Jesus:Real or myth?

[steeltoes]

Honestly, the cleansing of the temple is no more realistic than Jesus' trial. Only SuperJesus could pull off such a stunt. No historical Jesus to be found here folks.

Here, Ken Humphreys offers his opinion of the fiction;

"Do the few non-miraculous episodes make any sense? "Cleansing the temple" sounds not wholly improbable until you realize that the temple had a vast concourse of thirty-five acres, enclosed by porticoes and at Passover thronging with thousands of pilgrims (and not a few temple guards). Did Jesus really – single-handedly – drive out all the moneychangers and herds of oxen, sheep and dove sellers? Can you even imagine such a thing? Would he not have been wrestled to the ground in short order? The gospels describe a berserker's performance appropriate to a blockbuster superhero. What should we do, scale the event down to an acceptable melee – or recognize (correctly) that an imaginary incident has been worked up from a scriptural template (in this case, Zechariah 14.21 and Hosea 9.15)?" Ken Humphreys

 

[Desert Snake]

Honestly, the cleansing of the temple is no more realistic than Jesus' trial. Only SuperJesus could pull off such a stunt. No historical Jesus to be found here folks.


"Do the few non-miraculous episodes make any sense? "Cleansing the temple" sounds not wholly improbable until you realize that the temple had a vast concourse of thirty-five acres, enclosed by porticoes and at Passover thronging with thousands of pilgrims (and not a few temple guards). Did Jesus really – single-handedly – drive out all the moneychangers and herds of oxen, sheep and dove sellers? Can you even imagine such a thing? Would he not have been wrestled to the ground in short order? The gospels describe a berserker's performance appropriate to a blockbuster superhero. What should we do, scale the event down to an acceptable melee – or recognize (correctly) that an imaginary incident has been worked up from a scriptural template (in this case, Zechariah 14.21 and Hosea 9.15)?" Ken Humphreys

Haha I've brought this up as well. People seem really attached to the 'historicity' of this event.

 

[outhouse]

Honestly, the cleansing of the temple is no more realistic than Jesus' trial. Only SuperJesus could pull off such a stunt. No historical Jesus to be found here folks.

Factually incorrect.


It is quite plausible that a man created a disturbance, and later authors far removed from any actual event filled it in with what was important to their theology and religion.

Which, is exactly what we see.

Ken Humphreys

:biglaugh:


What a comedian you turned out to be. Hilarious!

 

[fantome profane]

Honestly, the cleansing of the temple is no more realistic than Jesus' trial. Only SuperJesus could pull off such a stunt. No historical Jesus to be found here folks.


"Do the few non-miraculous episodes make any sense? "Cleansing the temple" sounds not wholly improbable until you realize that the temple had a vast concourse of thirty-five acres, enclosed by porticoes and at Passover thronging with thousands of pilgrims (and not a few temple guards). Did Jesus really – single-handedly – drive out all the moneychangers and herds of oxen, sheep and dove sellers? Can you even imagine such a thing? Would he not have been wrestled to the ground in short order? The gospels describe a berserker's performance appropriate to a blockbuster superhero. What should we do, scale the event down to an acceptable melee – or recognize (correctly) that an imaginary incident has been worked up from a scriptural template (in this case, Zechariah 14.21 and Hosea 9.15)?" Ken Humphreys

Agreed, but it is conceivable that he and a few of his followers went in to the outer courtyard, shouted a few slogans, causes a bit of a fuss, and ducked out. Things like this always get exaggerated with each retelling.

 

[outhouse]

Agreed, but it is conceivable that he and a few of his followers went in to the outer courtyard, shouted a few slogans, causes a bit of a fuss, and ducked out. Things like this always get exaggerated with each retelling.

The way the gospels paint the followers as cowards who denied him, I would suspect all they can be accounted for is running when it hit the fan. Bit in context, I think it has more to do with the arrest then the actual trouble in the temple.


Remember, a few decades later Zealots succeeded in overthrowing the temple, and it cost everyone their lives. Not just one.

 

[steeltoes]

Agreed, but it is conceivable that he and a few of his followers went in to the outer courtyard, shouted a few slogans, causes a bit of a fuss, and ducked out. Things like this always get exaggerated with each retelling.

"or recognize (correctly) that an imaginary incident has been worked up from a scriptural template (in this case, Zechariah 14.21 and Hosea 9.15)?" Ken Humphreys


I'm with Humphreys on this one.

 

[outhouse]

Ken Humphreys


.

:biglaugh:


How about a credible source.



We know the authors used the OT as the foundation for their faith and text.


This is a grand display of ignorance by ken, it is embarrassing.

 

[steeltoes]

Factually incorrect.


It is quite plausible that a man created a disturbance, and later authors far removed from any actual event filled it in with what was important to their theology and religion.

Which, is exactly what we see.

We see nothing of the sort. You merely see what you want to see, and you have no support for what you see.

:biglaugh:


What a comedian you turned out to be. Hilarious!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.[/FONT]


You are not fooling anyone.

 

[steeltoes]

:biglaugh:


How about a credible source.



We know the authors used the OT as the foundation for their faith and text.


This is a grand display of ignorance by ken, it is embarrassing.

We know the authors used the OT as the foundation for their faith and text, but when Ken points out that the authors used the OT as the foundation for their texts he is displaying ignorance. How enlightening on your part, and you talk of credibility, as if.



I have no interest in your attacks of the one presenting a valid argument. Your attack of the author rather than his argument tells us more about you than the topic in question.

 

[outhouse]

I have no interest in your attacks of the one presenting a valid argument..

So desperate your using people off the streets as if they have credibility. :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

.ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument


.

I knew you would have the definition, after all it is the basis of your methodology.


Surprised you don't like it when used against your position.



Bring me a credible argument that I can refute without laughing so hard.

 

[steeltoes]

I knew you would have the definition, after all it is the basis of your methodology.


Surprised you don't like it when used against your position.



Bring me a credible argument that I can refute without laughing so hard.

Why? You have nothing to offer.

 

[outhouse]

Why? You have nothing to offer.

I refuted him already in one sentance.

We know the authors used the OT as the foundation for their faith and text.

It is on Ken to show the details and build his case, which he has not beyond wild guessing due to his severe ignorance on the topic.

 

[steeltoes]

I refuted him already in one sentance.





It is on Ken to show the details and build his case, which he has not beyond wild guessing due to his severe ignorance on the topic.

You have refuted nothing, and you are one to talk about wild guessing and ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

You have refuted nothing, and you are one to talk about wild guessing and ignorance.

You have no credibility here or anywhere to talk down to me like that.

Your a hindrance to learning here, and offer no educational value what so ever.


It is refuted, and your desperate for attention, and desperate to refute a historical jesus which seems from a point of ignorance and poor sources, your failing to do.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus,[3][4][5] based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[3][4][6] These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed


You will never change this in your life time. It is the status quo, you have to deal with it. Not me.

 

[steeltoes]

You have no credibility here or anywhere to talk down to me like that.

Your a hindrance to learning here, and offer no educational value what so ever.

You are not one to speak of credibility or educational value since all you have to offer is your faith based belief that a hero of yours truly existed. Not everyone shares in your faith.

It is refuted, and your desperate for attention, and desperate to refute a historical jesus which seems from a point of ignorance and poor sources, your failing to do.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus,[3][4][5] based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[3][4][6] These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed


You will never change this in your life time. It is the status quo, you have to deal with it. Not me.

There are no primary sources for Jesus' biography so wiki has it wrong. You can believe Jesus existed based on holy scripture, I don't care and I don't care to convince you of anything. I am just pointing out a few simple facts that make it difficult for sceptics to accept, and that is that one can garner historical facts from this holy literature, which is all we have, no primary sources, no witnesses, nothing to verify any of it.

You can go on believing but there is nothing to support your outlandish and hollow claims of historicity, biblical Christian scholars notwithstanding.


As Ken Humphreys most eloquently points out:

"Most, I suspect, reduce the Christian superstar to a dimly perceived "good man" of some description, who perhaps said some wise words, fell foul of Jewish and Roman authorities and managed to get himself crucified.

The answer from some, however, appears to be, rather more accommodating of the gospel yarn, accepting more or less everything minus the miracles and the claim to be Son of God. Like the rest of us, they erase all the bits that offend their own sense of the rational. But then, from what they think are the residual certainties of a life and death – a mother called Mary, a girlfriend called Mary Magdalen, a brother called James, etc., – they assemble their own secularized Jesus, mining freely from holy literature in an enthusiast's conviction that the "truth" is hidden there and one simply needs the key.

But there is a big difference between a reality embroidered with propaganda (for example, Caesar's Gallic Wars) and a fantasy placed into an authentic-sounding historical setting (such as Doyle's Sherlock Holmes). The Jesus tale is very much in the latter category – a fictional drama in which a stereotypic hero has been intruded into a more or less realistic historical landscape. And as we would expect of a fictional creation, there exists not a single contemporaneous reference to such a character, nor a single genuine artifact to substantiate that he ever walked the earth."


I know you can't refute Ken Humphreys, your ad homs directed towards him are evidence of that. Humphreys is merely stating the obvious, something that totally escapes the true believer who has nothing to offer other than faith based beliefs.

 

[outhouse]

Ken Humphreys

:biglaugh:

You are not one to speak of credibility or educational value since all you have to offer is your faith based belief

Wrong again.

I promote what is known, by those who know what hey are talking about.

Unlike what you provide

 

[steeltoes]

The notion that "truth" is hidden in the gospel narratives is a faith based conviction held by true believers. Sceptics remain sceptical and for good reason, there are no facts that can be garnered from these holy scriptures because there is nothing from the alleged time to support them.


"Whatever else, eye-witness testimonies they are not and the tendentious story was all but unknown until the second half of the second century." Ken Humphreys




Again, all Humphreys is doing is stating some facts as they are known.

 

[gnostic]

Possibly real, but the gospels and epistles only give us more mythological side to Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Humphreys is .

Not listed here in any way shape or form. He has less then 0 credibility. he has bad credibility.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus,[3][4][5] based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[3][4][6] These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed

You dont have the credibility to attack this information.