Jesus was Myth

[steeltoes]

I never posited such

You have posited a belief of a religious nature, nothing more and nothing less.

Because you cant, we understand.

You don't understand the first difference between a skeptic and a true believer. Skeptics aren't required to explain away anything, what is presented without evidence may rightfully and summarily be dismissed without evidence.

It is well understood by anyone that can think for themselves that no amount of writing long after the fact about a martyr at passover for any given length of time makes the event true. Your arguments are obtuse and yet you point fingers at those that don't buy into them, priceless.

 

[outhouse]

You have posited a belief of a religious nature, nothing more and nothing less.

False


I am following historical work, not one bit of religiious dogma.

Skeptics

Are conspiracy theorist that make baseless assumptions in your context.

You have no credible position judging history, its why scholars laugh off you kind, as noted by Ehrman.

Your arguments are obtuse

My arguements follow scholarships and historians, not the ignorance of conspiracy minded skeptics with baseless unsubstantiated assumptions.

 

[steeltoes]

False


I am following historical work, not one bit of religiious dogma.






Are conspiracy theorist that make baseless assumptions in your context.

You have no credible position judging history, its why scholars laugh off you kind, as noted by Ehrman.





My arguements follow scholarships and historians, not the ignorance of conspiracy minded skeptics with baseless unsubstantiated assumptions.

Keep telling yourself "not one bit of religious dogma" as long as it works for you. Until you can substantiate your beliefs, and no, the fact that people continued to write about a martyred man at passover based on the gospels, (the very gospels we are trying to corroborate), for hundreds of years after the fact does not substantiate your belief. Until you can come up with something you are just a believer like the billion or two others that believe.

I haven't judged history, I have only been commenting on your arguments, and they are in no way related to any actual history, just wishful thinking on your part, at least that is all that you have presented so far.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., what is presented without evidence may rightfully and summarily be dismissed without evidence.

At issue is not the presence or absence of evidence but one's ability to recognize evidence and make reasonable inferences from it. Petulant skepticism is a poor substitute for historiography.

 

[steeltoes]

At issue is not the presence or absence of evidence but one's ability to recognize evidence and make reasonable inferences from it. Petulant skepticism is a poor substitute for historiography.

Who was commenting on historiography? My comments were directed at outhouse's unsubstantiated belief. As long as he presents what he does as beliefs I will continue to comment on them as such.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who was commenting on historiography?

Certainly not you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

MJ does not stand because it doesnt make any sense at all.

Things don't make sense. Things only make sense to individual human minds. I certainly accept that the non-historical Jesus makes no sense to you, but I claim that it makes very good sense, the best sense, to those who think hard and study the evidence and argue in open good faith.

Anyway, the main thing to remember is that it's just a difference of opinion. That's all it is. Let's be humble in our knowledge.

 

[steeltoes]

Certainly not you.

I notice, just my opinion, you have been a little testy for the last 20,000 plus posts of yours, may I suggest a laxative?

 

[steeltoes]

Things don't make sense. Things only make sense to individual human minds. I certainly accept that the non-historical Jesus makes no sense to you, but I claim that it makes very good sense, the best sense, to those who think hard and study the evidence and argue in open good faith.

Anyway, the main thing to remember is that it's just a difference of opinion. That's all it is. Let's be humble in our knowledge.

Things don't make sense, the story that influences our culture more than any other doesn't make sense, but if we interpret this religious text in a way that makes sense to us, then we can be viewed as sensible, more sensible than the animals that we are. Oh, the possibilities...now finally, we, as a species, can be viewed as different and separate from the other animals... isn't life grand?

 

[outhouse]

Things don't make sense. Things only make sense to individual human minds. I certainly accept that the non-historical Jesus makes no sense to you, but I claim that it makes very good sense, the best sense, to those who think hard and study the evidence and argue in open good faith.

Anyway, the main thing to remember is that it's just a difference of opinion. That's all it is. Let's be humble in our knowledge.

Things do make sense in a historical perspective though. Something happened, and if you have no credible explanation you fail.

That is where a HJ does not fail, it fits perfectly to the cultural anthropology 100% to the point many scholars claim there are two facts regarding the man. His crucifixion abnd baptism by John.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is where a HJ does not fail, it fits perfectly to the cultural anthropology 100% to the point many scholars claim there are two facts regarding the man. His crucifixion abnd baptism by John.

OK. If you (or the scholars) ever find any evidence for either one, please feel free to present it. I am always willing to examine any new evidence.

 

[steeltoes]

OK. If you (or the scholars) ever find any evidence for either one, please feel free to present it. I am always willing to examine any new evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming:


Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established"

Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him

John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact

both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion

Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event

NEWSFLASH:
One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the Baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent
from Historical Jesus wiki

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The evidence is overwhelming:

Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established"

Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him

John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact

both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion

Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event

Eddy and Boyd? You mean like the comedy team? Or do I have them mixed up with the ventriloquists?

 

[steeltoes]

Eddy and Boyd? You mean like the comedy team? Or do I have them mixed up with the ventriloquists?

It's funny you ask that because I was wondering the same thing.

 

[outhouse]

Ask yourself

Why would wee see progressions of concepts in scripture, where later authors are trying to embellish the original version. If they were creating whole cloth mythology, they wouldnt start by building embarrassing aspects for their character.

Take tekton for example. In Gmark he is a son of a Galilean tekton, which amounts to a displaced landless renter. In later gospels they are trying to hide this aspect.

Living in Nazareth is also a embarrssment, this little town was a hovel compared to the large Hellenistic cities in eyeshot where people lived in opulance.

Being baptized by John is also a embarrassment, and wee see the suthors tryinmg to cover this up as the stories evolved.

Even the crucifixion is a embarrassment, it was one of the most horrible and embarrassing ways one could be punished.


What switched me from the mythicist camp was to realize why Romans would create their religious character out of a peasant Jew, who's divinity they factaully paralleled against the living Emperor the "son of god"

They could have made it anyone, like the mythras deity. Instead we see Hellenistic Proselytes writing about a man and trying to somewhat cover up his flaws as the legend evolved in time.

 

[nash8]

Ambiguous,

I haven't seen you post in my other thread about why Rome adopted Christianity. So i'll ask you in here.

1.Why would Rome arbitrarilly choose a Jew named Yeshua to base their entire state religion on?

2.Why not choose any of the other man-God based religions that were already established and popular within the region?

3. What made Christianity so popular within Rome? There were plenty of other religions/cults that had extrodinary tales as great or greater than those of Christianity, with a lot more to offer in the indulgence aspect since you seem to speak so much of human nature.

4.Whose idea do you believe it was to form this religion of Christianity? What was their reasoning behind forming this new religion?

5. Where did they get the inspiration for this religion? I've seen you use the reference to forming a religion around Sherlock Holmes, so I figure I would provide some of the possible inspirations for him. Can you name one work of fiction that does not have possible inspirations?

3 Real People Who Were the Inspiration Behind Sherlock Holmes - Mindhut - SparkNotes

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why would wee see progressions of concepts in scripture, where later authors are trying to embellish the original version. If they were creating whole cloth mythology, they wouldnt start by building embarrassing aspects for their character.

Take tekton for example. In Gmark he is a son of a Galilean tekton, which amounts to a displaced landless renter. In later gospels they are trying to hide this aspect.

Living in Nazareth is also a embarrssment, this little town was a hovel compared to the large Hellenistic cities in eyeshot where people lived in opulance.

Being baptized by John is also a embarrassment, and wee see the suthors tryinmg to cover this up as the stories evolved.

Even the crucifixion is a embarrassment, it was one of the most horrible and embarrassing ways one could be punished.

What switched me from the mythicist camp was to realize why Romans would create their religious character out of a peasant Jew, who's divinity they factaully paralleled against the living Emperor the "son of god"

They could have made it anyone, like the mythras deity. Instead we see Hellenistic Proselytes writing about a man and trying to somewhat cover up his flaws as the legend evolved in time.

A fine, well-written, well-reasoned argument, outhouse.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1.Why would Rome arbitrarilly choose a Jew named Yeshua to base their entire state religion on?

Hi, Nash. I don't know the answers to any of your questions but don't mind speculating. By the time Rome adopted Christianity, I think it was a growing movement or religion, with passionate adherents. My guess is that Constantine went religion-shopping and decided that Christianity was his best choice, mostly because it seemed the most likely to succeed.

2.Why not choose any of the other man-God based religions that were already established and popular within the region?

See #1.

3. What made Christianity so popular within Rome? There were plenty of other religions/cults that had extrodinary tales as great or greater than those of Christianity, with a lot more to offer in the indulgence aspect since you seem to speak so much of human nature.

First, I don't know how popular Christianity was within Rome. Second, are you saying that these other religions/cults claimed that their godmen had actually walked the earth as a flesh-and-blood man, within recent history? That was the power of Jesus, I think.

If the others had similar setups, you'll have to educate me about that. I'm unfamiliar with them.

4.Whose idea do you believe it was to form this religion of Christianity? What was their reasoning behind forming this new religion?

Beats me. My sense is that some form of it was already existing and growing before 30 CE (churches in Asia Minor) and then the torch was lit by someone's claim (Mark's?) that Jesus had actually lived in Jerusalem 30-50 years prior.

We need to try and imagine how primitive things were back then. Sure, lots of people would have denied that Jesus actually lived among them, but those few voices could easily be shouted down, ignored, and soon forgotten -- with any written denials destroyed by later zealots or just by time.

5. Where did they get the inspiration for this religion? I've seen you use the reference to forming a religion around Sherlock Holmes, so I figure I would provide some of the possible inspirations for him. Can you name one work of fiction that does not have possible inspirations?

You've apparently confused me with someone else. I think most all literary characters are probably based on some real person, if in the slightest way. In the case of Jesus, I have no good idea, but someone mentioned a 'Yeshu' who was referenced in the Talmud as having lived or died in 93 CE. That would fit pretty well for me, but I just don't care enough to research it.

Thanks for the questions.

 

[yokomodoful]

The argument that Jesus is either liar, lunatic, or God is meant to be the argument against people that accept Jesus as just a nice spiritual teacher. Jesus`s words in the gospel do not make that possible. It is not an argument of the existance of Jesus. That is a completely different topic and other evidence would be used to prove this.

 

[steeltoes]

A fine, well-written, well-reasoned argument, outhouse.

Agreed, if outhouse is convinced then by all means. As I've stated before, I don't have a problem with an historical Jesus, and as long as one is true to oneself then no harm done. I don't get the embarrassment argument, but if outhouse does then that's all well and fine for outhouse.