did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

What gray line? There is a large difference from arguing that Jesus did not exist and that he did. To argue that he didn't exist, you nearly have to ignore the majority of what these other scholars are producing.

Aren't Biblical scholars believing Jews and Christians for the most part, are they not biased in that they look for what they already believe is there?

 

[dogsgod]

You can't read greek and haven't studied the grammar, but I'm sure you are qualified to make a ruling here. It's not like any other grammar has comparable entries. Oh wait... Schweitzer, Smyth, Funk's translation/edition of Blass & Debrunner... ALL the big reference grammars recognize this use of the genitive.

So tell me, what exactly is the genitive doing here? Why does Paul use it? What parallels can you provide in greek to support your interpretation of Paul's use here?

Apply your translation/edition of Blass & Debrunner to "seed of Israel," or "in the flesh," or "angel of the Lord." What do you get?

 

[Oberon]

Apply your translation/edition of Blass & Debrunner to "seed of Israel," or "in the flesh," or "angel of the Lord." What do you get?

I get the fact that you don't read greek and haven't studied greek grammar. For one thing, only two of your three examples use the genitive to express the relationship/role of the example you give. And the two that use the genitive use it in different ways.

I've stated that there is grammatical evidence in Paul based on the lexical and syntactic properties in the relevant clause in galatians that Paul knew that James was Jesus' actual kin. You deny this. Based on what analysis of the genitive? Or on what similar usage in greek literature?

Aren't Biblical scholars believing Jews and Christians for the most part, are they not biased in that they look for what they already believe is there?

There are plenty of non-christians fields like religious studies, religious history, biblical studies, etc. And everyone is biased. It is equally meaningful to say that atheists are looking for a mythic Jesus. Only 1) plenty of christian scholars are VERY skeptical of the historical reliability of the gospels, possibly as a result of being christian (including Price) and 2) there are agnostics and atheists contributing to the field of historical Jesus scholarship. Finally, what does being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you actually arguing that Jews would be biased in favor of christian beliefs?

 

[dogsgod]

I get the fact that you don't read greek and haven't studied greek grammar. For one thing, only two of your three examples use the genitive to express the relationship/role of the example you give. And the two that use the genitive use it in different ways.

I've stated that there is grammatical evidence in Paul based on the lexical and syntactic properties in the relevant clause in galatians that Paul knew that James was Jesus' actual kin. You deny this. Based on what analysis of the genitive? Or on what similar usage in greek literature?

Based on the fact that you are the only one that insists that brother of the Lord can only be interpreted this one way, and the only one to ignore that we find this in a religious context, and the only one to ignore the hundred times or more that brother means 'fellow believer' within these texts.

There are plenty of non-christians fields like religious studies, religious history, biblical studies, etc. And everyone is biased. It is equally meaningful to say that atheists are looking for a mythic Jesus. Only 1) plenty of christian scholars are VERY skeptical of the historical reliability of the gospels, possibly as a result of being christian (including Price) and 2) there are agnostics and atheists contributing to the field of historical Jesus scholarship. Finally, what does being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you actually arguing that Jews would be biased in favor of christian beliefs?

Most Jews probably take for granted that Jesus is historical, just not the Messiah. Price is an exception and it appears everyone knows that except you.

 

[Oberon]

Based on the fact that you are the only one that insists that brother of the Lord can only be interpreted this one way,

I'm not. There are almost no experts in any field of ancient history/nt studies/etc who believe that Paul meant that James was something other than a literal family member.

and the only one to ignore that we find this in a religious context.

We don't. Paul mentions James as an aside, and because "first" names were shared by so many, he makes it clear who he is talking about by identifying james by an important family member: his brother Jesus. Your analysis, that James is simply a spiritual brother, fails here. This is not simply because your analysis of greek lacks any knowledge of greek, but also because the language of brotherhood abounds within early christian literature, and therefore couldn't be used as an identifier. Only a family member could. And the syntactical contruction Paul uses shows this.

But feel free to offer a different analysis of the greek.

Most Jews probably take for granted that Jesus is historical, just not the Messiah.

Most experts do to. Because he is. But as your point here is to argue that only bias is responsible for this belief, why does being Jewish have anything to do with it?

Price is an exception and it appears everyone knows that except you.

Anybody with any expertise in any field related to historical Jesus studies who thinks Jesus is not historical is "an exception" regardless of religious background. Which is why virtually every mythicist is an amateur who doesn't know the field. However, there are MANY christian scholars who would like to argue that historical inquiry into Jesus' life is life is impossible. Price may be the only one who argues that Jesus isn't historical, but he isn't alone in trying to protect Jesus from historians.

 

[outhouse]

and heavan forbid grammatical evidence and lexical and syntactic properties we somehow not original after 10+ years of oral trasmission

 

[Oberon]

and heavan forbid grammatical evidence and lexical and syntactic properties we somehow not original after 10+ years of oral trasmission

We are taking about Paul. This isn't oral transimission. It is a firsthand account.

 

[dogsgod]

The "Jesus" story does make an interesting read though. I think the myth is a great story. I suspect the "Jesus" we read in the bible is an amalgamation of various mythic god/men....Serapis comes to mind but still doing more research on that character and how he might have related (morphed) into the "Jesus" myth.....

I agree, it's a story of good vs evil, an all time classic, and a template for a hero storyline we see used in Westerns all the time.

 

[outhouse]

we can give you that from a scholarly point of view the jesus myth is only biblical and not historical.

this is only from a scholar's viewpoint, there are not the definitive end to all. You have all admitted that you treat this material like any other NON religious material. hence I BELIEVE there in lies the problem. your spending more time trying to make non fiction out of known fiction. very little can be said about the historical jesus with certainty at best with a scholars view.

I understand Price sells the myth, its his league. there are however others that have reached a conclusion the gray area is knee deep and your looking at ankles

 

[dogsgod]

We are taking about Paul. This isn't oral transimission. It is a firsthand account.

They are copies of copies, and copies were known to be altered for religious/political purposes.

 

[dogsgod]

we can give you that from a scholarly point of view the jesus myth is only biblical and not historical.

this is only from a scholar's viewpoint, there are not the definitive end to all. You have all admitted that you treat this material like any other NON religious material. hence I BELIEVE there in lies the problem. your spending more time trying to make non fiction out of known fiction. very little can be said about the historical jesus with certainty at best with a scholars view.

I understand Price sells the myth, its his league. there are however others that have reached a conclusion the gray area is knee deep and your looking at ankles

The problem with Jesus is historical arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are reliable histories, they assume what they are trying to prove. Price is aware of this and does not apply the circular reasoning.

 

[outhouse]

They are copies of copies, and copies were known to be altered for religious/political purposes.

Paul asserted that he received the gospel not from any person, but by a personal revelation of jesus

so we should all believe the fiction created from a man who never knew jesus and was hallucinating the supernatural.

 

[outhouse]

The problem with Jesus is historical arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are reliable histories, they assume what they are trying to prove. Price is aware of this and does not apply the circular reasoning.

scholars are stuck in the circle pretty tight to.

one only has to read the fiction and realize how little could ever be dragged out with certainty.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul asserted that he received the gospel not from any person, but by a personal revelation of jesus

so we should all believe the fiction created from a man who never knew jesus and was hallucinating the supernatural.

Even if Paul stated "brother of Jesus" scholars would no doubt question the validity of that line because of everything else Paul and the other epistle writers state that contradicts such a notion. It would be considered an interpolation, and a stupid one at that.

 

[outhouse]

Even if Paul stated "brother of Jesus" scholars would no doubt question the validity of that line because of everything else Paul and the other epistle writers state that contradicts such a notion. It would be considered an interpolation, and a stupid one at that.

well he does state theres a "familial relationship" and we know hes not wrong

 

[outhouse]

The undisputed epistles


even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics


There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I dont know how you can possibly pull valid info from such material, then add in the fact that its fiction and I dont think you have a leg to stand on.

 

[fallingblood]

I think the Jesus mythers here simply need to take a step back and look at their arguments. All you are doing is simply no no no to all of the evidence being shown to you. You dismiss the scholars because they supposedly have Christian biases (even though there are those who have no reason to support a historical Jesus, such as Bart D. Ehrman who is an agnostic. I myself am an agnostic who also once believed in the Jesus myth. That's not mentioning the Jewish scholars who have no reason to support a historical Jesus). You dismiss the evidence because it simply doesn't fit with what you're saying. Stating that it was based on oral tradition is not a valid excuse to ignore what is said. Especially when you've done little if any research on oral culture and transmission.

More so, you lack a complete willingness to do research on ancient genres so that you may end up realizing that maybe, you simply can't dismiss the Gospels because they contain some elements that are mythical. The arguments you are using can be used against Augustus as well, but you don't see us simply throwing out his biographies because they contain some myth.

There is a point in which you have to stand up and provide some actual evidence instead of this intellectual masturbation you seem to be stuck on. Meaning, you need to stop just saying no no no and provide some actual evidence.

It would even be worth your time to show why there is any reason that a bunch of Jews in the first century would create a supposed Messiah that, for all intensive purposes, is laughable as a Messiah (just the fact that he died on a cross makes it laughable that Jesus could be the messiah, and even more laughable that some would claim that the Jews created him in order to invent a religion). Simply, it is hardly logical that there was any positive reason to create a failed Messiah who died a shameful death, one that was thought to be a cursed death, when there were other miracle workers and potential messiah's running around who fit much closer to the idea of the messiah than Jesus did.

So the first step really would be to show why a first century Jew would invent Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

I think the Jesus mythers here simply need to take a step back and look at their arguments. All you are doing is simply no no no to all of the evidence being shown to you. You dismiss the scholars because they supposedly have Christian biases (even though there are those who have no reason to support a historical Jesus, such as Bart D. Ehrman who is an agnostic. I myself am an agnostic who also once believed in the Jesus myth. That's not mentioning the Jewish scholars who have no reason to support a historical Jesus). You dismiss the evidence because it simply doesn't fit with what you're saying. Stating that it was based on oral tradition is not a valid excuse to ignore what is said. Especially when you've done little if any research on oral culture and transmission.

Mythers don't dismiss scholars because they supposedly have a Christian bias, mythers don't assume that the gospels are historical accounts of actual events, that's the difference.

More so, you lack a complete willingness to do research on ancient genres so that you may end up realizing that maybe, you simply can't dismiss the Gospels because they contain some elements that are mythical. The arguments you are using can be used against Augustus as well, but you don't see us simply throwing out his biographies because they contain some myth.

It's absurd to compare the gospels to the historical accounts we have for Augustus Caesar. Such absurdities as that has as much to do with mythers dismissing historical Jesus seekers as complete nutters as anything else.

There is a point in which you have to stand up and provide some actual evidence instead of this intellectual masturbation you seem to be stuck on. Meaning, you need to stop just saying no no no and provide some actual evidence.

The need for such insults for those that don't believe as you do only demonstrates how frustrating it must be for you to not have your beliefs accepted.

It would even be worth your time to show why there is any reason that a bunch of Jews in the first century would create a supposed Messiah that, for all intensive purposes, is laughable as a Messiah (just the fact that he died on a cross makes it laughable that Jesus could be the messiah, and even more laughable that some would claim that the Jews created him in order to invent a religion). Simply, it is hardly logical that there was any positive reason to create a failed Messiah who died a shameful death, one that was thought to be a cursed death, when there were other miracle workers and potential messiah's running around who fit much closer to the idea of the messiah than Jesus did.

So the first step really would be to show why a first century Jew would invent Jesus.

Argument from ignorance, used a lot of times to shift the burden of proof. You just can't help yourself.

 

[fallingblood]

Mythers don't dismiss scholars because they supposedly have a Christian bias, mythers don't assume that the gospels are historical accounts of actual events, that's the difference.

Not addressing what I stated. You side stepped the issue here.

It's absurd to compare the gospels to the historical accounts we have for Augustus Caesar. Such absurdities as that has as much to do with mythers dismissing historical Jesus seekers as complete nutters as anything else.

It's only absurd because it shows that in fact, historical figures can have myth contained in their biographies. Again, you're simply dismissing the point instead of actually addressing it.

The need for such insults for those that don't believe as you do only demonstrates how frustrating it must be for you to not have your beliefs accepted.

Again, another sidestep. I don't really care if you accept my beliefs. If you could defend your stance, maybe I would care a little bit more, but the defenses that you provide hardly provide any real threat that I should even care about at all.

Argument from ignorance, used a lot of times to shift the burden of proof. You just can't help yourself.

So you are saying you can't provide any support for why Jesus would be invented. That is what it boils down to.

I'm glad you responded though, as you provided evidence to what I referred to in my previous post. Jesus mythers simply can't defend their position in a logical manner.

 

[outhouse]

So the first step really would be to show why a first century Jew would invent Jesus.

they didnt invent jesus they invented a religion, this is fact. It needed a messiah one with only the best of magical powers for this messiah would do. walla watch me pull a magical messiah out of my hat. the jesus myth was needed in a bad way

You dismiss the scholars because they supposedly have Christian biases

thats only a small portion for my disbelief. Scholars seem to be one track minded as a whole, yes based on evidence but only using one source of weak evidence [literature] to make your whole case. Fiction at that. None of you have, as in not one has said one word when i say fiction. You know that part is true.

you need to stop just saying no no no and provide some actual evidence

You need to have some actual evidence as well. scholars believe everything written down in fiction, decades old oral material copied and recopied from unknown authors and the ones that have a author are disputed heavily.

FACT little is know about historical jesus other then you think you have a jew that was killed for ticking the establishement off. Beyond that your dreaming and then its a matter of interpetation.

FACT we know biblical jesus is fiction, where do you draw the line and start to believe that the new religion needed a mesiah with all the trimmings for people to follow. not just any messiah this one had to be more sensational then the rest so people would follow and believe in gods kingdom

Plain and simple, the reason there is dought is because of the lack of reliable evidence for the non myth camp. yes by fiction of second,third and forth hand material some passed down for decades orally.


biblical jesus is a myth, where do you draw the line to historical jesus with certainty???