Jesus:Real or myth?

[idav]

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 officials—whose names have been corroborated by secular historians—in 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."

Jesus being a historical figure doesn't make any attached super hero attributes credible.

 

[Sabour]

Real.

Why? Because he is mentioned in the Quraan.

Why? Because the Quraan is the word of God.

Why? Well this is not the subject.

But if Moses peace be upon him was real, would that mean that Jesus peace be upon him was real?

[youtube]bFe8vQZtbbE[/youtube]
Ex-Christian Yusuf Estes explains the miracle of pharaoh in the Holy Quran - YouTube

 

[steeltoes]

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.

At least "scholarly consensus" tells us where they are coming from. It provides comfort, safety in numbers as it were for those that need the reinforcement of their beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

But if Moses peace be upon him was real, would that mean that Jesus peace be upon him was real?

According to Christian and Muslim mainstream doctrines, I suppose it does.

But then again, those same doctrines make a point of takin the real existence of Jesus and Moses himself as givens, so I don't know if that helps.

I do know that many or most of the Jewish People believe that Moses was real without Jesus having necessarily existed even as a man, so I guess I am not following.

 

[Sabour]

According to Christian and Muslim mainstream doctrines, I suppose it does.

But then again, those same doctrines make a point of takin the real existence of Jesus and Moses himself as givens, so I don't know if that helps.

I do know that many or most of the Jewish People believe that Moses was real without Jesus having necessarily existed even as a man, so I guess I am not following.

Yeah maybe. I am approaching the subject as a Muslim.

In the Quraan Moses and Jesus peace be upon them both existed and they were both prophets. As a believer in the Quraan as the word of God, I believe that they existed.

The story I showed in the youtube confirms that the dead body examined matched to the time of which pharoah lived and the man died drowning. This confirms to what is mentioned in the Quraan about pharoah. So I guess the proof that Moses peace be upon him existed is proved by the body of Pharoah examined.

10:90 We brought the tribe of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his troops pursued them out of tyranny and enmity. Then, when he was on the point of drowning, he [Pharaoh] said: "I believe that there is no god but Him in Whom the tribe of Israel believes. I am one of the Muslims."

10: 91 Now? And you had disobeyed [Him] before and were of the corrupters?

10:92 So today We will save you in body that you may be to those who succeed you a sign. And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless

 

[Nymphs]

Real or myth? Propose your arguments/opinions.

Real man, not real god.

 

[outhouse]

I do know that many or most of the Jewish People believe that Moses was real without Jesus having necessarily existed even as a man, so I guess I am not following.

I dont think the two characters can be used in the same context.

Moses has no real historicity

Jesus does have it.



Moses is a character written about in context of history that did not happen. The exodus and moses has no historicity.

With jesus, The temple, Pilate and Caiaphas are factual as well as the time period.


Archeology has given up hope and has stopped looking for moses a long time ago.

Archeology constantly is looking for evidence to help piece together Jesus real life

 

[psychoslice]

Yes Jesus is a myth, but I love mythology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes Jesus is a myth, but I love mythology.

I love cheese.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes Jesus is a myth, but I love mythology.

It never ceases to amaze me when people read the mythologized theology of a miracle performing godman and then go on to declare that they are reading history.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It never ceases to amaze me when people read the mythologized theology of a miracle performing godman and then go on to declare that they are reading history.

They only believe it because they've been enculturated to believe it, so I think.

 

[oldbadger]

Real man, not real god.

Exactly so........ :yes:

 

[Desert Snake]

Exactly so........ :yes:

The problem is, in order to work out that theory, you've gone the route of off-narrative speculation....that's a problem, because the other "possible" historical evidence backs the narrative in essence.

 

[oldbadger]

It never ceases to amaze me when people read the mythologized theology of a miracle performing godman and then go on to declare that they are reading history.

It never ceases to amaze me when HJ denialists overlook the negative reports that were included in those reports. This a subject which they might prefer not to address.

 

[psychoslice]

I love cheese.

Yes I do to, a nice mature cheese, mmmm.

 

[psychoslice]

It never ceases to amaze me when people read the mythologized theology of a miracle performing godman and then go on to declare that they are reading history.

Yea wishful thinking, like a child wishing that their imaginary friend was real.

 

[oldbadger]

Yea wishful thinking, like a child wishing that their imaginary friend was real.

Ah, but many HJ researchers are agnostics or atheists, therefore they are impartial, their work is detached, they have no agenda.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ah, but many HJ researchers are agnostics or atheists, therefore they are impartial, their work is detached, they have no agenda.

Except, that doesn't seem to be the case when they go off-narrative.


Then, you're just speculating. Now, would you do that with other religions?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

But not an informed one.

Actually, I'd be more than happy to discuss the HJ question with you if I thought it worthwhile. But you would simply dismiss my points with the same baseless hubris with which you dismiss both scholars and scholarship. No one has a chance against such adolescent posturing.

But, just because you clearly hunger for a target, I will repeat what I've said before:

• There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. This should surprise no one. Much of 2nd Temple Period Jewish history is single sourced.
• As a consequence, positions taken must often be (a) provisional, and (b) informed inference to best explanation. Such informed inference can only be predicated on relevant scholarship. To arrogantly dismiss such scholarship as either cowardly compliance or crass opportunism is the most irresponsible, small minded ad hominem.
• Paul's struggle with the Jerusalem sect for legitimacy, the apparent existence of a number of 'Christian' communities in the diaspora, the subsequent struggle against the Judaizers and 'Ebionites', the Josephus reference, the apparent lack of a mythicist polemic against nascent Christianity by either the Cynics or the Jews, all this and more conspire to suggest the existence of a Jerusalem sect originally formed around a sect leader named Yeshua. All other narratives either strain credulity or devolve into multivalent conspiracy theories and broad based ad hominem attack.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, I'd be more than happy to discuss the HJ question with you if I thought it worthwhile. But you would simply dismiss my points with the same baseless hubris with which you dismiss both scholars and scholarship. No one has a chance against such adolescent posturing.

Everyone reading this thread should study Jay's words closely and think about it. Why are champions of an historical Jesus unable to speak civilly, turning to such raw ad hominem at the first hint of disagreement?

I think it's an important question to consider. There is something about Jesus so fiercely emotional that it sends people straight to insult.

At least, it seems to send the HJ crowd directly there. Those of us with no dog in the fight feel no need to insult those who disagree with us.

There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. This should surprise no one.

I've said the same thing, probably way more often than you have, yet you continue to accuse me of absolute certainty about the nature of Jesus. Most strange. Why is it so important to you to appear to be winning?

All other narratives either strain credulity or devolve into multivalent conspiracy theories and broad based ad hominem attack.

Sure. Because you know what is true about the historical Jesus -- despite your self-satisfied proclamation that no one can know the truth about it.

All other narratives strain credulity. Goodness.

All views of Jesus which differ from mine strain credulity. That should be obvious.