Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Just_me_Mike]

Ultimately, according to the bible. No one can understand the bible unless God allows them too. By that I mean, we can read it and intellectually get things out of it, but it is to be a supernatural experience for us to believe in the bible.
The idea is that God has an elect people from the beginning of time, and only those people will actually "get it". If this is the case, than it is understandable why so many will never understand.
Do I think that is fair? Not really, but if you were to create something out of clay and then decide to keep some for your own purposes, and destroy the others, is that not your right to do so?

 

[Tristesse]

Again: which scholars and what scholarship was compromised by virtue of "not coming from secular stand points [sic!]"? Which scholars and what scholarship do you stupidly dismiss solely because the source is not an avowed atheist?

Well, first I never said I dismissed any scholars or scholarship. And not all scholars agree with each other, but I do happen to think that some scholars are more scholarly than others. and not because they are avowed atheists, their atheism would have nothing to do with the matter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, first I never said I dismissed any scholars or scholarship. And not all scholars agree with each other, but I do happen to think that some scholars are more scholarly than others. and not because they are avowed atheists, their atheism would have nothing to do with the matter.

Again: which scholars and what scholarship was compromised by virtue of "not coming from secular stand points [sic!]"?

 

[dogsgod]

Again: which scholars and what scholarship was compromised by virtue of "not coming from secular stand points [sic!]"?

This insistence coming from one that accused me of rejecting some non-existent reference in Galatians to a church in Jerusalem and all the while not producing it himself. The irony.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, Tristesse, which scholars and what scholarship was compromised by virtue of "not coming from secular stand points [sic!]"?

 

[dogsgod]

Perhaps, Jayhawker Soule, you could provide the Galatian reference to a church in Jerusalem that you accuse me of rejecting or denying. As I pointed out, I can't find it, yet you insist it's there. So, by all means...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is your view of the Jerusalem church?

It's not mentioned in any of the epistles.

You reject the Epistle to the Galatians as a reference to a Jerusalem church. Why is that? And what is your opinion of the church discussed in Acts?

I can't find the Galatians reference. Why don't you quote it with chapter and verse instead of playing around with your leading questions and silly accusations?

Get back to me when you're done with your childish game ...

Perhaps, Jayhawker Soule, you could provide the Galatian reference to a church in Jerusalem that you accuse me of rejecting or denying. As I pointed out, I can't find it, yet you insist it's there. So, by all means...

Since you seem enthralled by Wikipedia ...

Historical background​

The churches of Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) were founded by Paul himself (Acts 16:6; Gal 1:8; 4:13, 4:19). They seem to have been composed mainly of converts from paganism (4:8). After Paul's departure, the churches were led astray from Paul's Christ centered teachings by individuals proposing "another gospel" (which centered around Judaism and salvation through the Mosaic Law, so-called Legalism (theology)), whom Paul saw as preaching a "different gospel" than that of Jesus Christ (which was centered around salvation by God's grace and Christ's atonement, not the "works" of the Mosaic law). (1:6–9). The Galatians appear to have been receptive to the teaching of these newcomers, and the epistle is Paul's response to what he sees as their willingness to turn from his teaching.

The identity of these "opponents" is disputed. We do not have a record of their activity, but are left to reconstruct it from Paul's response. However, the majority of modern scholars view them as Jewish Christians (i.e. Judaizers), who taught that in order for pagans to belong to the people of God, they must be subject to some or all of the Jewish Law. The letter indicates controversy concerning circumcision, Sabbath observance, and the Mosaic Covenant. It would appear, from Paul's response, that they cited the example of Abraham, who was circumcised as a mark of receiving the covenant blessings (Genesis 17), see also Abrahamic religion. They certainly appear to have questioned Paul's authority as an apostle, perhaps appealing to the greater authority of the Jerusalem church governed by James the Just.

Paul responds angrily; he relates his conversion and apostolic credentials, his relationship with the Jerusalem Church, and engages in a debate over the interpretation of the Abraham story.​

Now, again, get back to me when you're done with your childish game ...

 

[dogsgod]

Jayhawker Soule , my mistake. I mistook "as a reference" for "has a reference." That's why I was looking for it in Galatians itself. My apologies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule , my mistake. I mistook "as a reference" for "has a reference." That's why I was looking for it in Galatians itself. My apologies.

Accepted. Thank you.

 

[logician]

One wonders why people argue for the historicity of some "biblical" Jesus, since by definition one must accept the miracles that were claimed in the NT as genuine to really have a historical Jesus, and not just a faker, which is NOT a historical Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One wonders why people argue for the historicity of some "biblical" Jesus, ...

One wonders why you never get beyond inane comments and straw man argument. If you're not bright enough to distinguish between the question of historicity and the question of divinity, then perhaps you should defer to those who can.

 

[Tristesse]

One wonders why people argue for the historicity of some "biblical" Jesus, since by definition one must accept the miracles that were claimed in the NT as genuine to really have a historical Jesus, and not just a faker, which is NOT a historical Jesus.

C.S. Lewis often used a saying, that said jesus was either Lunatic, liar, or lord. And I recently heard a new L that I think should apply to this analogy, legend.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Well you were correct on a few points but some things got lost. The bible wasn't written 300 years later, rather compiled 300 years after the so-called crucifixion. We have a protestant and a catholic version of the bible in circulation. The catholic containing more books....This still leave it incomplete since the church had the say so and only included books they deemed fit to make the final compilation.

As far as the biblical Jesus being a carbon copy, well I wouldn't say "carbon" copy but some of the aspects of the biblical Jesus are similar to ancient god/man myths before him. It could be the Jesus (Yeshua), assuming he did exist, was nothing like the bible portrays him to be. He was most likely a normal rebel (activist) who was dealt with and the stories have now hyped him up. I like the documentary Robert Beckford did on the subject. I like the fact that it's visual and he actually goes to the places where these myths are supposed to be rooted. Check them out and tell me what your perspective is on it. (YouTube - The Hidden Story of Jesus (Part 1 of 11))

 

[Tristesse]

One wonders why you never get beyond inane comments and straw man argument. If you're not bright enough to distinguish between the question of historicity and the question of divinity, then perhaps you should defer to those who can.

Jayhawker, please try and refrain from cutting down others intelligence. I think there are more effective ways of getting your point across.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is Jesus a character of mythic status?

Of course.

Is is possible for an individual to be of both mythic status and historical reality?

Yes.

Does the historical reality always match up to the mythic quality?

No.

Do I believe in the supernatural qualities ascribed to Jesus?

No.

Was there a rabbi, teacher or important figure named Yeshua from which the character of the Messiah was based?

Possibly. It's not really all that important to me. Many of the moral teachings are found in other cultures and hold value. I see no reason to mythologize the man. All the scholarship focused on proving or disproving the flesh and blood man named Yeshua is interesting but irrelevant to how I live. Of course Christians differ in their opinion hence the existence of faith.

There are many individuals in the world of which whose actual existence is open to debate. Homer (although his existence doesn't support any religious debates) and Lao Tzu. I can still read The Odyssey or the Tao Te Ching without fretting about whether or not the individuals actually existed. Ever heard of Guan Yu?

I like your post. Direct and to the points..... You're right...debating over whoes scholar is right or more educated on the matter makes no difference at this point.....

 

[dogsgod]

I like your post. Direct and to the points..... You're right...debating over whoes scholar is right or more educated on the matter makes no difference at this point.....

It matters to the point as to how these texts were put together and how they are interpreted. Church leaders have been interpreting these texts for the most part and their claims are no longer readily accepted. Some questions arise and some of us are just plain curious. As an historical artifact it's nice to know what we are looking at and how it fits with history.

 

[logician]

The simple fact is, the "jesus was historical folks" avoid the question of "what constitutes a historical Jesus" like the plague, because it demands details, of which they are woefully lacking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One wonders why you [logician] never get beyond inane comments and straw man argument. If you're not bright enough to distinguish between the question of historicity and the question of divinity, then perhaps you should defer to those who can.

Jayhawker, please try and refrain from cutting down others intelligence.

To what other intelligence are you referring?

I think there are more effective ways of getting your point across.

You may wish to focus on finding a more effective way of getting your point across.

 

[dogsgod]

The simple fact is, the "jesus was historical folks" avoid the question of "what constitutes a historical Jesus" like the plague, because it demands details, of which they are woefully lacking.

Good point.

 

[Tristesse]

To what other intelligence are you referring?
You may wish to focus on finding a more effective way of getting your point across.

saying things like, "your not bright enough" or calling people ignorant. Thats basically all I was saying. There's no need for that.