did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

The onus would be on the skeptic to prove He did not.

No, it isn't. The point in any historical study is to demonstrate what most likely happened. Nobody gets to just assume unless somebody else shows otherwise.

 

[Oberon]

The following is one way to write a story. Take oral traditions and gossip, blend, and serve:


"In the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem to "cleanse" the Temple which had become a "robber's den," can we not recognize the entry of messiah Simon bar-Giora into the city at the invitation of the priesthood to "cleanse" the Temple of rival freedom fighters? And (as Eisenman and John Dominic Crossan both note) is not the mute flogging of Jesus by priests and Roman Procurator for predicting the Temple's doom suspiciously similar to that of Jesus ben-Ananias? Jesus' mockery as a king during a visit of a Herodian "king" sounds remarkably like the Carabas incident reported by Philo in Against Flaccus (again, Crossan notes this), which also echoes Barabbas, as if it needed pointing out. The attempt by the crowd to force Pilate into condemning Jesus by threatening to report his delinquency to Caesar recalls the actual complaint against Pilate made by Samaritans after he butchered the partisans of the Samaritan Taheb on Mount Gerizim, a deed which actually did result in Pilate's recall to Rome. Jesus' execution as King of the Jews reminds us of Simon bar-Giora's in Rome." R.M.Price

still waiting for your analysis of kurios and why it matters for your interpretation, as well as your explanation of the genitive construction.

And hero motifs, borrowing from scripture, etc, are no barr to historicit. As crossan notes, against Price, this no more negates jesus' historicity than it does caesar augustus. But them, as he himself puts it, Price likes to "leapfrog" over inconvenient evidence.

 

[blueman]

No, it isn't. The point in any historical study is to demonstrate what most likely happened. Nobody gets to just assume unless somebody else shows otherwise.

The historical study and evidence points to the likelihood of Jesus's existence. The skeptic would have to prove otherwise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This really shows the jesus spirit that murdered so many his name.

Yahshua said Mat21........You have heard that it was said to our people long ago, 'Don't kill any person. And any person that kills will be judged.' But I tell you, don't be angry with another person. Every person is your brother. If you are angry with other people, you will be judged. And if you say bad things to another person, you will be judged by the Jewish council. And if you call another person a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

There are many times in the Gospels where Jesus showed concern for the sick.

I assure you my concern is geniune. :foryou:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That was low.

Not quite as low as letting a delusional person harm themselves or others.

Obviously there's a few screws loose here... I'm just concerned that something might fall off.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The man who was written about in the gospels had a hebrew/aramaic name and guess what ....it aint Jesus....Jesus is greek name.

Tell me, where does it appear in Greek literature before Jesus's time?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

still waiting for your analysis of kurios and why it matters for your interpretation, as well as your explanation of the genitive construction.

And hero motifs, borrowing from scripture, etc, are no barr to historicit. As crossan notes, against Price, this no more negates jesus' historicity than it does caesar augustus. But them, as he himself puts it, Price likes to "leapfrog" over inconvenient evidence.

Don't you think that Crossan is overstating his case? I mean, we have geneaologies of Augustus that are verified in archaeology (tombs and such), and Augustus was far more historically significant in his day that Jesus. So we have coins, statues, and a giant footprint in several historically viable areas because he was an Emperor of Rome. Furthermore, almost his entire family left some significant footprints in Rome - there is a huge web of people who Agustus and his family interacted with who are also preserved in history by their participation in government, their erection of monuments and such, and patronal support of any number of things.

IMHO, comparing the historicity of Jesus to a Roman Emperor is apples to organges, and the Emperor is an exceptionally big orange.

 

[Oberon]

Don't you think that Crossan is overstating his case? I mean, we have geneaologies of Augustus that are verified in archaeology (tombs and such), and Augustus was far more historically significant in his day that Jesus. So we have coins, statues, and a giant footprint in several historically viable areas because he was an Emperor of Rome. Furthermore, almost his entire family left some significant footprints in Rome - there is a huge web of people who Agustus and his family interacted with who are also preserved in history by their participation in government, their erection of monuments and such, and patronal support of any number of things.

IMHO, comparing the historicity of Jesus to a Roman Emperor is apples to organges, and the Emperor is an exceptionally big orange.

Crossan wasn't saying we have as much information for Augustus as we do for Jesus. Far from it (he's pretty skeptical in his reading of the gospels). His point was only that these archetypes are part of the biographies of historical people in the ancient world. The fact that they are in the gospels may affect what parts should be considered historical, but one can't leap from there to Price's conclusion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Crossan wasn't saying we have as much information for Augustus as we do for Jesus. Far from it (he's pretty skeptical in his reading of the gospels). His point was only that these archetypes are part of the biographies of historical people in the ancient world. The fact that they are in the gospels may affect what parts should be considered historical, but one can't leap from there to Price's conclusion.

I see. So Crossan is comparing the archetype used in the biography of someone who doubtlessly existed (Augustus) to the similar archetype used in the biography of someone whose existence is questioned (Jesus).

But Augustus still has a collosal advantage over Jesus. Someone more problematic like Pythagoras - whose historical value came long after his death [IMHO] - would be more appropriate. No sane person would argue that Augustus never existed, because his historicity looms over any archetypes used to describe him. Jesus and Pythagoras, however, have little cooraborating evidence to help us sort historicality from archetype.

 

[Oberon]

I see. So Crossan is comparing the archetype used in the biography of someone who doubtlessly existed (Augustus) to the similar archetype used in the biography of someone whose existence is questioned (Jesus).

exactly

But Augustus still has a collosal advantage over Jesus. Someone more problematic like Pythagoras - whose historical value came long after his death [IMHO] - would be more appropriate. No sane person would argue that Augustus never existed, because his historicity looms over any archetypes used to describe him. Jesus and Pythagoras, however, have little cooraborating evidence to help us sort historicality from archetype.

I don't know. The first life of pythagoras was written centuries after he died. With jesus, despite the legends and myths, we have a number of very early sources. Certainly, if one adopts the view of Bultmann or Mack, then beyond establishing historicity there isn't a whole lot we can know.

In any event, I would say that comparisons between jesus and augustus and jesus and pythagoras are nearly equally problematic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know. The first life of pythagoras was written centuries after he died. With jesus, despite the legends and myths, we have a number of very early sources.

But it's been shown that these sources depend on Aristotle.

I agree that the time difference is significant - perhaps Socrates is better - but it seems to me that the archetypes in the Socratic literature are different from those found in much later writings (like the Gospels and the biographies of Pythagoras).

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Oberon]

But it's been shown that these sources depend on Aristotle.

I agree that the time difference is significant - perhaps Socrates is better - but it seems to me that the archetypes in the Socratic literature are different from those found in much later writings (like the Gospels and the biographies of Pythagoras).

Just thinking out loud.

I think Socrates is better. True, the archetypes are different, but still there. More importantly, you have a number of conflicting accounts which are especially problematic because it is hard to know where the Socrates ends and the author and story begin. How much of Xenophon and Plato's Socrates is Socrates, rather then the authors themselves or a character in their narratives?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How much of Xenophon and Plato's Socrates is Socrates, rather then the authors themselves or a character in their narratives?

If I could answer that question, I'd have a nice comfy chair in a classics or philosophy - perhaps even philology - department somewhere.

 

[dogsgod]

Not quite as low as letting a delusional person harm themselves or others.

Obviously there's a few screws loose here... I'm just concerned that something might fall off.

How do you think Christian beliefs appear to the non religious? Do you honestly think they appear any less delusional? An invisible God had a son that came to earth and died for the sins of mankind. Hello. You comment on a poster's mental health and then justify it, as if.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How do you think Christian beliefs appear to the non religious? Do you honestly think they appear any less delusional? An invisible God had a son that came to earth and died for the sins of mankind. Hello. You comment on a poster's mental health and then justify it, as if.

Only to the artless.

 

[outhouse]

OK so this needs ressurected

I witnessed research being done that brings up orally passed down religious history.

This flat shows how how unreliable the scripture can be regarding real history.

case in point would be david and solomon. the OT descibes the thousand wives when in fact there were barely a thousand people living in the tribe at the time in the region around the 10'th century.

what else will I learn about oral transmission and religion. I think the three of you know more then your letting on.

understood that you fight your truths against my truths but somewhere inthe middle is what really happens.

 

[fallingblood]

OK so this needs ressurected

I witnessed research being done that brings up orally passed down religious history.

This flat shows how how unreliable the scripture can be regarding real history.

case in point would be david and solomon. the OT descibes the thousand wives when in fact there were barely a thousand people living in the tribe at the time in the region around the 10'th century.

what else will I learn about oral transmission and religion. I think the three of you know more then your letting on.

understood that you fight your truths against my truths but somewhere inthe middle is what really happens.

Exaggerations are expected. No one is denying that. However, that does not mean we can just dismiss those texts. It also means you have to do a little more research.

Basically, you've shown nothing except that you haven't done thorough research into the subject.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you for your reply

It was argued earlier that oral transmission was accepted as accurate, I understand that you pick through the fiction to find the facts based on facts.

For me im just understanding that the gray area regarding oral transmission just got a little more gray.

 

[outhouse]

that does not mean we can just dismiss those texts

I understand this and did learn how the historians are placing valuable context to it, sometime by geographic refference alone, verification is important.

 

[dogsgod]

So, the gospels contain some material taken from various oral traditions among other things.