AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
But I don't think the guy behind the gospel character lived in 30CE Jerusalem. I think he was placed there by the writer of Mark. That's my best guess.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus:Real or myth?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
But I don't think the guy behind the gospel character lived in 30CE Jerusalem. I think he was placed there by the writer of Mark. That's my best guess.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
He never did live in Jerusalem. He was only there for about a week as a visitor.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm aware of that. '30CE Jerusalem' is just a shortcut way to say it.
Why do you think that?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
It's a long story, and I have to be a little skeptical that you really want to hear it.
But if you do, just say the word, and I'll spew.
(Anyone else is welcome to say the word, too. I'm just itching to spew but am too well-mannered to launch my presentation without a convincing request.)
Isn't that a false dichotomy?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Sure, give your argument, that's what this thread is for.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Most of those here who are interested in the historical Jesus have already heard my arguments, and I consider it a terrible sin to bore people.
But since you've asked.
GMatthew and GLuke I consider absolutely worthless as accounts of Jesus since both of them are apparently just revisions of gMark. Real revisions, in the manner that fiction is revised. In today's world, they couldn't even be published. Mark would sue them for plagiarism.
GJohn is worthless as an account of Jesus. Over the top theologically and written some hundred years after the purported events. No more use than the Book of Mormon so far as helping us know about the historical Jesus.
No other extra-biblical evidence for Jesus seems the least bit compelling to me. I have to watch people quote historians who lived tens and hundreds of years after the events, as if 'ancient' historians carry some weight which is not carried by an historian who writes today about Jesus.
So there's only gMark. And gMark seems like fiction to me. It's in the category of drama-too-good-to-be-true. Stuff like that just doesn't happen in real life, in my experience. It only happens in the imagination of a fiction writer. And it was obviously written for theological purposes... like the Book of Mormon. I don't trust stories with godmen in them, no more than I would trust a super-hero comic book.
Steeltoes has just mentioned how Mark obviously 'borrowed' elements of his Jesus Story from the old Jewish scriptures. Again, that looks to me like story construction, not like history recitation. All of it looks like fiction to me. And I think that we are just too close to it to see that. I wonder how many Chinese, upon reading gMark for the first time, would entertain the least thought that it is anything other than an old hero story, like Beowulf.
Then there's the timing. Since Jesus made no discernable mark on the secular consciousness of that time and place, we must assume that he was, well... unremarkable.
So how could Paul be persecuting Christians -- even in distant, foreign cities -- within a couple of years of 30 CE? Why would Jesus churches spead far and wide like that in less than five years?
How could Paul be writing to established churches in Asia Minor, about doctrinal issues, so soon after this unremarkable man died?
My guess is that proto-Christianity existed in Jerusalem maybe 50 years before the time of Jesus.
And what about Paul, who seemed to know nothing of Jesus? They were contemporaries. Paul had the opportunity to meet with Peter, whom he surely would have pumped for info about Jesus. Yet Paul seems oblivious to a Jesus who lived in his own time.
That should get us started. There's more.
Real as that is the consensus of those who seriously study the question. Myth would raise way more questions in my mind.
Gehennaite
Active Member
He was a natural man, later novelized and fabricated by Greek writers to be a god.
When you consider the historical context Jesus existed in, it would seem ridiculous that a miracle worker, one that could cure any illness and even raise the dead, went largely unnoticed during his lifetime. Such divinity would have gained everyone's respect & attention, yet that is not even remotely close to how he was perceived.
It seems quite odd that it took many years after his death for the first writings of him to surmount. And in those writings, I find it entirely impossible that a man of such powers wasn't elevated to the status of king, establishing a kingdom and working miracles for decades. A three year preaching tour? That's it? It's as if the Christian God didn't even care...
When you consider the historical context Jesus existed in, it would seem ridiculous that a miracle worker, one that could cure any illness and even raise the dead, went largely unnoticed during his lifetime. Such divinity would have gained everyone's respect & attention, yet that is not even remotely close to how he was perceived.
It seems quite odd that it took many years after his death for the first writings of him to surmount. And in those writings, I find it entirely impossible that a man of such powers wasn't elevated to the status of king, establishing a kingdom and working miracles for decades. A three year preaching tour? That's it? It's as if the Christian God didn't even care...
Last edited:
Legend. If all the miracles are real he was pulling some David Copperfield on ancient superstitious minds.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
But you think He existed? That's the question of the OP.
Yup made to legend.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yep, that's pretty damn compelling, especially when counterposed to scholarly consensus. Thanks.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Oh, I'd so hoped you might actually step out onto the field. You gave me a little hope with your direct request. And now you dash it again.
If only HJers were banned from using the chant "Scholarly consensus! Scholarly consensus!" We might actually have a MJ/HJ debate in this place.
Quote from W12 4/1: "ANSWER: Yes. Secular historians, including Josephus and Tacitus of the first century, mention Jesus as a historical figure. More important, the Gospels convincingly show that Jesus was a real person, not a fictional character. The record is specific and detailed in stating time and place. For example, Gospel writer Luke mentions seven ruling officialswhose names have been corroborated by secular historiansin order to establish the year Jesus began his ministry.Luke 3:1, 2, 23.
The evidence that Jesus is a historical person is compelling. Most scholars will admit that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth did live in the first century, states the book Evidence for the Historical Jesus."
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I actually think the gospels were written by witness apostle accounts, translated. And probably orally confirmed at the time of compilation.
Matthew, Mark, and John all knew Jesus personally, and Matthew and John were apostles. Luke may or may not have known or have met Jesus. In any case,as his letter states "I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order." Luke received his information from "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message." (Luke 1:2,3)
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Ah I see, thanks.