way, and you read The Jesus Mysteries, you must know what you are talking about.

:takeabow:

 

[outhouse]

So what do you have to prove jesus is not a stolen myth, its obvious.

again im not alone in any sense

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what do you have to prove jesus is not a stolen myth, its obvious.

again im not alone in any sense

You can't prove a negative. If you knew anything about logic, you would know that.

The burden of proof is also not on me to demonstrate your claims. You just cut and pasted from a website or two (mindlessly), and then expect me to construct an argument from a negative?

YOU need to demonstrate why your website is correct, not me. I know why it's wrong. Oberon has the compassion to correct you.

I do not.

 

[outhouse]

faith would not have cut it anyway

you cant prove a myth is real either allthough christians have tried for thousands of years lol