Jesus:Real or myth?

[roger1440]

"Real" in what manner?

 

[Desert Snake]

"Real" in what manner?

As in, actually existed. As opposed to 'mythic'.
There are other threads arguing these viewpoints as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Jesus: A real myth.

 

[roger1440]

In the story of The Wizard of Oz, did the scare crow have a brain, did the tin man have a heart and did the lion have courage? I would say yes. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to finish there journey. Therfore, it is true.

 

[Desert Snake]

O.k.

........................:fishing:

 

[outhouse]

My point is that you have manufactured no plausible rationale for Christian writers to "evolve Christianity" by brushing aside Rome's blame in murdering Jesus and his apostles at the same time as Rome is administering the "Age of Martyrdom" upon the early Christians.

They were not christian writers.

They were Roman gentiles, Proselytes. They were not going to blame their own kind

 

[roger1440]

As in, actually existed. As opposed to 'mythic'.
There are other threads arguing these viewpoints as well.

There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. We cannot prove 99% of the people during that time period existed. Most people during that time did not have birth certificates. Unless a person made some sort of significant impact on society, history would not have left any record of a person. Even in modern times, a lot of people didn’t have birth certificates 100 years ago.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. We cannot prove 99% of the people during that time period existed. Most people during that time did not have birth certificates. Unless a person made some sort of significant impact on society, history would not have left any record of a person. Even in modern times, a lot of people didn’t have birth certificates 100 years ago.

I think that if there are enough references to Jesus, we can conclude he was real/

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that if there are enough references to Jesus, we can conclude he was real/

Define enough. Define what is reasonable to count as a reference. After going through this exercise, one can certainly conclude whatever they want. However, having confidence in such a conclusion is largely based on subjective intepretation and what somebody wants to believe, and less on verifiable proof.

 

[Desert Snake]

Define enough. Define what is reasonable to count as a reference. After going through this exercise, one can certainly conclude whatever they want. However, having confidence in such a conclusion is largely based on subjective intepretation and what somebody wants to believe, and less on verifiable proof.

Lol, we don't have very many records for many things, we have to put a little trust in honest historic records.
I for one happen to believe in Josephus Antiquities reference to Jesus.

 

[roger1440]

I think that if there are enough references to Jesus, we can conclude he was real/

The same can be said of of the Easter Bunny.

 

[Desert Snake]

So Roger, you don't think Jesus existed?

 

[roger1440]

So Roger, you don't think Jesus existed?

All I’m saying there is not enough to go on to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. The most we can do is look at the likelihood of his existence.

 

[outhouse]

All I’m saying there is not enough to go on to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. The most we can do is look at the likelihood of his existence.

That is sort of true.

History is determined by plausibility.

And it is plausible that he existed to the point historians claim crucifixion and batism as fact.

 

[roger1440]

One of our earliest references to Jesus comes down to us from the historian Tacitus. In his book “The Annals” written in 109 AD he writes about the burning of Rome during the Emperor Nero’s reign. This is 40 years after the events had happened.

“[15.44] Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/tacitusannals15.html
​

 

[Prophet]

They were not christian writers.

They were Roman gentiles, Proselytes. They were not going to blame their own kind

False dichotomy. Proselyte and christian are NOT mutually exclusive. Even if they were, you authoritatively stating that all of the writers of the Christian scriptures must have necessarily been Roman is you talking out of your *** with no support. Your strategy seems to be to simply expand your theory and look for evidence later.

What POSSIBLE evidence can you present for your claim that the NT writers composed books that excused Rome's role in the murder of Christianity's chief prophet and many of his apostles in the middle of the Age of Martyrdom because they HAD to have been Romans? Maybe the Romans had prophesied Constantine's adoption of Christianity a few hundred years in advance so they knew that they'd need special Roman-friendly Christian scriptures ready by then? Were the Romans the only one's who could still write from the second to fourth century? Would non-Roman Christians have had NO interest in writing about a subject they are apparently willing to die for?

Which one of these scenarios seems plausible to you? To me, this is all-around implausible. You argue for a universe where beings do things that don't make sense in service of vague goals like "evolving Christianity".

 

[roger1440]

If Tacitus’ report is accurate and/or authentic it proves not only did Christians exist in Rome in 63 AD but also in large enough numbers for Nero to take note of. Rome during this period was a city of about 0ne million people. There must have been at least hundreds of Christians in Rome at that time. Keep in mind the existence of Christians does not prove the existence of a Christ.

 

[arcanum]

If Tacitus’ report is accurate and/or authentic it proves not only did Christians exist in Rome in 63 AD but also in large enough numbers for Nero to take note of. Rome during this period was a city of about 0ne million people. There must have been at least hundreds of Christians in Rome at that time. Keep in mind the existence of Christians does not prove the existence of a Christ.

No the existence of groups claiming to be Christians at that time does not prove his existence but, religous cults don't just appear out of thin air, they are almost always started by a charismatic leader. Why would Christianity be an exception? The purely mythical position is agenda driven and intellectually lazy. It's easier to dismiss something than to really investigate something thoughly. Unless some new evidence becomes available I say he existed but he became increasingly mythologized as time went on, like many other historical characters. I'm out

:run:

 

[steeltoes]

That is sort of true.

History is determined by plausibility.

And it is plausible that he existed to the point historians claim crucifixion and batism as fact.

What makes historians come to the conclusion that the crucifixion and baptism are facts?

 

[outhouse]

False dichotomy. Proselyte and christian are NOT mutually exclusive. Even if they were, you authoritatively stating that all of the writers of the Christian scriptures must have necessarily been Roman is you talking out of your *** with no support.

You don't have the knowledge to talk down to me like that. It is also frowned upon.

I let it slide this once, but watch your step.



First of all it is not false dichotomy

No Christians existed at the time the books were written, only what would become Christians.


The movement FACTUALLY started out Jewish, and it started in Hellenism in the Diaspora, NOT in Israel.

By the time of the authors who compiled their communities important scripture, the movement was that of gentiles and Hellenistic jewish Proselytes



I never once stated they were ALL Romans. Paul our first writer was a Roman citizen and very Hellenistic. Mark was written by a gentile and Proselyte community TO and FOR a Roman audience, carefully explaining all Jewish laws to non Jews



Take a class on this or I can point you to some great vids at Yale on NT studies.