Jesus:Real or myth?

[arcanum]

If you think it's wrong to claim that you know more than the scholars, why do you claim to know more than the scholars?

Perhaps you misunderstood me AG. I don't claim to know more than scholars, never even came close to making such a claim. It's you who have often scoffed at and downplayed NT scholars in a number of posts concerning the the historical Jesus, as you always seem to chime in with how much you know about the subject whenever this topic comes up.

 

[steeltoes]

Maybe because of all the myths attached!

Attached to what?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Perhaps you misunderstood me AG. I don't claim to know more than scholars, never even came close to making such a claim.

Nonsense. If you say anything at all about Jesus, you are disagreeing with the biblical scholars.

It's you who have often scoffed at and downplayed NT scholars in a number of posts concerning the the historical Jesus, as you always seem to chime in with how much you know about the subject whenever this topic comes up.

I can't tell if you're suffering a faulty memory or whether you have seen messages which don't exist. But good luck with it.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Cult"?

As in: "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous."

Jesus was considered dangerous. They killed him. Or did the majority religious leaders feel threatened by his cuddliness?

 

[Desert Snake]

As in: "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous."

Jesus was considered dangerous. They killed him. Or did the majority religious leaders feel threatened by his cuddliness?

Nah, It was the Romans who went after Jesus.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nah, It was the Romans who went after Jesus.

Goaded by the Sanhedrin, according to the Bible. It was the religious leaders who went to Pilate.

The Sanhedrin considered the Jesus' cult to be dangerous.

 

[Desert Snake]

Goaded by the Sanhedrin, according to the Bible. It was the religious leaders who went to Pilate.

The Sanhedrin considered the Jesus' cult to be dangerous.

Idk, may be. I just read the text and put my own analysis into the narrative, that may have been the case, may have been exaggerated as well.

 

[arcanum]

Nonsense. If you say anything at all about Jesus, you are disagreeing with the biblical scholars.



I can't tell if you're suffering a faulty memory or whether you have seen messages which don't exist. But good luck with it.

What do you mean by that the statement if you say anything at all about Jesus you are disagreeing with biblical scholars? What are you talking about and who are you referring to?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What do you mean by that the statement if you say anything at all about Jesus you are disagreeing with biblical scholars? What are you talking about and who are you referring to?

I'm referring to you. You disagree with the biblical scholars in all sorts of matters. Everyone does. So I'm wondering why you have such a negative attitude about those who 'disagree with the scholars'.

Why do you seem to hate in others what you do yourself? That's my question.

 

[fantome profane]

So many HJers are kissing their favorite scholars' feet that the academics must spend all their free time toweling off the slobber.

This comment comes from the very same person who is complaining about ad-hominems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm referring to you. You disagree with the biblical scholars in all sorts of matters. Everyone does. So I'm wondering why you have such a negative attitude about those who 'disagree with the scholars'.

Why do you seem to hate in others what you do yourself? That's my question.

What drivel. At issue is not agreeing or disagreeing with scholars, but of having an obnoxious contempt for scholarship that you appear to be wholly unqualified to judge while defending such hubris with ignorant ad hominem.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This comment comes from the very same person who is complaining about ad-hominems.

You seem confused about the nature of an ad hominem attack. My comment was not ad hominem. It was an observation of behavior in unnamed third-parties.

An ad hominem is when a debater (usually someone who worships the idea of an historical Jesus, let's face it) avoids discussing the actual points and arguments of his debate opposite by attacking his opposite's motivations, ignorances, etc. He attacks the man rather than the issue. Ad hominem.

For example, people love to point out my arrogance for 'disagreeing with the scholars.'

Whether that's true or false, it's obviously irrelevant to the HJ/MJ debate. It's ad hominem argumentation. An argument 'to the man' not to the issue.

I don't particularly mind being slimed, but it's frustrating and wasteful to spend so much time trying to get people off of me and back onto the issue.

How about you? Any chance you'll actually discuss the historical Jesus with me?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This comment comes from the very same person who is complaining about ad-hominems.

And the very same person that claims that Paul was a liar that fabricated the Jerusalem sect and the nascent Christian diaspora community out of whole cloth, Luke was a liar simply committed to perpetuating Paul's fiction, Mark was a liar who created Jesus entirely out of bits and pieces from the Tanakh, and the majority of the scholars interested in the period are liars and cowards who cynically perpetuate the fraud to keep thier jobs and/or sell their books. A masterful hypothesis to be sure.

 

[arcanum]

Yes it appears that I MR. AG needs a little air let out of his balloon, his bloated sense of ego is blocking his understanding of current historic and scholastic developments by experts in the field who know a heck of a lot more than us arm chair philosophers. But his cup is already full so he cannot take in any more new information, but that's ok, it's alright to believe whatever one wants to believe Peace....out

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes it appears that I MR. AG needs a little air let out of his balloon, his bloated sense of ego is blocking his understanding of current historic and scholastic developments by experts in the field who know a heck of a lot more than us arm chair philosophers. But his cup is already full so he cannot take in any more new information, but that's ok, it's alright to believe whatever one wants to believe Peace....out

Oh my goodness. They ought to make us pay for entertainment like this.

Anyway, Arcanum, is there any chance that you might discuss the historical Jesus with me? Obviously you know all about the evil which drives the 'mythicists', but do you actually know anything about the historical Jesus?

Why not address the hypothesis which I've posted. Do you want the message number again?

 

[Ouroboros]

Idk, may be. I just read the text and put my own analysis into the narrative, that may have been the case, may have been exaggerated as well.

Of course it was exaggerated, but it was the scribes and religious who were threatened by a new version of religion. Rome was allowing multiple religions, as long as they didn't threaten the system. Jesus wasn't. Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, give to God what belongs to God, thing. But the religious didn't like a new "Messiah" saving people from the business of established religion. Jesus message was about a new way of relating to God, without "church". It was the idea of you can talk to God, and you don't need to go to the temple. So it was a new cult. But of course, today it's mainstream and not a cult anymore.

 

[Akivah]

Hi, Akivah. Can you say why you've come to that conclusion?

Sure, I have three reasons.
1) There are no writings about jesus from scholars that lived around the time that he allegedly lived. These scholars have filled libraries with their writings, but they never mentioned the guy.
2) Many details of the jesus story are similar to pre-existing or contemporaneus pagan religions of the time. These were the source material for the jesus story.
3) Many details of the jesus story conflict with the Hebrew bible, proving that the writers of the jesus story were ignorant of Judaism. To my mind, it proves the entire Christian bible is a work of fiction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you want the message number again?

Actually, I sus pect that most people here have your number.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sure, I have three reasons.
1) There are no writings about jesus from scholars that lived around the time that he allegedly lived. These scholars have filled libraries with their writings, but they never mentioned the guy.
2) Many details of the jesus story are similar to pre-existing or contemporaneus pagan religions of the time. These were the source material for the jesus story.
3) Many details of the jesus story conflict with the Hebrew bible, proving that the writers of the jesus story were ignorant of Judaism. To my mind, it proves the entire Christian bible is a work of fiction.

Thanks for answering. Since you are Jewish and apparently have some interest in Jewish history, can you say more about the absence of Jesus references in the Jewish secular writings? How many Jewish writings do we have from 15CE to 45CE? What types of writings are they? In other words, why is it remarkable that they contain no mention of Jesus? Are they histories of Jerusalem? Diaries?

So far as conflicting with the Hebrew Bible, wouldn't we expect that from a new religion? Look at Baha'ism. The Muslims declare that it's unIslamic while the Baha'is say it is a natural extension of Islam, just as is the case with Christians and Jews.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, I sus pect that most people here have your number.

You once agreed to a one-on-one debate with me regarding the historical Jesus, Jay, but backed out when I tried to set it up.

Are you ready to engage that debate with me now?