Jesus:Real or myth?

[outhouse]

You talk down to just about everyone who disagrees with you from what I've seen.

.

I have little patients for ignorance.

 

[Prophet]

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

Feel free to make this case anytime. When, precisely, did the Christians who followed Jesus in the flesh die out bringing on the age of Roman proselytes who weren't really Christians but for some reason wrote about Jesus anyways? How did the Christians, than, reemerge? From reading the writing of Roman proselytes who are technically according to you not Christian? What, in the hell?

You don't get it.

I'm trying to understand. So it goes like this. My theory made the stunning assumption that the first people who thought Jesus' words and deeds were worth recording were likely his followers, or, as they are known, Christians. You corrected me in saying that it was actually Roman proselytes who wrote the gospels (I still have no idea why you think Roman proselytes cannot also be Christians, but I digress). This correction would have made no sense if the word "all" was not implied here:

They were not christian writers.

[(All)/Some] were Roman gentiles, Proselytes. They were not going to blame their own kind

When I noticed you had made a fundamentalist error of relying on a statement that could not possibly be proven, I pointed out your implying "all" and now you are attempting to slither out of this hole you dug for yourself with unsupportable drivel.

Gentiles and Proselytes to Judaism were its main members. many of the Jews were Hellenistic jews who did not care about jewish customs and laws.


Christianity is something that grew and evolved into what it is.


The movement failed in Judaism from the get go, its why Paul focused on gentiles and Proselytes. Yet it kept Judaism at its foundational levels.


The movement started in the DIASPORA after his death. With his death his Jewish movement in Israel failed.

About right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus himself doesn't support the existence of Jesus, but I do believe that the fact that there were Christians does. That there was a group claiming to follow a Jesus means that there was some kind of leader at some point.

Then, by your own standards, Josephus supports the existence of Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

^
Thought I noticed that as well.
Btw, if one reads Josephus in context, his poetic style might seem less confusing, I wonder how many are misreading his writing because of semantics.
Anyways, I stick by that reference as a valid reference of Jesus existence.

 

[steeltoes]

^
Thought I noticed that as well.
Btw, if one reads Josephus in context, his poetic style might seem less confusing, I wonder how many are misreading his writing because of semantics.
Anyways, I stick by that reference as a valid reference of Jesus existence.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced. The Testimonium Flavianum appears as a bad forgery, and the shorter, "called Christ" reference appears to be referencing Jesus, son of Damneus when read in context. Besides that, the writings are too late to be of any real significance.

 

[Desert Snake]

Besides that, the writings are too late to be of any real significance.

I would strongly disagree with that...The fact that there were early Christians is already leading us into the direction of Jesus being real...but look, I don't have a pony in this race, just giving opinions.

 

[arcanum]

^
Thought I noticed that as well.
Btw, if one reads Josephus in context, his poetic style might seem less confusing, I wonder how many are misreading his writing because of semantics.
Anyways, I stick by that reference as a valid reference of Jesus existence.

Do you really take the entire reference as genuine? About him questioning if it's even lawful to call him a man? And bluntly stating, as if inserted, he was the Christ?

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you really take the entire reference as genuine? About him questioning if it's even lawful to call him a man? And bluntly stating, as if inserted, he was the Christ?

I read that as poetic, didn't even notice that until you mentioned it.
Basically, not getting the impetus from it that you are.

 

[arcanum]

I read that as poetic, didn't even notice that until you mentioned it.
Basically, not getting the impetus from it that you are.

It's not poetic, it looks as though the flow of his thought is interrupted by the interpolation of scribes, which it was. It is possible that he was referring to Jesus, but no scholar would take the entire reference as authentic. We'll never know if he was making a reference to Jesus unless some undiscovered translation is found. There is another reference where he refers to James as the brother of Jesus, but that appears to be ambiguous too.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then, by your own standards, Josephus supports the existence of Jesus.

Not as a single entity.

Jesus existed because Josephus said so? No.

Jesus existed because there is evidence that Christians existed who believe Jesus existed and Josephus references is one of them that supports that Christians existed? Yes.

Josephus is indirectly part of the evidence, but not alone, it itself, or just because he said it.

---

It's a little bit like this.

Do I believe evolution to be true? Yes. Is it because Darwin said so? No. Darwin's material supports evolution. It's part of the evidence but not the only thing that contributes to "belief" or conviction. It's the compilation of many things, where Darwin is one, that brings it together.

Jesus existence can be inferred with or without Josephus.

Sometimes when I jump into a discussion, I'm not sure where I'm going with it. When I started in this thread a few days ago, it seems like this is where I was going.

 

[Akivah]

As far fetched as all that sounds, I think it would be even more unlikely to see a new religion just pop up out of thin air centered around a celebrity that never existed in the first place, assigning songs to him that no one ever heard, etc.

How about Scientology? Hubbard was a chrismatic person that talked about a nonexistent entity (i.e. Xenu) and now there are millions of followers. Paul could've done the same.

 

[Prophet]

How about Scientology? Hubbard was a chrismatic person that talked about a nonexistent entity (i.e. Xenu) and now there are millions of followers. Paul could've done the same.

Lord Xenu exists in my heart.

 

[Ouroboros]

How about Scientology? Hubbard was a chrismatic person that talked about a nonexistent entity (i.e. Xenu) and now there are millions of followers. Paul could've done the same.

In a sense, Paul did since he never met Jesus personally. He had some visions.

But, when Paul started his mission, there were Christians already in existence. Of course Paul could've lied about that and the one that actually started Christianity, but then the other writers would also be part of that lie that Paul started it but pretended that he hadn't. Usually, people like Hubbard, likes to be in the center of things and revered for their uniqueness. Paul probably liked the attention, but he didn't make any claim to be the founder of the religion. I think everything seems to lean towards a church of Christians before he came onboard.

Paul talked about Jesus and God. But Jesus talked about God. The earlier, older Gospels seems to not put Jesus in the center as a god, but as a messenger like Mohammed, Zoroaster, and other similar self-proclaimed prophets.

Also, the following Jesus had with, a fan club, it's very indicative of the beginning of a small cult with a charismatic leader. The story itself points to either a very keen understanding how these cults sociologically and psychologically come about, or the story points to something that actually happened.

 

[arcanum]

How about Scientology? Hubbard was a chrismatic person that talked about a nonexistent entity (i.e. Xenu) and now there are millions of followers. Paul could've done the same.

There is convincing case which has been made by a few scholars that Paul basically hijacked the very Jewish Jesus movement and created his own Hellenized version of it, it became Christianity. That being said, Paul really didn't pick a person nobody ever heard of from a non existent movement, he hijacked a movement that was in existence constellated around a person people had at least heard of, albeit distantly.

 

[outhouse]

There is convincing case which has been made by a few scholars that Paul basically hijacked the very Jewish Jesus movement and created his own Hellenized version of it, it became Christianity. .

Who says that is convincing?


Its not. Paul tells us there were other teachers and other beliefs, and Paul did not write alone, most of his epistles were co authored.


Paul set up a few houses in the Diaspora, nothing more.

His views were not accepted by all, and many despised him.

 

[outhouse]

When, precisely, did the Christians who followed Jesus in the flesh die out bringing on the age of Roman proselytes who weren't really Christians but for some reason wrote about Jesus anyways?

Your so lost, im not sure this conversation will ever advance.


Jesus in the flesh followers did not advance the movement, they were Galilean peasants who were illiterate and wrote nothing.


The message was spread by those gentiles and proselytes returning home in the Roman Empire after Passover was over.


The Jewish proselytes and Gentiles were part of a semi jewish movement that would become Christians.


Do you think Jesus died and they started calling a handful of followers Christians the very next day ?


YOU ignore the fact, the movement stayed semi Jewish for quite some time.


Early Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish, either by birth, or conversion for which the biblical term proselyte is used,


By the end of the 1st century, Christianity began to be recognized internally and externally as a separate religion from Rabbinic Judaism which itself was refined and developed further in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple.

So here it states it took some 70 years for the movement to separate from Judaism and be known on its own.

Internally and externally

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The author wrote in Greek for a gentile audience

 

[outhouse]

Roman proselytes who weren't really Christians but for some reason wrote about Jesus anyways?

Paul was a Roman citizen. he was either a Jew or Proselyte claiming to be Jewish. It is still debated today.

But Paul was not a Christian

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But, when Paul started his mission, there were Christians already in existence. Of course Paul could've lied about that and the one that actually started Christianity, but then the other writers would also be part of that lie that Paul started it but pretended that he hadn't. Usually, people like Hubbard, likes to be in the center of things and revered for their uniqueness. Paul probably liked the attention, but he didn't make any claim to be the founder of the religion. I think everything seems to lean towards a church of Christians before he came onboard.

Hi, Ouroboros. I think it's clear that there was a church when Paul started his mission, but how do you explain the apparent fact that Paul knew nothing of a contemporary Jesus? He visited with Peter in Jerusalem. Clearly he would have pumped Peter for details of Jesus' life. So why does Paul seem to know nothing about a contemporary Jesus?

Just wondering about your theory on that.

 

[arcanum]

Hi, Ouroboros. I think it's clear that there was a church when Paul started his mission, but how do you explain the apparent fact that Paul knew nothing of a contemporary Jesus? He visited with Peter in Jerusalem. Clearly he would have pumped Peter for details of Jesus' life. So why does Paul seem to know nothing about a contemporary Jesus?

Just wondering about your theory on that.

After his road to Damascus experience, he thought he had came to know the risen christ. Apparently He wasn't all that interested in the earthly life of Jesus. It was all about the risen savior for him, and he thought his experience was if not superior than at least on par with the living disciples of Jesus.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hi, Ouroboros. I think it's clear that there was a church when Paul started his mission, but how do you explain the apparent fact that Paul knew nothing of a contemporary Jesus? He visited with Peter in Jerusalem. Clearly he would have pumped Peter for details of Jesus' life. So why does Paul seem to know nothing about a contemporary Jesus?

Just wondering about your theory on that.

In Galatians Paul is referring to James as Jesus' brother. I'm not sure if the letter is authentic or not though, but it would suggest him considering a physical Jesus.

But I think Paul didn't consider a physically risen Jesus. Rather Jesus, physical person, died and then resurrected only in spirit.