did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

Belief is the only possibility for accepting the gospels as historical accounts. No one has presented any facts, so deduction leads one to conclude that this notion can only be an unsubstantiated belief.

When did we do that?

 

[dogsgod]

The miracles and the resurrection are the core elements of the story, it is to miss the point to suggest that these are exaggerated stories so otherwise historical. The point is that this Son of God came down to earth for the purpose of committing miracles and to resurrect from the dead in order to redeem mankind.

 

[dogsgod]

When did we do that?

Oberon does that daily, ad nauseum. Fallingblood included you in that belief.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The miracles and the resurrection are the core elements of the story, it is to miss the point to suggest that these are exaggerated stories so otherwise historical. The point is that this Son of God came down to earth for the purpose of committing miracles and to resurrect from the dead in order to redeem mankind.

So your previous post concerning my beliefs are baseless.

Unless you care to present evidence of my beliefs.

You've repeatedly insulted my intelligence on this thread, and several of your recent posts are empty polemic. And then commenting on my beliefs only demonstrates that you're not paying attention.

 

[dogsgod]

So your previous post concerning my beliefs are baseless.

Unless you care to present evidence of my beliefs.

You've repeatedly insulted my intelligence on this thread, and several of your recent posts are empty polemic. And then commenting on my beliefs only demonstrates that you're not paying attention.

Empty polemic, how dramatic. I simply don't believe claims of Jesus' existence, and you haven't given any reason why anyone should.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Empty polemic, how dramatic. I simply don't believe claims of Jesus' existence, and you haven't given any reason why anyone should.

I've given reasons why people do.

You may insult them and make it seem as if they stupidly or uncritically look at the Gospels as historical accounts, but that is clearly not the case.

 

[fallingblood]

But wouldn't you agree that it would not be surprising that a pagan religion splintered from it's source. A pagan religion sprouting out of Judaism doesn't surprise me at all.

I agree that it isn't surprising. The key for me though is that that splinter religion must have had a catalyst.

 

[fallingblood]

But wouldn't you also agree that there are many elements of fiction in the gospel? I'm not saying ("ALL") of it is a work of fiction, rather a good size portion of it can be regarded as fiction. I'm not even sure Oberon is arguing that the gospels aren't littered with fictitious events.

Yes, I would admit that there is some fiction in the Gospels. There are clear myths in the accounts. The vast majority of critical scholars would admit there is some myth in the accounts. But I just wouldn't rule them, as some are, that they are entirely fiction.

 

[fallingblood]

you cant prove a myth doesnt exist

the bible itself is the best proof we have, its an amazing tale told many times before with different actors. this new spin stuck, it was sensationlized so much.

I can't prove a myth doesn't exist to you. That's because you are simply ignoring what is being shown to counter your position.

As for the Bible, your conclusion is way off base. The Bible is a collection of books, that are comprised of many different genres. Some are historical. Some are poetic. Some are mythical. The cover a wide array of genres. To try to do what you did and lump them all together only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[fallingblood]

The miracles and the resurrection are the core elements of the story, it is to miss the point to suggest that these are exaggerated stories so otherwise historical. The point is that this Son of God came down to earth for the purpose of committing miracles and to resurrect from the dead in order to redeem mankind.

Can you just admit that you have no idea what is being told in the Gospels? That would go a long way.

As for exaggerations, many of the miracles can be seen as just that. If one would look at India and other Southeastern Asia areas, you would see that there are still those who believe that gods or sons of gods are walking on earth and performing miracles. One of the famous so called miracles, that many are familiar with, is the act of having a rope rise into the sky, a boy quickly climbing up it, the miracle worker chasing up it after the boy with a sword, after they both disappear in the clouds, body parts rain down, the man comes down, and the boy is miraculously healed, and that is the effect. Of course, this never happens, it is a trick that has been greatly exaggerated. Yet, there is still some basis behind the effect, and we know that some claim to have witnessed just that.

Even in modern times, we see such exaggerations. Houdini is a great example. Some claimed he could dematerialize and that is how he was able to escape any restraint. Of course, that is a myth, an exaggeration, yet we can't simple rule out some idea behind it.

The fact that myth and exaggerations can find themselves into even modern accounts, shows that we have no reason to simply dismiss the Gospels on the basis that they have exaggerations and myths. Especially when we can see similar exaggerations in modern accounts.

 

[Oberon]

They believe that the gospel story of a dying and rising Son of God is not fiction, they haven't shown the gospel story to be non-fiction, not by any stretch of the imagination.

1) I have cited numerous work opn gospel genres. You reject these without even knowing the argument
2) I referred you to an entire thread in which I refute R. G. Price's ridiculous notion.
3) I can place the gospels at least in close proximity to a known genre. Your argument is that they are simply "gospels" and somehow Mark invented a brand new genre out of thin air.

Why aren't the gospels simply myths? Mythic figures weren't placed within a recent historical context. The gospels place Jesus a generation or two prior to composition. Myths may contain historical places and perhaps even historical people, while the gospels can only be called fiction if they are considered historical fiction (Herod, Caesar, John the Baptist, Caiaphas, etc, all are historical figures attested to elsewhere). Again we are back to Mark creating a genre, only now it is historical fiction of some type. Once more, even with an extremely skeptical approach to the gospel material, you can't explain the nature of the religious movement behind the texts without a founder, something they all look to. So not only would you have us belief that Mark and the early christians had a totally unique genre, they also managed to create a cult completely different from any other (all the other cults revolved around myths from ancient times; a cult surrounding historical fiction would be entirely novel). Basically, everywhere you look, the mythicists are trying to explain away evidence with improbable arguments (such as supposing interpolation simply because it makes their arguments easier, or ignoring certain parts of Paul because it ruins their interpretation of other parts, and so on).

 

[outhouse]

you dont think at one point as people were sitting around discussing how they wanted to the story to go down and wrote it that way?

Or a group made a copy and said lets add or distract this and that to get what we want?

we know they did the later to some extent as allot of the copies had originality issues

the after this happened a few times and that is your source material you have now?

 

[Oberon]

you dont think at one point as people were sitting around discussing how they wanted to the story to go down and wrote it that way?

Yes it was a massive conspiracy. A bunch of Jews got together and wanted power so they created a movement which made them persecuted minorities by both Jews AND romans...

we know they did the later to some extent as allot of the copies had originality issues

Have you studied textual criticism? Or, perhaps a better question, do you have any idea what is behind modern editions of the greek tests?

 

[outhouse]

Have you studied textual criticism?

No, i have not. I understand some of the foundation.

do you have any idea what is behind modern editions of the greek tests

no idea, i have studied wiki and the dsicussions there pretty well on every comment made in this thread. As well most links one can find and those posted here.

Yes it was a massive conspiracy. A bunch of Jews got together and wanted power so they created a movement which made them persecuted minorities by both Jews AND romans...

see i dont think it was a conspiracy, it was a movement in which they wanted to appeal to more then just judaism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

do you have any idea what is behind modern editions of the greek tests?

A giddy professor.

 

[Oberon]

A giddy professor.

SEVERAL giddy professors

 

[angellous_evangellous]

SEVERAL giddy professors

My Greek prof wasn't good with computers, so my exams were hand written.

I wasn't graded on an exam until my final exam for the Ph.D. because I was able to correct spelling/grammar/syntax errors on the exam.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My Greek prof wasn't good with computers, so my exams were hand written.

I wasn't graded on an exam until my final exam for the Ph.D. because I was able to correct spelling/grammar/syntax errors on the exam.

He would shout out "scribal error, scribal error!" while others were still working. :biglaugh:

 

[dogsgod]

It looks like only people with a special education can have knowledge of the historical Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

It looks like only people with a special education can have knowledge of the historical Jesus.

Just as people who refuse to be educated can have special knowledge to the contrary. :yes: