did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

Even ancient figures like Julius Caesar also had pretty much the same evidence, maybe not Polaroids, but pretty much everything else.

You are quite wrong. There are quite different depictions of Julius Caesar and of Abraham Lincoln. And none of these encapsulated the actual individual. They are mere portraits of parts of who they were at best, and at times quite inaccurate.

Jesus was no different. There is a specific Jesus of Nazareth, born in 1st century roman palestine, who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions. A generation or so later, some of his followers' followers decided that, rather than continue to use only orality as a medium for transmitting his stories and teachings, they would commit parts of it to writing. From these writings we can get a view of the historical Jesus that is better and more accurate than some historical depictions (e.g. the life of Apollonius of Tyana or probably the life of Euripides), perhaps as accurate as some (e.g. Socrates), and far less clear and accurate than many more. The disagreement among sources and the fact that these sources are shaped by more than just a desire to record Jesus' life mean that they can't be taken as "gospel truth" but it does not mean they are unusable.

 

[outhouse]

You are quite wrong. There are quite different depictions of Julius Caesar and of Abraham Lincoln. And none of these encapsulated the actual individual. They are mere portraits of parts of who they were at best, and at times quite inaccurate.

Jesus was no different. There is a specific Jesus of Nazareth, born in 1st century roman palestine, who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions. A generation or so later, some of his followers' followers decided that, rather than continue to use only orality as a medium for transmitting his stories and teachings, they would commit parts of it to writing. From these writings we can get a view of the historical Jesus that is better and more accurate than some historical depictions (e.g. the life of Apollonius of Tyana or probably the life of Euripides), perhaps as accurate as some (e.g. Socrates), and far less clear and accurate than many more. The disagreement among sources and the fact that these sources are shaped by more than just a desire to record Jesus' life mean that they can't be taken as "gospel truth" but it does not mean they are unusable.

this is why there is such debate

who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions and was a deity and born on the 25th

And this was the first time this theme ever came into play???? absolutely not

Its obviously stolen material ALL of IT! It all happened before and during his life time. If it was original material you would have something with your "lets use loose standards to create non fiction" But not only is it not original its been played out many many times before with the same story.

google how to get rich the quickest, create a religion comes up first!

 

[outhouse]

taken at face value your scholarship has a little merit

takin into context , overshadows everything

that is why you started the old thread whining aout why so many people do not believe giving undue weight to scholars

 

[Oberon]

taken at face value your scholarship has a little merit

You wouldn't know. You haven't read it.

takin into context , overshadows everything

You don't know the context, because you haven't studied the cultural, literary, religious, etc, background of the period and person in question.

that is why you started the old thread whining aout why so many people do not believe giving undue weight to scholars

That's exactly right. People like you have zero understanding of the same context you say we should take into account. You don't have the background knowledge necessary to place these texts into that context.

this is why there is such debate

The debate among people who actually know what they are talking about (what you called "professional scholars") is about the details of Jesus' life. The debate about whether or not he existed occurs almost entirely among people who don't know any better (i.e. in non-academic public discourse).

And this was the first time this theme ever came into play???? absolutely not

Nope. There were others. Perhaps the closest in some respects is Augustus Caesar, called son of god, about whom various myths and legends grew up. Of course, he was historical too.

 

[dogsgod]

You really don't get it, do you? The atheists and agnostics involved in biblical research are almost always less likely to find the gospels as reliable as conservative christian scholars, and they may think we can't know much about Jesus, but the idea that Jesus wasn't historical is just so unsupportable it doesn't really exist in academia at all, regardless of religious background.

That probably has more to do with an historical Jesus meme that is ingrained ever so deeply into our culture that it's not questioned by most people regardless of religion or non religion, ever. It's like apple pie and ice cream, no one asks why apple pie and ice cream, it just is.

 

[outhouse]

You wouldn't know. You haven't read it

dont need to read a fictional account, but I have studied quite a bit

You don't know the context, because you haven't studied the cultural, literary, religious, etc, background of the period and person in question.

Yes I do know the context, not much has been written

That's exactly right. People like you have zero understanding of the same context you say we should take into account. You don't have the background knowledge necessary to place these texts into that context.

WRONG you dont need background or a scholarship to understand fiction.

scholars are NOT the final answer here

The debate among people who actually know what they are talking about (what you called "professional scholars") is about the details of Jesus' life. The debate about whether or not he existed occurs almost entirely among people who don't know any better (i.e. in non-academic public discourse).

you keep confusing stolen fiction with reality. Not that im a follower of price but you sure give him credibility


Its obviously stolen material ALL of IT! It all happened before and during his life time. If it was original material you would have something with your "lets use loose standards to create non fiction" But not only is it not original its been played out many many times before with the same story.

 

[outhouse]

the basis for that religion existed, because they put a name to it [sometimes] doesnt make it non fiction.

the same story had been told during, centurys, and thousands of years before with only the name being different. They changed the content to fit the old testament messiah which jews deny and they made a religion to meet the needs of all people, it stuck and they RAN with it. It was brilliant, ill give then that.

 

[Oberon]

dont need to read a fictional account, but I have studied quite a bit

Apparently not. Reading wikipedia doesn't equal "studying quite a bit."

Yes I do know the context, not much has been written

Really? You know what constitutes the literary genre of bioi? You understand religious and political situations of the first century? You can situate religious movements in their various contexts? Having read what?

WRONG you dont need background or a scholarship to understand fiction.

Tell that to literary professors. Not even fiction occurs in a vacuum. And given the difference between what history looks like now, and what it looked like then, and given the fact that you can't even read these texts as they are written in languages you don't understand, I'd say you need a lot of background. Of course, you are so completely lacking in any relevant information you can't really even realize how little you know.

scholars are NOT the final answer here

Right. The answer is people who have no clue what they are talking about. Who needs to study? I mean, so what if you are seperated from this time period by a temporal, linguist, cultural, and religious barrier so wide you can't even recognize it. No, the best way to approach the NT is to decide you know everything about it and then not bother to read anything by people who know what they are talking about.

Its obviously stolen material ALL of IT!

Stolen from what?

 

[outhouse]

Reading wikipedia doesn't equal "studying quite a bit."

great now your a phycic as well as a fictional scholar

you are so completely lacking in any relevant information you can't really even realize how little you know.

Just the opposite! your so wrapped up in what YOU think is relevant you cant see the whole picture. Your boxed in ramblings with only your way out show this to be.

I have the open mind without a locked in decision made, you cannot say the same.

the best way to approach the NT

YOU DONT NEED A PROFFESSOR to tell you NOT TO! see how much non fiction you can create out of stolen fiction

If your a expert why do i have to explain the previous religions in which chistianity is based on???????? maybe once your mind is made up they become not relevant

 

[dogsgod]

There is a specific Jesus of Nazareth, born in 1st century roman palestine, who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions.

That's absolutely hilarious. Why twelve? Could it be that twelve is symbolic? Literalists, gottaluv'm.

 

[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 don't know. It's more an issue in theological thinking than historical thinking IMHO. Like the German scholar who said that "even if Jesus' name is not written on the rolls of the city, it would make no difference in Christian theology. And then there's Bultmann.

I have more to say but I need to go...

 

[dogsgod]

Nope. There were others. Perhaps the closest in some respects is Augustus Caesar, called son of god, about whom various myths and legends grew up. Of course, he was historical too.

Caesar was a dying and rising god?

Jesus Christ was the first and only dying and rising god?

How many dying and rising gods were historical besides Jesus Christ?

 

[dogsgod]

How does one connect a dying and rising god for the sake of our sins, a redeemer of mankind that we read of in the epistles with a kind of counter culture from Galilee we read of in Q that turns it's back on an elitist society, besides the fact that the gospels artificially brought these two very different groups together. Reading the epistles and then reading Q, there is no connection.

 

[Oberon]

How many dying and rising gods were historical besides Jesus Christ?

More than a few, although they were pretty much all deified emperors. But I doubt your conception of "dying and resurrecting gods" in the ancient world is very accurate.

 

[Oberon]

That's absolutely hilarious. Why twelve? Could it be that twelve is symbolic? Literalists, gottaluv'm.

Of course it is symbolic. But it is a symbol Jesus chose. How do we know this? It is in the earliest layers of the tradition, by someone who actually knew some of the twelve.

 

[dogsgod]

Of course it is symbolic. But it is a symbol Jesus chose. How do we know this? It is in the earliest layers of the tradition, by someone who actually knew some of the twelve.

Yes of course. Never mind that the story of Jesus and the twelve disciples wasn't created until after Paul died. The author of Mark couldn't have gotten the idea of the Twelve from reading a certain epistle, or by borrowing from ancient texts.

 

[Oberon]

great now your a phycic as well as a fictional scholar

You are the one who mentioned wikipedia. I've asked you what you've read not just about the historical jesus but about literary genres of the ancient world, classics, ancient judaism, etc. It appears you haven't read anything, but nonetheless are content in your ignorance as it makes everything simpler. If you have no idea how much background you are lacking, it makes judgment calls easier.

Just the opposite! your so wrapped up in what YOU think is relevant you cant see the whole picture. Your boxed in ramblings with only your way out show this to be.

Well let's look at what I think is revelant. You keep calling the NT fiction. Yet it doesn't appear you have read much of anything in terms of what "fiction" vs. "history" looked like in the ancient world (I'll give you a hint: the dichotomy has little validity). You make claims about religious movements and how the NT is copied but evidently know nothing about these cults you are talking about. In fact, all your claims are built off of assumptions you have made that you can only justify by repeating them because you have nothing to point to which might lend credence to your view. You can yell fiction as loud as you like, but when you can't situate the gospels in their literary or cultural environment, and can't point to any scholarship that has, and can't address the massive amount of work by people who know FAR, FAR, more than you, you really aren't saying much, are you?

I have the open mind without a locked in decision made, you cannot say the same.

What open mind? You made up your mind without reading any scholarship which might give you a basic acquaintence with the issues involved, and without reading the relevant primary texts. In fact, in all of your responses, you haven't given any indication that you have studied this at all, just that you have made up your mind. That isn't being open minded it's being ignorant.

If your a expert why do i have to explain the previous religions in which chistianity is based on???????? maybe once your mind is made up they become not relevant

Because you got some information from some websites or some sensationalist book claiming that christianity copied cults like Mithras and so on, and lacked the knowledge base to realize you were being misinformed.

 

[Oberon]

Yes of course. Never mind that the story of Jesus and the twelve disciples wasn't created until after Paul died. The author of Mark couldn't have gotten the idea of the Twelve from reading a certain epistle, or by borrowing from ancient texts.

Which is strange, given that Paul specifically discusses the twelve (kai ophthe Kepha eita tois dedoka).

 

[logician]

You are quite wrong. There are quite different depictions of Julius Caesar and of Abraham Lincoln. And none of these encapsulated the actual individual. They are mere portraits of parts of who they were at best, and at times quite inaccurate.

Jesus was no different. There is a specific Jesus of Nazareth, born in 1st century roman palestine, who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions. A generation or so later, some of his followers' followers decided that, rather than continue to use only orality as a medium for transmitting his stories and teachings, they would commit parts of it to writing. From these writings we can get a view of the historical Jesus that is better and more accurate than some historical depictions (e.g. the life of Apollonius of Tyana or probably the life of Euripides), perhaps as accurate as some (e.g. Socrates), and far less clear and accurate than many more. The disagreement among sources and the fact that these sources are shaped by more than just a desire to record Jesus' life mean that they can't be taken as "gospel truth" but it does not mean they are unusable.

There absolutely is not, this statement is blantantly false.:sorry1:

 

[Oberon]

There absolutely is not, this statement is blantantly false.:sorry1:

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