• 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?

Curious George

Veteran Member
my two cents comes from:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150507-jesus-myth.html

And other various threads on this board addressing the debate. Some posters are extremely knowledgeable about this topic. You might consider reviewing old threads such as the one I posted if you want to know more. I am pretty sure legion posted thorough posts on this topic (if I remember correctly) in some other threads.
 

steeltoes

Junior member

I don't know and neither do you.



Matthew 24:5,24, “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Some people take the gospels literally, as if the gospels are relaying actual and real events, they claim an historical core, whatever that means.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Some people take the gospels literally, as if the gospels are relaying actual and real events, they claim an historical core, whatever that means.

Jesus 'has historicity' is a phrase which I enjoy hearing. No idea what it means, but something about it makes me giggle.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Jesus 'has historicity' is a phrase which I enjoy hearing. No idea what it means, but something about it makes me giggle.
I get all warm and fuzzy when I apply historicity to other narratives, Sherlock Holmes and Clark Kent, history in the making as it were.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Reading the gospels as if Jesus is historical is no doubt the best way to assume what it is we are trying to prove. It appears to be most affective for those in the historical know how about this crucifixion. The consensus, read: all the scholars agree with me, is a clincher and really means something when trying to make a point.
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Reading the gospels as if Jesus is historical is no doubt the best way to assume what it is we are trying to prove. It appears to be most affective for those in the historical know how about this crucifixion.

The Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book are both gospels. I don't see how the historicists sort out the historical Jesus, what with so many variant gospel stories.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
The Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book are both gospels. I don't see how the historicists sort out the historical Jesus, what with so many variant gospel stories.
I don't know how they do it, je ne sais quoi, it must be a special talent, something they are born with, maybe a third eye or something.
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
A person that the Jesus myth is based on may have existed. I think it's impossible to prove one way or the other. However, the character in the Bible is most certainly a myth.
 
Top