Jesus was Myth

[steeltoes]

What evidence?

Why must the imprint be an imprint of Jesus?

Who else could it be?

 

[Agnostic75]

Who else could it be?

Any of many other dead people.

Why must the shroud be from the time of Jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Who else could it be?

Elvis?

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for review and clean up.​

 

[9Westy9]

***Mod Post***

The thread has now been re-opened.

We'd like to remind members to try and keep debates civil and also of rule 1 (this includes calling a member a liar, instead demonstrate their claim is wrong)

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[arthra]

Well I'm glad this thread was cleaned up...

Anyway in my view there's no question that myths grew up around the person of Jesus...How could any figure over a thousand years not have some myths associated with them

The question would be was Jesus Hercules? and the answer is no. As far as we know Herc left no teachings..

Was Jesus Apollo? No.. same answer as above.

One of the figures sometmess considered is Apollonius of Tyana... Apollonius had one biographer Philostratus. Could there have been a Pythagorean teacher around in the eastern Mediterranean? But did Apollonius do everything Philostratus said.. Probably not.

Was Apollonius Jesus... I don't think so.

I think it's likely there was an itinerant preacher roaming around the Galilee Who was not a member of the priestly caste nor one of the establishment bean counter.. Pharisees.

It;s also likely that after the destruction of Jerusalem which did occur around 70 CE and the subsequent diaspora of the Jews that very very little if anything could be left to verify the existence of this obscure itinerant preacher...

Consider that there are scattered fragments in various languages from Aramaic to Coptic and of course Koine Greek that point to such a figure and that there is a rough similarity of His teachings laying around...not just one source but several and I think a reasonable conclusion would that Jesus was a historical person but today so clouded in myth and theological obscurities it would be comparable to a Gordian Knot to unravel...

 

[steeltoes]

I like the Jesus of the gaps theory which is all about an oral tradition that circulated from the time Jesus would have supposedly died until someone finally wrote his bio in what we call a gospel. We have to give creationists credit, they have all the answers.

But really, who cares if Jesus was mythical or historical and all things in between? No one knows anyways, nothing can be corroborated so people can only pretend to know.

 

[outhouse]

I like the Jesus of the gaps theory which is all about an oral tradition that circulated from the time Jesus would have supposedly died until someone finally wrote his bio in what we call a gospel. We have to give creationists credit, they have all the answers.

But really, who cares if Jesus was mythical or historical and all things in between? No one knows anyways, nothing can be corroborated so people can only pretend to know.

We understand your opinion.

But that is not the scholars view. Certain aspects are not even debated, and after that it is all educated opinions.

Its no where near as vague as you posit.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I like the Jesus of the gaps theory which is all about an oral tradition that circulated from the time Jesus would have supposedly died until someone finally wrote his bio in what we call a gospel.

What would you know about any theories regarding the historical Jesus that scholars hold? You still haven't defended your statement about Philo and Pilate, you don't read the languages of scholarship necessary to access most of historical Jesus research, you don't read the languages necessary to access the primary sources, you don't read scholarship in general and have yet to cite any scholarship, your only positions on historiographical methods are implicit (and contradictory, as you use one standard for e.g., Philo and another for the gospels, Paul, etc.), you are "least impressed" by scholars like Ehrman because you watched stuff on youtube and admitted you aren't that familiar with Ehrman in the same post, and in general have shown that your interest in ancient history extends only to the historical Jesus but even then not enough to actually research anything before making sweeping statements about scholars and scholarship you've never read.

We have to give creationists credit, they have all the answers.

Like your average mythicists.

But really, who cares if Jesus was mythical or historical and all things in between?

Historians and people interested in history. Also, people who are absurdly biased and demonstrate this by selectively reading and evaluating a vastly limited exposure to scholarship and evidence based on beliefs (like you do and like many Christians and other mythicists do).

No one knows anyways, nothing can be corroborated so people can only pretend to know.

That's true (trivially) about everything. And if you don't care, an absurdly high number of your posts are devoted to a subject you don't care about.

 

[steeltoes]

What would you know about any theories regarding the historical Jesus that scholars hold? You still haven't defended your statement about Philo and Pilate, you don't read the languages of scholarship necessary to access most of historical Jesus research, you don't read the languages necessary to access the primary sources, you don't read scholarship in general and have yet to cite any scholarship, your only positions on historiographical methods are implicit (and contradictory, as you use one standard for e.g., Philo and another for the gospels, Paul, etc.), you are "least impressed" by scholars like Ehrman because you watched stuff on youtube and admitted you aren't that familiar with Ehrman in the same post, and in general have shown that your interest in ancient history extends only to the historical Jesus but even then not enough to actually research anything before making sweeping statements about scholars and scholarship you've never read.


Like your average mythicists.


Historians and people interested in history. Also, people who are absurdly biased and demonstrate this by selectively reading and evaluating a vastly limited exposure to scholarship and evidence based on beliefs (like you do and like many Christians and other mythicists do).


That's true (trivially) about everything. And if you don't care, an absurdly high number of your posts are devoted to a subject you don't care about.

As far as you are concerned I don't care what you believe, you're totally committed and far too biased to matter. The bashing you give people that are not committed to a given Jesus theory as you are tells us more about you and your faith commitment to hj than anything else.

FYI, Philo on Pilate is there for anyone to read and make up their own mind, it doesn't require any form of defending, unless of course one is committed to defending their biased opinions.

 

[outhouse]

As far as you are concerned I don't care what you believe, you're totally committed and far too biased to matter. The bashing you give people that are not committed to a given Jesus theory as you are tells us more about you and your faith commitment to hj than anything else.

FYI, Philo on Pilate is there for anyone to read and make up their own mind, it doesn't require any form of defending, unless of course one is committed to defending their biased opinions.

Appealing to ignorance, has never been fruitful in historical research .

 

[steeltoes]

Appealing to ignorance, has never been fruitful in historical research .

We get it, those that aren't committed to an historical Jesus theory are ignorant dumbasses. It's your mantra, as if we haven't noticed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Appealing to ignorance, has never been fruitful in historical research .

Yeah. How can we possibly know what Alexander ate for breakfast on the morning of July 2, 340 BCE if we appeal to our ignorance of the matter.

Better to set aside our ignorance and boldly argue for our own breakfast menu (while proclaiming the ignorance of all those who disagree with us).

What fun.

 

[outhouse]

We get it, those that aren't committed to an historical Jesus theory are ignorant dumbasses. It's your mantra, as if we haven't noticed.

Appealing to ignorance, has nothing to do with ones opinion.