chinu
chinu
Its OKNo,, ..Doesn't mean that at all.
I assumed all myth was meant, because the first word in the response was "Myth".
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Its OKNo,, ..Doesn't mean that at all.
I assumed all myth was meant, because the first word in the response was "Myth".
It is a false dichotomy, Jesus is both.
:clapYou might consider reviewing old threads such as the one I posted if you want to know more.
I don't know and neither do you.
Some people take the gospels literally, as if the gospels are relaying actual and real events, they claim an historical core, whatever that means.
I get all warm and fuzzy when I apply historicity to other narratives, Sherlock Holmes and Clark Kent, history in the making as it were.Jesus 'has historicity' is a phrase which I enjoy hearing. No idea what it means, but something about it makes me giggle.
Reading the gospels as if Jesus is historical is no doubt the best way to assume what it is we are trying to prove. It appears to be most affective for those in the historical know how about this crucifixion.
The consensus, read: all the scholars agree with me, is a clincher and really means something when trying to make a point.
I don't go that far. I only say that all the credible scholars agree with me.
I don't know how they do it, je ne sais quoi, it must be a special talent, something they are born with, maybe a third eye or something.The Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book are both gospels. I don't see how the historicists sort out the historical Jesus, what with so many variant gospel stories.
Real or myth? Propose your arguments/opinions.
As the definition of myth includes things that are both real and not, my answer is :
FICTION.
That leaves no room for doubt regarding my opinion.