did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

Excellent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe that a first century Roman bath has been found in Nazareth...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/22/research.artsandhumanities

 

[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.

I didn't really believe you were this misguided. To honestly believe these tales are 100 percent factual with no historical basis whatsoever is mindboggling.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To honestly believe these tales are 100 percent factual with no historical basis whatsoever is mindboggling.

Did you mean to say it like that?

 

[logician]

Nazareth was unheard of prior to gMark. The location and name of present day Nazareth was determined centuries later. Holy grail seekers claim otherwise.

Correct, there was not a Nazareth in the supposed time of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

I didn't really believe you were this misguided. To honestly believe these tales are 100 percent factual with no historical basis whatsoever is mindboggling.

I don't believe they are anywhere near 100% factual. That would be almost as mindboggling as an atheist having a religious and dogmatic belief in a mythic Jesus based upon reading a few website and a book by a guy with a B.A. in psychology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Correct, there was not a Nazareth in the supposed time of Jesus.

There was just a Roman bath in the middle of nowhere.

 

[logician]

Did you mean to say it like that?

Uh, I'm talking about the following sentence:

"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. ":thud:

 

[logician]

There was just a Roman bath in the middle of nowhere.

Prove it was Nazareth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Prove it was Nazareth.

Well, there's a first century Roman bath in Nazareth, according to archaeological findings.

note: http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/The-story-of-place-Discovery-Roman-Bathhouse-Chang/2833554

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Bath_House_of_Nazareth

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Uh, I'm talking about the following sentence:

"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. ":thud:

You said "tales."

 

[logician]

I don't believe they are anywhere near 100% factual. That would be almost as mindboggling as an atheist having a religious and dogmatic belief in a mythic Jesus based upon reading a few website and a book by a guy with a B.A. in psychology.

I've probably heard more sermons than you in my lifetime, in any case, please point to a specific Jesus and prove to me he is the man that the writers of the NT were writing about. Exactly how many of the stories of the NT were actually about this man, as opposed to being made up, and where do you draw the line? That's what this is all about.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't believe they are anywhere near 100% factual. That would be almost as mindboggling as an atheist having a religious and dogmatic belief in a mythic Jesus based upon reading a few website and a book by a guy with a B.A. in psychology.

(which just possibly might compliment his bias)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've probably heard more sermons than you in my lifetime, in any case, please point to a specific Jesus and prove to me he is the man that the writers of the NT were writing about. Exactly how many of the stories of the NT were actually about this man, as opposed to being made up, and where do you draw the line? That's what this is all about.

Again, that's not the point. The historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of the stories in the NT. The process is to use all the tools of history, anthropology, archaeology, and rhetoric to seperate the "historical Jesus" from the
"mythical Jesus."

Because you don't have vocabulary needed to converse on an historical level, there's no reasonable standard to prove anything to your satisfaction - unless, of course, it already suits your bias.

 

[logician]

Again, that's not the point. The historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of the stories in the NT. The process is to use all the tools of history, anthropology, archaeology, and rhetoric to seperate the "historical Jesus" from the
"mythical Jesus."

Because you don't have vocabulary needed to converse on an historical level, there's no reasonable standard to prove anything to your satisfaction - unless, of course, it already suits your bias.

Again you distract from the issue. Exactly WHAT Jesus we are talking IS the issue. Was the NT based upon a real man, or made up? If based upon a real man, how many of the stories are real, and how many were fictitious? Obviously, the NT is full of made up stories, I don't know how anyone could associate any living person with the mythical person represented.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again you distract from the issue. Exactly WHAT Jesus we are talking IS the issue. Was the NT based upon a real man, or made up? If based upon a real man, how many of the stories are real, and how many were fictitious? Obviously, the NT is full of made up stories, I don't know how anyone could associate any living person with the mythical person represented.

So, what's your drink?

 

[waitasec]

Again, that's not the point. The historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of the stories in the NT. The process is to use all the tools of history, anthropology, archaeology, and rhetoric to seperate the "historical Jesus" from the
"mythical Jesus."

Because you don't have vocabulary needed to converse on an historical level, there's no reasonable standard to prove anything to your satisfaction - unless, of course, it already suits your bias.

angellous...
i don't get it...

if you understand that the mythical jesus isn't the same as the historical jesus what have you found to link the two?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous...
i don't get it...

if you understand that the mythical jesus isn't the same as the historical jesus what have you found to link the two?

Well, they aren't linked. Except if you want call attributing myth to a historical figure a 'link.'

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

 

[waitasec]

Well, they aren't linked. Except if you want call attributing myth to a historical figure a 'link.'

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

are you saying your faith is attributed to something you believe as myth?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

are you saying your faith is attributed to something you believe as myth?

Something like that, yes.

I think that by faith, believers can participate existentially in the myth. We can enjoy it like a peice of art or a novel, but in a religious sense. But there are many, many ways that Christians experience Christ.