Jesus:Real or myth?

[steeltoes]

Possibly real, yes, but I suppose we can always say, "anything is possible." The gospels and epistles only give us the mythological side to Jesus, true enough, and then we have the wannabe historian, they give us the real imaginary Jesus, the one that really and truly oh existed exactly as the gospels and epistles portray. What would we do without these wannabe historians telling us what really and truly happened?

 

[outhouse]

and then we have the wannabe historian, they give us the real imaginary Jesus, the one that really and truly oh existed exactly as the gospels and epistles portray.

Provide specific examples.

You try and say the same thing about credible historians.

All we get out of you is hot air that goes directly against education and knowledge.

 

[idav]

Possibly real, yes, but I suppose we can always say, "anything is possible." The gospels and epistles only give us the mythological side to Jesus, true enough, and then we have the wannabe historian, they give us the real imaginary Jesus, the one that really and truly oh existed exactly as the gospels and epistles portray. What would we do without these wannabe historians telling us what really and truly happened?

Unfortunately, very unfortunate, we cannot confirm the credibilty of the gosoels as much as we can the letters and epistles of Paul. Gospels appear to be legend, not myth as the op asks, there is a difference. Legend is based on a historical figure like king Arthur and Merlin the sorceror, and even the historicity becomes debatable naturally.

 

[steeltoes]

Provide specific examples.

You try and say the same thing about credible historians.

All we get out of you is hot air that goes directly against education and knowledge.

We have the holy literature and a religion that eventually dominated, and now an industry telling us how real Jesus really and truly was.

What would we do without these so called credible Jesus historians that want to tell us the real truth to be found within these holy scriptures?

Will Jesus ever find a real place and time in history as is the dream of so many wannabe historians? Will all the education and knowledge in the world reveal the real and true Jesus?

 

[steeltoes]

Unfortunately, very unfortunate, we cannot confirm the credibilty of the gosoels as much as we can the letters and epistles of Paul. Gospels appear to be legend, not myth as the op asks, there is a difference. Legend is based on a historical figure like king Arthur and Merlin the sorceror, and even the historicity becomes debatable naturally.

How did you determine that these holy scriptures are legend, not myth?

 

[gnostic]

Possibly real, yes, but I suppose we can always say, "anything is possible." The gospels and epistles only give us the mythological side to Jesus, true enough, and then we have the wannabe historian, they give us the real imaginary Jesus, the one that really and truly oh existed exactly as the gospels and epistles portray. What would we do without these wannabe historians telling us what really and truly happened?

The problems are that none of the gospels or epistles were written in Jesus' lifetime, and particularly the gospels, they were written anonymously and decades later, so it is not possible if any of the real authors to these gospels were first-handed eyewitnesses. The names that are attributed to 4 gospels were only known in 2nd century CE.

The earliest writings that predated the gospels, were letters of Paul to churches in Greece, Macedonia and Asia Minor, and Paul admitted that he was never around Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Judaea.

Let take the two birth stories of Jesus in 2 gospels, as example.

They have nothing in common, except that Jesus was Mary's son and that he was born in Bethlehem. The rest are inventions by the so-called authors, Matthew and Luke. The details are so different, and that also include the 2 genealogies.

Although both (gospels) say that Jesus was born in the the time of Herod the Great, Luke's gospel added that the birth occurred at the time of census in Judaea, managed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria. But this census didn't occur until 10 years after Herod's death, when Archelaus was banished from Judaea, and Judaea became a Roman province, in 6 CE. Furthermore, Quirinius wasn't governor (legatus) of Syria until 6 CE, and not when Herod was still alive.

If the author (supposedly Luke) can't keep his inaccurate timeline in check, then how are we to trust anything that he had written? Who were Mathew and Luke's sources about Jesus' birth?

 

[idav]

How did you determine that these holy scriptures are legend, not myth?

There is evidnece of jesus being real because of correlating documantation found in Egypt mainly the dead sea scrolls and gospel of thomas which confirm many of the sayings verbatim. These are written as if someone was listening to this figure. Gospel of thomas however does not confirm the miracles but just the sayings and very accurately which counts as an outside source. Thus the gospels are the writings that sound like embellishments rather than some made up story of a fictional story or character.

 

[steeltoes]

There is evidnece of jesus being real because of correlating documantation found in Egypt mainly the dead sea scrolls and gospel of thomas which confirm many of the sayings verbatim. These are written as if someone was listening to this figure. Gospel of thomas however does not confirm the miracles but just the sayings and very accurately which counts as an outside source. Thus the gospels are the writings that sound like embellishments rather than some made up story of a fictional story or character.

The gospel of Thomas only confirms the fact that people attributed many different sayings to Jesus, possibly over a long period of time, and whether Jesus was real or not.

As Humphreys points out, it's nothing out of the ordinary;

"Desperate to penetrate the primordial fog, some scholars strive to identify an early "layer" of teaching said to derive from the mouth of an historical Jesus. But does a "sayings tradition" (as in the Gospel of Thomas) really point to a single author of wise words? The Bible itself provides an answer. We have a sayings collection in the Book of Proverbs (attributed to Solomon) and another in the Book of Psalms (attributed to David). Neither accreditation is historically valid; rather, we know it was standard practice in the ancient world to lend authority and prestige to new material by falsely accrediting a prestigious figure from the past (even, as in this case, to personages who are historically dubious!) But even more fatal to the claim of a "sayings tradition" is the patent failure of anyone to record any of the supposed astounding new teachings at the time! If “great multitudes” throughout Syria, Galilee, the Decapolis, and Judea heard and believed, how odd that not one recorded those sparkling gems of wisdom! Not even Paul, the great proselytizer, quotes his Lord, but instead habitually turns to Jewish scripture for divine endorsement!"

 

[outhouse]

so many wannabe historians

Your no oneto judge these people on a topic you know so little about.


If you did have and education on the topic, you would say so much less then you do.

 

[steeltoes]

The problems are that none of the gospels or epistles were written in Jesus' lifetime, and particularly the gospels, they were written anonymously and decades later, so it is not possible if any of the real authors to these gospels were first-handed eyewitnesses. The names that are attributed to 4 gospels were only known in 2nd century CE.

The earliest writings that predated the gospels, were letters of Paul to churches in Greece, Macedonia and Asia Minor, and Paul admitted that he was never around Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Judaea.

Let take the two birth stories of Jesus in 2 gospels, as example.

They have nothing in common, except that Jesus was Mary's son and that he was born in Bethlehem. The rest are inventions by the so-called authors, Matthew and Luke. The details are so different, and that also include the 2 genealogies.

Although both (gospels) say that Jesus was born in the the time of Herod the Great, Luke's gospel added that the birth occurred at the time of census in Judaea, managed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria. But this census didn't occur until 10 years after Herod's death, when Archelaus was banished from Judaea, and Judaea became a Roman province, in 6 CE. Furthermore, Quirinius wasn't governor (legatus) of Syria until 6 CE, and not when Herod was still alive.

If the author (supposedly Luke) can't keep his inaccurate timeline in check, then how are we to trust anything that he had written? Who were Mathew and Luke's sources about Jesus' birth?

I agree, problems abound. It appears that we have holy scripture and a religion that eventually grew from them, and now historians trying to tell us that they have knowledge that Jesus was real. What next?

 

[idav]

The gospel of Thomas only confirms the fact that people attributed many different sayings to Jesus, possibly over a long period of time, and whether Jesus was real or not.

As Humphreys points out, it's nothing out of the ordinary;

"Desperate to penetrate the primordial fog, some scholars strive to identify an early "layer" of teaching said to derive from the mouth of an historical Jesus. But does a "sayings tradition" (as in the Gospel of Thomas) really point to a single author of wise words? The Bible itself provides an answer. We have a sayings collection in the Book of Proverbs (attributed to Solomon) and another in the Book of Psalms (attributed to David). Neither accreditation is historically valid; rather, we know it was standard practice in the ancient world to lend authority and prestige to new material by falsely accrediting a prestigious figure from the past (even, as in this case, to personages who are historically dubious!) But even more fatal to the claim of a "sayings tradition" is the patent failure of anyone to record any of the supposed astounding new teachings at the time! If “great multitudes” throughout Syria, Galilee, the Decapolis, and Judea heard and believed, how odd that not one recorded those sparkling gems of wisdom! Not even Paul, the great proselytizer, quotes his Lord, but instead habitually turns to Jewish scripture for divine endorsement!"

Yet the gospel thomas was the earliest fragments we could find which confirm many many other writings. Comparing to the OT is a non-issue here. Yes we know they quoted Psalm and Isaiah and such which suggests they are learned people, jews even. Why cant we find more, because anything considered heresy was burned just as the library of Alexandria, in Egypt, was burned to the ground, where they had a collection of the greatest geniuses of their time and prior to. It is no coincidence to me that they miraculously found the great sea scrolls next to Egypt because someone had the insight to preserve them, thank goodness.

 

[steeltoes]

Yet the gospel thomas was the earliest fragments we could find which confirm many many other writings. Comparing to the OT is a non-issue here. Yes we know they quoted Psalm and Isaiah and such which suggests they are learned people, jews even. Why cant we find more, because anything considered heresy was burned just as the library of Alexandria, in Egypt, was burned to the ground, where they had a collection of the greatest geniuses of their time and prior to. It is no coincidence to me that they miraculously found the great sea scrolls next to Egypt because someone had the insight to preserve them, thank goodness.

The gospel of Thomas overlaps with Q but I can't remember exactly how many Q sayings are in Thomas. Thomas gives credence to Q in that we now have evidence of sayings gospels existing in the early centuries, but Thomas also contributes a lot of sayings to Jesus that are very strange when compared to Q which tells us that all manner of sayings were attributed to Jesus, a tradition that extended over a long period of time, perhaps hundreds of years.

 

[idav]

The gospel of Thomas overlaps with Q but I can't remember exactly how many Q sayings are in Thomas. Thomas gives credence to Q in that we now have evidence of sayings gospels existing in the early centuries, but Thomas also contributes a lot of sayings to Jesus that are very strange when compared to Q which tells us that all manner of sayings were attributed to Jesus, a tradition that extended over a long period of time, perhaps hundreds of years.

Yet the Q is not known, a hypothesyzed original source. As far as I can tell thomas could be the Q. Do you have anything to elaborate on these claims, the Q hypothesis is of interest to me.

 

[outhouse]

The gospel of Thomas overlaps with Q but I can't remember exactly how many Q sayings are in Thomas. Thomas gives credence to Q in that we now have evidence of sayings gospels existing in the early centuries, but Thomas also contributes a lot of sayings to Jesus that are very strange when compared to Q which tells us that all manner of sayings were attributed to Jesus, .

We have no idea if these sayings are Jesus, Jesus and John, or just Galilean in general.

a tradition that extended over a long period of time, perhaps hundreds of years

I tend to agree but.

There is no evidence how long this style was in use, one way or another. John picked it up from somewhere, before teaching it to Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Yet the Q is not known, a hypothesyzed original source. As far as I can tell thomas could be the Q. Do you have anything to elaborate on these claims, the Q hypothesis is of interest to me.

Read up on it.

Q differs from Thomas, the main thing similar is that they are both "sayings"


I tend to think there was a written source, now known as Q. All the gospels were compilations, and scripture was floating around in Pauls time that we just have no knowledge of but we know they had material.

 

[steeltoes]

Yet the Q is not known, a hypothesyzed original source. As far as I can tell thomas could be the Q. Do you have anything to elaborate on these claims, the Q hypothesis is of interest to me.

From memory about twenty of the 115 sayings consisting of Thomas are Q sayings.

 

[idav]

Read up on it.

Q differs from Thomas, the main thing similar is that they are both "sayings"


I tend to think there was a written source, now known as Q. All the gospels were compilations, and scripture was floating around in Pauls time that we just have no knowledge of but we know they had material.

From memory about twenty of the 115 sayings consisting of Thomas are Q sayings.

Yet we are talking about a hypothetical document here. Thomas does what the q is supposed to do, confirm the sayings as found in the gospels.

 

[outhouse]

Yet we are talking about a hypothetical document here. Thomas does what the q is supposed to do, confirm the sayings as found in the gospels.

It is a non issue.

All original gospels are missing as well.

All of the material Mark used no longer exist. Some of Pauls epistles no longer exist.

Paul tells us other scripture was in existance that we dont know about.


Scholars state we onl have a small fraction of what once existed.

 

[fantome profane]

Yet we are talking about a hypothetical document here. Thomas does what the q is supposed to do, confirm the sayings as found in the gospels.

Not really, there are some sayings in Thomas that appear in canonized Gospels, but not many. And some of those appear in a very different form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxi5-6LdSpE

 

[enlightener]

yes he is gods only son or creation that was from his loins