Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it may be important to examine some serious problems with dogsgod's various posts throughout this thread. And I am not talking about spelling or grammar errors, which everyone has (including me, and quite often). Rather I am referring to serious errors which demonstrate a lack of relevent knowledge with which to make informed opinions.

Such willful ignorance (which tends to be enabled if not coddled here) is grossly irresponsible and disrespectful. The irony is that the dogsgods and logicians here are methodological clones of the most backward and dogmatic Christian fundamentalist. It is shameful.

 

[Tristesse]

Such willful ignorance (which tends to be enabled if not coddled here) is grossly irresponsible and disrespectful. The irony is that the dogsgods and logicians here are methodological clones of the most backward and dogmatic Christian fundamentalist. It is shameful.

Instead of making wild accusations, why don't you contribute to the conversation.

 

[dogsgod]

Instead of making wild accusations, why don't you contribute to the conversation.

That would require thought, besides, she prefers the role of oberon's cheering squad.

 

[Oberon]

That would require thought, besides, she prefers the role of oberon's cheering squad.

Actually, I've been on the receiving end of quite a few of those barbs. And I don't need a "cheering squad" because I, unlike you, am intimately familiar with the topic. Now, how about some citations, or are going to admit that you are wholly dependent on google to find your information?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That would require thought, besides, she prefers the role of oberon's cheering squad.

What an interesting comment ...

 

[dogsgod]

Actually, I've been on the receiving end of quite a few of those barbs. And I don't need a "cheering squad" because I, unlike you, am intimately familiar with the topic. Now, how about some citations, or are going to admit that you are wholly dependent on google to find your information?

I use websites for the purposes of these discussions because the information is at hand for those that care to read it. The references to quotes I've provided are of well known scholars so I don't know what difference it should make if I google them or not. The mythicists provide reasoned arguments and you haven't been able to provide a reasoned argument to support your views of the gospels as being accounts of actual events and that the story provides for an actual and real biography of a Jesus Christ. Your arguement consists of telling us that you are the only one that can read Greek and that no one that accepts these stories at face value has any knowledgeble understanding of these texts.

 

[Oberon]

I use websites for the purposes of these discussions because the information is at hand for those that care to read it. The references to quotes I've provided are of well known scholars so I don't know what difference it should make if I google them or not. The mythicists provide reasoned arguments and you haven't been able to provide a reasoned argument to support your views of the gospels as being accounts of actual events and that the story provides for an actual and real biography of a Jesus Christ. Your arguement consists of telling us that you are the only one that can read Greek and that no one that accepts these stories at face value has any knowledgeble understanding of these texts.

Wrong on every point. Name one scholar who is an expert historian of this era (doesn't have to be a biblical scholar) who you have cited. You haven't referenced a single one (except Mack, only he disagrees with you). Your web citations have been from nobody's. You have consistently failed to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with the topic (I have gone over these in detail above, so as an example now I will mention only not knowing that Luke and Acts were written by the same author). The best you've come up with is a systematic theologian (Price), who fails to address historical scholarship. I have come up with very reasoned arguments (and citations to numerous scholars) that the gospels fall into a historical genre (using everything from comparisons with other histories, to internal evidence, to analysis of oral tradition, and so on). I have poked hole after hole in the website references you have come up with.


So I will continue to wait for citations from actual scholars. If google is the best you can do (because you haven't read any books or journals on the topic by experts) how about providing citations from websites which quote actual historians? I realize this might be problematic for you, because you aren't familiar with the works you are quoting (which is probably why you have misquoted scholars like Schweitzer), but do the best you can.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I use websites for the purposes of these discussions because ...

You have never gone beyond quote-mining to prop up your silly mantras. It is virtually certain that you have never read, much less understood, any of the basic scholarship. You are fooling no one with this childishness except, perhaps, a pitifully small peanut gallery and, of course, yourself.

 

[Tristesse]

Wrong on every point (and you failed to address any of demonstrations on your lack of relevent knowledge which might enable you to conclude that a particular website was credible). Name one scholar who is an expert historian of this era (doesn't have to be a biblical scholar) who you have cited. You haven't referenced a single one (except Mack, only he disagrees with you). Your web citations have been from nobody's. The best you've come up with is a systematic theologian (Price), who fails to address historical scholarship. I have come up with very reasoned arguments (and citations to numerous scholars) that the gospels fall into a historical genre (using everything from comparisons with other histories, to internal evidence, to analysis of oral tradition, and so on). I have poked hole after hole in the website references you have come up with.


So I will continue to wait for citations from actual scholars. If google is the best you can do (because you haven't read any books or journals on the topic by experts) how about providing citations from websites which quote actual historians? I realize this might be problematic for you, because you aren't familiar with the works you are quoting (which is probably why you have misquoted scholars like Schweitzer), but do the best you can.

I find that a lot of the "scholars" for the case of jesus, are not coming from secular stand points.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find that a lot of the "scholars" for the case of jesus, are not coming from secular stand points.

This is petty bigotry. What scholars have you actually studied? The answer is rather obvious.

 

[dogsgod]

Wrong on every point (and you failed to address any of demonstrations on your lack of relevent knowledge which might enable you to conclude that a particular website was credible). Name one scholar who is an expert historian of this era (doesn't have to be a biblical scholar) who you have cited. You haven't referenced a single one (except Mack, only he disagrees with you). Your web citations have been from nobody's. The best you've come up with is a systematic theologian (Price), who fails to address historical scholarship. I have come up with very reasoned arguments (and citations to numerous scholars) that the gospels fall into a historical genre (using everything from comparisons with other histories, to internal evidence, to analysis of oral tradition, and so on). I have poked hole after hole in the website references you have come up with.


So I will continue to wait for citations from actual scholars. If google is the best you can do (because you haven't read any books or journals on the topic by experts) how about providing citations from websites which quote actual historians?

I've read plenty of books, I can google pretty well anybody that's ever written anything on the subject. I can provide any point of view. You harp on the fact that the gospels are reliant on oral tradition but you have yet to provide a reasoned line of argument explaining how this is so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've read plenty of books, ...

Rubbish.

 

[Tristesse]

Rubbish.

so, anyone who disagrees with your predisposition about jesus, must not have studied. Right? haha absurd.

 

[The-G-man]

Jesus is an almost carbon copy of Horus, MIthra and other religions where they also claimed he was 'the Son of God' IMO, there is no evidence to even suggest Jesus actually existed, if there is a would love to see it, but i will not get it, because it does not exist. All you can do is believe in a book that was written 300 years after the events supposedly happened.
I suppose people could say, "well you cannot prove Socrates did not exist" and i would reply that he did not say believe what i say or burn in hell.

 

[Tristesse]

Jesus is an almost carbon copy of Horus, MIthra and other religions where they also claimed he was 'the Son of God' IMO, there is no evidence to even suggest Jesus actually existed, if there is a would love to see it, but i will not get it, because it does not exist. All you can do is believe in a book that was written 300 years after the events supposedly happened.
I suppose people could say, "well you cannot prove Socrates did not exist" and i would reply that he did not say believe what i say or burn in hell.

well, there are certain texts outside of the bible, but not one contemporary, it's all hearsay, at best. And some of those texts outside of the bible are clear forgeries. But, yes the mythological jesus was stolen from a lot of mythology of the day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so, anyone who disagrees with your predisposition about jesus, must not have studied. Right?

No. You and dogsgod have not studied. (And you know it.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus is an almost carbon copy of Horus, MIthra and other religions where they also claimed he was 'the Son of God' IMO, ...

From what I can see, your opinion is pretty worthless. But feel to prove me wrong. Open a thread on Mythra and defend this drivel. You'll fail. :yes:

 

[The-G-man]

well, there are certain texts outside of the bible, but not one contemporary, it's all hearsay, at best. And some of those texts outside of the bible are clear forgeries. But, yes the mythological jesus was stolen from a lot of mythology of the day.

Im not sure what your getting at here, but a book is not proof that Jesus was real.

 

[The-G-man]

From what I can see, your opinion is pretty worthless. But feel to prove me wrong. Open a thread on Mythra and defend this drivel. You'll fail. :yes:

How do you come to that conclusion? do you even know the story?
You CANNOT prove me wrong, you CANNOT prove Mythra did not exist and neither can you do the same of Jesus. So how can you say my opinion is worthless!!, and why have you got a aggressive undertone to your post?
there is no need.

 

[Tristesse]

No. You and dogsgod have not studied. (And you know it.)

Well, your making the assumption that I haven't, and it's all based on the fact that I'm not on here saying, "oh jesus is a real figure in history, even more verifiable than Julius Caesar" and thats just not true.