did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you seriously think they weren't?

Absolutely not.

 

[fallingblood]

But catalyst does not (necessarily) imply a historical person at it's core. There were plenty of mythic god/men religions already in full swing centuries before and up to the time of the supposed Yeshua. Some, not all, matching the characteristics of Yeshua. Striking out any fantastical claims the bible makes about Yeshua we're not left with much about him. We can also look at the supposed actions of the Romans around him and his trial. The claims the bible makes appears not to match "historical" events.

You are correct. In and of itself, it does not imply that a historical person is at it's core. But it does imply something is. Which further research, that something becomes a who.

We see Paul, writing relatively shortly after the death of Jesus places Jesus in a general time period. He places him as an actual human being here on earth. The Gospels go further to place Jesus in a very exact time and place. Essentially, we are given a time span of about 35 years in which we are to assume that a whole figure, with brothers and all, was invented. The fact that Paul mentions a brother of Jesus, that he personally chatted with, shows that Jesus can't be too far removed from that time period.

We are thus talking about a very short time period here.

 

[fallingblood]

Ok, oh wise one, define the gray area.

Seriously? Okay, well here is a short list:

• What language Jesus spoke
• Did he die by crucifixion
• Did he survive crucifixion
• Was he actually buried in a tomb or left for the dogs
• Was he homosexual
• Was he a magician
• How long was his ministry
• When was he crucified
• When was he born and when did he die
• What did he teach and what came from the early church
• Was he an apocalyptic preacher
• Was he married
• Was he celibate

Those are all in this gray area in which countless scholars, dating back at least two centuries, have been debating.

 

[waitasec]

Seriously? Okay, well here is a short list:

• What language Jesus spoke
• Did he die by crucifixion
• Did he survive crucifixion
  [*]Was he actually buried in a tomb or left for the dogs
  
• Was he homosexual
• Was he a magician
• How long was his ministry
• When was he crucified
• When was he born and when did he die
• What did he teach and what came from the early church
• Was he an apocalyptic preacher
• Was he married
• Was he celibate

Those are all in this gray area in which countless scholars, dating back at least two centuries, have been debating.

i didn't know this one...
interesting...

 

[outhouse]

i didn't know this one...
interesting...

the gray area is larger then what is known.

what is known is vague at best

I argue the "best" part as they are assuming the the copies are not just partially forged and edited.

It looks good in there eyes and they see no reason why they shouldnt run with it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It looks good in there eyes and they see no reason why they shouldnt run with it.

"There" is a demonstrative adjective.

"Their" is the possessive personal pronoun.

So "there" is used to designate a place, usually a "far demonstrative," and 'here' [not 'hear'] is the close demonstrative.

And "their" is the possessive plural - instead of singular "his car" when there's more than one person, it is "their car."

 

[Oberon]

There were plenty of mythic god/men religions already in full swing centuries before and up to the time of the supposed Yeshua.

Yes, but the differences (some of which fallingblood aptly pointed out) between Jesus and the Jesus movement and these other mythic godmen and their cults are greater than the similarities. It is easy to look at a list of characteristics of Osiris or Hercules and note similarities between such mythic figures and Jesus (especially when these lists contain false information, as they often do). However, these lists are unfortunately all that many have to go on, and they miss not only the larger differences but the differences in how the cultic figures were conceived of compared to how Jesus was. In the graeco-roman, egyptian, sumerian, etc, world, various different accounts of stories or myths concerning gods, usually intended to explain observed phenomena, were passed on in the form of poems, drama, songs, etc. Cults which adopted these were usually local and myths varied widely because of this. Variety was also present often enough simply because these were symbolic and often entertaining stories. Vvariety within the myths was not important. It didn't matter if Euripides invented the idea that Medea killed her own children, or if the Corinthians did. Two contradicting versions could exist without any issue.

More important, however, is the differences in how these myths were related in terms of genre, style, and content. The gospels nail Jesus down to a time not long before their writing. He is placed in a historical context, in a historical place, interacting with historical people. This isn't how myth operated. Achilles and Paris, Hector and Priam, whether historical figures or not, lived in a golden age of demigods long absent from the earth. Mythic figures interacted not with historical figures living a generation or so ago, but with other mythic figures from this imaginary past.

With Jesus, we have no mention of him until Paul and then shortly after Paul we have mark. It is one thing to imagine, as many scholars have, that the information in the gospels is almost entirely inaccurate because it was freely added to and altered due to the "loose" model of oral transmission. It is another to imagine that the entirety of the this movement developed without its core historical figure.

To use compare other cults and mythic figures failed here because no other type of mythic group developed around a figure placed so firmly in a recent historical context. Even when new cults were developed, such as the hellenistic Mithras in the early 2nd century CE, they didn't create stories of historical figures who never existed.

Jesus as a catalyst is necessary to explain this historical context not only of the movement itself (it developed quickly around a particular figure), but also of the features of the texts (unlike every other myth, Jesus isn't some distant figure in a idyllic past but a person walking, talking, teaching, and eating a generation or so ago.

Striking out any fantastical claims the bible makes about Yeshua we're not left with much about him.

We are. And more importanly, it isn't necessary to strike out miracles and magics. It is highly likely Jesus was thought to have cast out demons and heal people by witnesses. This hardly makes him unique or mythic. It makes him one of any number of wonder workers who have existed since before the invention of writing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He probably didn't survive crucifixion.

That would be an insult to the Romans - they would have had to muck that up royally.

 

[Oberon]

I argue the "best" part as they are assuming the the copies are not just partially forged and edited.

Again, you make these assertions about who is assuming what, and in doing so you are assuming because you have no idea what you are talking about. Textual critical analyses of the greek texts goes back at least to the 19th century criticisms of the textus receptus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, you make these assertions about who is assuming what, and in doing so you are assuming because you have no idea what you are talking about. Textual critical analyses of the greek texts goes back at least to the 19th century criticisms of the textus receptus.

I dunno, man.

Textual criticism goes back to (perhaps?) Greek children who were taught to correctly identify or redact editions of Homer. That may have happened when the Romans were translating Greek verse into Latin, but I know without a doubt that it happened early.

Then Marcion could have been the earliest textual critic - he had some epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke first, and when he received the disputed letters of Paul, he rejected them. He had some criteria for editing his text, and it may not have been his extreme Paulinism.

Then we have all those copyists, and we know that many copies of the text have corrections based not only on grammar/syntax but also corrections based on what they thought was the correct text.

And then Erasmus, the father of modern textual criticism, published his critical Greek NT in the 16th century.

 

[Oberon]

I dunno, man.

Textual criticism goes back to (perhaps?) Greek children who were taught to correctly identify or redact editions of Homer. That may have happened when the Romans were translating Greek verse into Latin, but I know without a doubt that it happened early.

Then Marcion could have been the earliest textual critic - he had some epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke first, and when he received the disputed letters of Paul, he rejected them. He had some criteria for editing his text, and it may not have been his extreme Paulinism.

Then we have all those copyists, and we know that many copies of the text have corrections based not only on grammar/syntax but also corrections based on what they thought was the correct text.

And then Erasmus, the father of modern textual criticism, published his critical Greek NT in the 16th century.

Hence the at least. If one is going to argue (which I dont') that textual analysis during the precritical period can't be considered textual criticism, then we are talking about a couple hundred years. However, as you say, people have been looking at texts to determine what the originals said for centuries upon centuries.

 

[fallingblood]

i didn't know this one...
interesting...

John Dominic Crossan offers this idea based on how the majority of crucifixion victims were disposed of.

 

[fallingblood]

the gray area is larger then what is known.

What? I'm pretty sure the gray area is quite known in regards to historical Jesus research. The reason being that the majority of Jesus's life is somewhat in the gray area. The vast majority of critical scholars would agree to that.

what is known is vague at best

Actually, we can get somewhat specific, especially considering what we know of others during that time. We know generally when Jesus was born and died. That is better or equal to what we know of many figures during that time. We know that he lived in Nazareth, and was probably born there. We know he was executed by Pontius Pilate, and the method of his death was crucifixion. We also know that he was Baptized by John the Baptist. Those aspects really aren't vague.

You may want to list some examples of what you're talking about though in order to support your position.

I argue the "best" part as they are assuming the the copies are not just partially forged and edited.

If you read the scholarship on the subject, you would know this not to be true. We know that the Gospels, in part, were edited to a point. The area of textual criticism has gone very far in allowing us to know what was most likely original, and what was not.

It looks good in there eyes and they see no reason why they shouldnt run with it.

Actually, in the eyes of scholars, it poses a lot of problems. Which is why there are so many views on the subject. Just compare William Lane Craig with John Dominic Crossan, and you will see this to be true. Or you could pick up the classic on the subject, The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer and see that vast majority of opinions even during that time.

 

[logician]

the gray area is larger then what is known.

what is known is vague at best

I argue the "best" part as they are assuming the the copies are not just partially forged and edited.

It looks good in there eyes and they see no reason why they shouldnt run with it.

Wait a minute, these early Christian saints were as honest as the day is long, just because Paul says to "lie for the lord" doesn't mean they took it literally.

 

[outhouse]

not completely devoid of gray matter, I understand your position as I have stated. I know you have valid scientific methods that have critically picked a part every letter of every word for every avenue that it could possibly run.

words like this bother me

most likely original

lot of problems

so many views

vast majority of opinions

Jesus's life is somewhat in the gray area

everything you read about paul and mark and Q is up for debate, and looking for a majorty rules mentality "IS" finding the happy place in all this.

IF this is true

We know that he lived in Nazareth, and was probably born there. We know he was executed by Pontius Pilate, and the method of his death was crucifixion. We also know that he was Baptized by John the Baptist.

this evidence surely makes biblical jesus a myth.

I still think you can add traveling teacher to that and miracle worker [as most jews of the time were known for it]

with the parrallels its still allot to swallow from a non scholarly view. Not sure I could chew it all without spitting it out. I think about jesus supposed to have used parables commonly and have to wonder how much non fiction is a parable. From a evolving movement and the fiction at hand not sure im ready to switch sides. For me theres still a piece of the puzzle missing.

I do thank the 3 of you for the education

 

[Oberon]

words like this bother me

So for you if we can't determine everything with certainty we can't determine anything? wow.

everything you read about paul and mark and Q is up for debate

Everything is up for debate. Even things like evolution. The question is are they debated by educated reasonable people who know what they are talking about.

 

[outhouse]

So for you if we can't determine everything with certainty we can't determine anything?

Now thats a matter of faith LOL

biblical jesus is a myth just like the rest of the parrallels before him, way to many parrallels for that to fly. As well as the content says its BS fiction.

if the OT wasnt such hogwash, people would have a easier time believing the shovel's full of NT fecal matter.

I have given you some movement LOL i know say, instead of a "evolving religion" that they simply had a movement

come on man your gaining ground lol

 

[Oberon]

biblical jesus is a myth just like the rest of the parrallels before him

WHAT parallels? So far all you've done is link to an inaccurate list you found on the internet. What actual primary texts can you point to and say "this is where they got Jesus from" ?

As well as the content says its BS fiction.

Which you know from your vast study of ancient texts...

 

[dogsgod]

But catalyst does not (necessarily) imply a historical person at it's core. There were plenty of mythic god/men religions already in full swing centuries before and up to the time of the supposed Yeshua. Some, not all, matching the characteristics of Yeshua. Striking out any fantastical claims the bible makes about Yeshua we're not left with much about him. We can also look at the supposed actions of the Romans around him and his trial. The claims the bible makes appears not to match "historical" events.

So true. The trial is a complete sham.

 

[Oberon]

So true. The trial is a complete sham.

Why do you say this?