did jesus exist?

[waitasec]

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.

you know that's actually quite cool
i like that
because it is not the conventional approach to christianity that i have been exposed to.

my only problem is when believers think their religious beliefs trump peoples inalienable rights...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

you know that's actually quite cool
i like that
because it is not the conventional approach to christianity that i have been exposed to.

my only problem is when believers think their religious beliefs trump peoples inalienable rights...

I hate that too.

 

[logician]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.
If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.
A real historical Jesus would have had to have some of the traits of the NT Jesus to be considered to be a historical Jesus, or the relationship is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.

This is more likely the Yeshua we're talking about with just one adjustment.....There was no high profile trial or at least certainly none to make a big fuss over.

 

[Ilisrum]

I have a hard time believing that Jesus, as a devout Jew, would institute a pagan style ritual meal like the Lord's supper. The idea of symbolically eating flesh and drinking blood would have been seen as abhorrent to any orthodox Jewish community like the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. The ceremony described in the Didache seems to be more historically authentic in my opinion.

 

[Oberon]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.

The idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is much more problematic, because then one has to explain why all of a sudden a series of texts in the first century were devoted to a single person, placed him in a specific context, and treated him as a historical figure. This isn't true for other cultic figures like hercules or osiris. It isn't just that the myths surrounding these figures place them in a far distant past, it's that they are far more highly variable and spread out in time. They don't just simply appear.

If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.

If, however, he was a charismatic healer/teacher/leader who inspired a relatively small following among a highly illiterate subgroup of a culture already under domination by another culture to which most of the historians belonged, we would be suprised indeed if any mention of the man was recorded within a century of his life. Which is why we are extraordinarily lucky to have epistles, bioi, and a few references from several different historians all within a century, some by contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

On what do you base this statement? Paul was more influential in many ways, in that as a missionary he travelled farther and converted more, and was interacting with both pagan and jewish cultures, and yet he isn't mentioned by anyone outside of christian circles. John the baptist was influential enough to be in the NT and Josephus, but isn't mentioned by anyone else. The teacher of righteousness is unheard of outside of the qumran documents. Apollonius of Tyana was a miracle-woker, but he isn't mentioned more than in passing until a century after his death. Why on earth do you think "historians" would have written about a relatively obscure prophet/teacher from galilee who gathered a following? Oh wait. Because The Jesus Mysterties said so.

 

[dogsgod]

A "relatively obscure" Jesus is not the Jesus we read of in the gospels. The Jesus of the gospels drew huge crowds wherever he went. That relatively obscure Jesus must be yet another imaginary Jesus of the same name.

 

[logician]

The idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is much more problematic, because then one has to explain why all of a sudden a series of texts in the first century were devoted to a single person, placed him in a specific context, and treated him as a historical figure. This isn't true for other cultic figures like hercules or osiris. It isn't just that the myths surrounding these figures place them in a far distant past, it's that they are far more highly variable and spread out in time. They don't just simply appear.





If, however, he was a charismatic healer/teacher/leader who inspired a relatively small following among a highly illiterate subgroup of a culture already under domination by another culture to which most of the historians belonged, we would be suprised indeed if any mention of the man was recorded within a century of his life. Which is why we are extraordinarily lucky to have epistles, bioi, and a few references from several different historians all within a century, some by contemporaries or near-contemporaries.


On what do you base this statement? Paul was more influential in many ways, in that as a missionary he travelled farther and converted more, and was interacting with both pagan and jewish cultures, and yet he isn't mentioned by anyone outside of christian circles. John the baptist was influential enough to be in the NT and Josephus, but isn't mentioned by anyone else. The teacher of righteousness is unheard of outside of the qumran documents. Apollonius of Tyana was a miracle-woker, but he isn't mentioned more than in passing until a century after his death. Why on earth do you think "historians" would have written about a relatively obscure prophet/teacher from galilee who gathered a following? Oh wait. Because The Jesus Mysterties said so.

Keep going, you might convince yourself this argument from the negative makes sense, arguing that the LACK of contemporary historical evidence does nothing to diminish the idea of the historicity of a mythical Jesus makes perfect sense to me. :no:

 

[logician]

A "relatively obscure" Jesus is not the Jesus we read of in the gospels. The Jesus of the gospels drew huge crowds wherever he went.

Again, they want to have their cake and to eat it to. The character of Jesus portrayed in the NT obviously has nothing to do with the historical Jesus they are trying to pawn off on us.

 

[dogsgod]

Keep going, you might convince yourself this argument from the negative makes sense, arguing that the LACK of contemporary historical evidence does nothing to diminish the idea of the historicity of a mythical Jesus makes perfect sense to me. :no:

Why do the holy grail seekers bother looking for treasure that isn't there when the mythologies are perfect just as they are?

 

[dogsgod]

Again, they want to have their cake and to eat it to. The character of Jesus portrayed in the NT obviously has nothing to do with the historical Jesus they are trying to pawn off on us.

They think we can't tell the difference, as if we haven't read the story.

 

[Oberon]

A "relatively obscure" Jesus is not the Jesus we read of in the gospels. The Jesus of the gospels drew huge crowds wherever he went. That relatively obscure Jesus must be yet another imaginary Jesus of the same name.

And it isn't possible that, as with many accounts in all sorts of historical narratives, the gospels exaggerated...

What makes you think that any historical source must be completely accurate or not at all? If Thucydides attampts to make the Medea myth into history, does that make every account he wrote historically worthless? No, no more than the exaggeration of Jesus' impact makes the gospels worthless, a ubiquitous phenomenon throughout the genre of lives and histories, even accounts of emperors well known.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jesus was 5'2", weighed about 185. He lived mostly on vegetables and sardines.

 

[dogsgod]

And it isn't possible that, as with many accounts in all sorts of historical narratives, the gospels exaggerated...

What makes you think that any historical source must be completely accurate or not at all? If Thucydides attampts to make the Medea myth into history, does that make every account he wrote historically worthless? No, no more than the exaggeration of Jesus' impact makes the gospels worthless, a ubiquitous phenomenon throughout the genre of lives and histories, even accounts of emperors well known.

We don't have a non exaggerated story of any kind to compare it to so it's meaningless to say it's exaggerated. It is what it is, mythology, fiction.

 

[dogsgod]

Jesus was 5'2", weighed about 185. He lived mostly on vegetables and sardines.

With zatziki.

 

[Oberon]

We don't have a non exaggerated story of any kind to compare it to so it's meaningless to say it's exaggerated. It is what it is, mythology, fiction.

To say that it is mythology and fiction is to determine not just content but genre (as I have pointed out and shown, history could contain myth and legend, even when we are dealing with talented historians like Thucydides).

So if you call the gospels myths and fictions, with what ancient texts are you comparing them to? Notice I am not asking what myths, but actual text. In other words, if we should put the gospels in with other myths of the ancient world, we should find texts similar enough to the gospels in style, form, narrative, content, etc, to be placed in the same category of genre. What texts are you comparing the gospels to?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

With zatziki.

I'm sorry, I didn't finish.

Dark hair, dark eyes, medium build. He may have been lighter than 185 - maybe 155.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To say that it is mythology and fiction is to determine not just content but genre (as I have pointed out and shown, history could contain myth and legend, even when we are dealing with talented historians like Thucydides).

So if you call the gospels myths and fictions, with what ancient texts are you comparing them to? Notice I am not asking what myths, but actual text. In other words, if we should put the gospels in with other myths of the ancient world, we should find texts similar enough to the gospels in style, form, narrative, content, etc, to be placed in the same category of genre. What texts are you comparing the gospels to?

Great point.

I don't think that there is anything else like a Gospel -- or the letters of Paul, for that matter. There are many elements that are similar, but not the full meal deal.

 

[outhouse]

Oral trasmission for a decade is not accurate, with all the mystery authors your story doesnt hold water.

you ever thought theres a reason why such a important figure who was said to gather crowds so large everyone knew his name for miles in every direction. Didnt have one thing written about him by one of many scribes who lived at that time. The story is to sensational to be left only to a decade of oral traditions by a evolving religion.

I don't think that there is anything else like a Gospel

Your right, there isnt a bigger lie told anywhere. The fiction is there.

You only sensationalize your point to counter ours, your lies are weak and transparent

 

[outhouse]

OH and the ranger sucked lol