Mythical Christ

[dogsgod]

Interesting ad hominem. How is excluding all Christians from the category of "scholar" other than the most ignorant bigotry?

Christian scholars study Christianity, they don't even have to be Christian, it's not intended as an ad hominem. There are biblical and literary scholars that happen to be Christian, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Ronald]

Fact! You, dogsgod, only go around once! Better grab all the "Gusto you can get."
My mythical God, His mythical word and the mythical Israel, lead me to the "Olam Habah." The Great "Gusto" is there! And all who believe will go there. And you will be ashes beneath our feet. Enjoy!

But you're still breathing! You can "Teshuvah!" The "Mythical Elohim permitting."

Shalom

 

[lew0049]

There is no comtemporay historian of the supposed Jesus that ever heard of such a man. The gospels themselves are conflicting, fairytalish accounts of the life of a supposed Christ that borrowed heavily from pre-existant mythology. The liklihood that a man existed even remotely resembling the Jesus of the Bible is quite small.

It is amazing that you would make such a claim as the gospels are conflicting. Truly, you must not be reading the gospels because you would find that they are in no way conflicting - the foundation of Jesus's life is given - are they from different view points? Of course. Do people record differently from different perspectives? Of course.
The fact of the matter is that if the gospels were IDENTICAL, then people proclaim that they were forged over time. If one gospel says three people were present and another just mentions himself as being present, then people like yourself make claims that the Bible is different. There is absolutely no harm in trying look at something deeper than face value, but when your purpose is to find small faults with something, then you are completely missing the point.

And verrrrrrrry many contemporary historians agree with the events of the gospels/Jesus. And I'm assuming your response to this will be "yeah well he biased because is a Christian." I hate to tell you wonderer but the "non-christian" sources are biased as well, it is that simple. Many people like yourself read the Bible and documents relating to the Bible with the sole intention of trying to contradicte its events. Nevertheless, there are no firm contradictions. Yes, the Bible is difficult to understand and yes, you could present questions about the Bible that myself/others can't appropriately respond too, but this is NO WAY means that you have provided evidence that contradicts.
So many forget that Books in the Bible were written up to 3,000 years ago.
When analyzing the "truth" about the Bible, bring you mind and heart into a receptive mode and do not spare your intellect when examining the truth. You seem to not spare your intellect when attempting to contradicte the Bible but are you truly looking at the meaning? If you are a genuine person that does not have a prejudiced view, how can you walk away from the Bible and not say that there is/has never been anything like this on the face of the earth. The fact of the matter is that the truth of the Bible involves a total commitment which entails complete humility - a concept that many in our society will ALWAYS resist. When you truly look below the surface, there is either a will to believe or a will not to believe, it is that simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Yamauchi - look at the unbelieveable resume this man. Is he a Christian now? Yes after we converted at age 16 from Budheism. Research what he has to say if you want. Now, are there historians that converted from Christianity to Atheism, of course! But did they convert because they truly did not believe or because of another personal reason. Maybe they still can't understand why there is so much evil in the world, a loved one died, or other personal "smokescreens." There will never be enough empirical or scientific evidence to tell faith but that is why a leap of faith is required at some point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And verrrrrrrry many contemporary historians agree with the events of the gospels/Jesus.

What events? Why? Based on what evidence? Historicity is not a function of popular vote.

 

[Halcyon]

It is amazing that you would make such a claim as the gospels are conflicting. Truly, you must not be reading the gospels because you would find that they are in no way conflicting...

Have you read the gospels?

Tell me, Jesus's encounter with the money lenders - did that happen towards the beginning of his mission, or towards the end?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read the gospels? Tell me, Jesus's encounter with the money lenders - did that happen towards the beginning of his mission, or towards the end?

... or did it happen at all?

 

[dogsgod]

Have you read the gospels?

Tell me, Jesus's encounter with the money lenders - did that happen towards the beginning of his mission, or towards the end?

Or how about this? Did the women run from the empty tomb afraid and tell no one as in Mark, or did they run out elated and tell as in Matthew?

Mark 16:8 NASB[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]: They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (NASB ©1995)[/FONT]

Matthew 28:8 NASB[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]: And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. (NASB ©1995)

[/FONT]

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

Or how about this? Did the women run from the empty tomb afraid and tell no one as in Mark, or did they run out elated and tell as in Matthew?

Mark 16:8 NASB[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]: They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (NASB ©1995)[/FONT]

Matthew 28:8 NASB[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]: And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. (NASB ©1995)[/FONT]

As mentioned before..... That does not conclude that the Historical.. Or Spirutal Jesus didnt Exist.. Ever tell a Story or a joke... Then listen to that person tell the same story or joke to someone else.. Then you want to butt in and say.. Dude... Thats not how it goes... Same Concept... Doesnt mean the story you told to someone never happened.. Just means someonedidnt get the whole story stright.. Get the metephor (ish)

O_O

 

[logician]

1. It is amazing that you would make such a claim as the gospels are conflicting. Truly, you must not be reading the gospels because you would find that they are in no way conflicting - the foundation of Jesus's life is given - are they from different view points? Of course. Do people record differently from different perspectives? Of course.
The fact of the matter is that if the gospels were IDENTICAL, then people proclaim that they were forged over time. If one gospel says three people were present and another just mentions himself as being present, then people like yourself make claims that the Bible is different. There is absolutely no harm in trying look at something deeper than face value, but when your purpose is to find small faults with something, then you are completely missing the point.

2. And verrrrrrrry many contemporary historians agree with the events of the gospels/Jesus..

1. I refer you to http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/ for an analysis of the gospels, and to Freke and Gandy's books "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus".

2. Name one historian that lived during the supposed time of Jesus that wrote some narrative account of his life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

2. Name one historian that lived during the supposed time of Jesus that wrote some narrative account of his life.

What is both interesting and laughable is that you find this to be probative.

 

[lew0049]

Wanderer - name person that lived anywhere near that time that was documented during his/her life or directly after... it amazes me that many of you forget that it was 2000 years ago, seriously.

Halycon - so tell me exactly how your example contradicts anything... it shows that the event took place and that the gospels were not directly copied from one another (different authors). It is so difficult to respond to issues like these via the internet. So tell me, what does you point prove? The events didn't take place? The content of the gospels were copied from one another? Obviously you didn't read my previous post to the fulliest.
Contradictions mean that the events didn't take place and that you can provide some proof to this.
Simply, when there are different authors who recorded the events 20-80 years after the fact - what do you expect? Obviously, you believe that there could not possible be any human error in the Bible.
Lets just say you are a child and your father and mother seperately write your childhood events when you turn 40. Do you think one might include an event that the other didn't or one might get the exact order of events mixed up? Of course they would. Look at the BIG picture. If you do, you would truly realize that the sequence of events in the gospels are nearly flawless. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, these slight differences you present prove that the gospels were not copied from one another or that they were probably not merely myths BECAUSE you would hope that, if they were, everything would be perfect.

Oh yeah, wonderer, how is it possible to be an atheist and a rationalist? In many ways these views are opposite.

 

[logician]

What is both interesting and laughable is that you find this to be probative.

Equally interesting is you find it to be of no consequence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Equally interesting is you find it to be of no consequence.

wanderer085, why should it be?

Conclusion
It is far more likely than not that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a human being. In some cases, even the errors in the New Testament, such as those in the birth narratives, are far more consonant with a historical Jesus than with a mythical one. By contrast, to support a mythical Jesus requires more contorted explanations of the evidence. This is particularly acute in the evidence that Jesus had brothers. Even Paul is not nearly as silent about a historical Jesus as he has been purported to be, and the relatively slight non-Christian testimony is about at the level one would expect. Quite simply, Occam's Razor favors the existence of Jesus.

- see skepticwiki.org: Existence of Jesus

The faith based campaign against an historical Jesus demonstrates little beyond an egregious ignorance of history and historiography. And those who so pedantically beat the drums prove capable of little more that sloppy reasoning and ad hominem.

Give it up: even well respected 'mythicists' such as G.A. Wells find your position laughably untenable.

 

[dogsgod]

Give it up: even well respected 'mythicists' such as G.A. Wells find your position laughably untenable.

That is to misrepresent Wells. You obviously aren't aware of his present position, you are not qualified to comment for him.

 

[dogsgod]

Equally interesting is you find it to be of no consequence.

LOL, you got that right! No contemporaries is just a minor detail.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is to misrepresent Wells. You obviously aren't aware of his present position, you are not qualified to comment for him.

Perhaps. I am very aware that in his polemic with J.P. Holding he has acknowledged the Q material as probative. If you have newer information, please be so kind as to share it.

 

[logician]

ALso damning for the historicity of the supposed Jesus is the nearly totally lack of any record of his supposed life from his birth to age 30, except for the one highly dubious engagement with temple scholars. What was the son of god doing all these years - twiddling his supernatural thumbs?

Again, the record of the supposed Jesus life is a record of impossible events, and pre-existent mythology, that's all we've got.

Nuff Said.

 

[Halcyon]

Halycon - so tell me exactly how your example contradicts anything... it shows that the event took place and that the gospels were not directly copied from one another (different authors).
So tell me, what does you point prove? The events didn't take place? The content of the gospels were copied from one another?

It proves that that Gospels contradict one another, precisely what i wanted it to prove.

Contradictions mean that the events didn't take place and that you can provide some proof to this.

Not at all, it just means the Gospels contradict one another.

Simply, when there are different authors who recorded the events 20-80 years after the fact - what do you expect? Obviously, you believe that there could not possible be any human error in the Bible.

I don't believe there is human error in the Bible, no. I think the authors wrote exactly what they intended to. I just don't think they were all working towards the same goal.

Using your analogy about me and my parents, but changing it a bit to my university friends;
I was at university for three years and stayed on there working for a further year. Towards the end of my time there (the last week actually) i accidentally had my right hand crushed and mangled by a piece of machinery. The period of time, 3-4 years, is the same time the disciples knew Jesus (excepting the two which were his brothers of course).
In 40 years if, for some demented reason, my close friends from uni were to write my biography, i would be quite startled if they chose to place my accident at the beginning of my time at university and not at the end.
This incident, although big for me, is nothing compared to Jesus's actions in the Temple that day with the money lenders, that would have gone down in infamy and would have stuck in his disciples minds, they would never have forgotten it, nor when it happened. Especially since it was this event that got Jesus arrested.

The author of John deliberately and knowingly placed the event out of chronological order for a reason. What do you think that reason was?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ALso damning for the historicity of the supposed Jesus is the nearly totally lack of any record of his supposed life from his birth to age 30, except for the one highly dubious engagement with temple scholars.

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. But the probative value of that 'evidence' is fully a function of the improbability of such absence. I have no way of knowing what, if anything, you know about 2nd Temple Period Judaism. I suspect very little. But the fact is "the nearly totally lack [sic!] of any record" of a circa 30 CE Jewish sect leader is far, far from atypical or noteworthy. Try again ...

 

[Halcyon]

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.

I've never understood that idea, it seems totally illogical to me.

We have no evidence of planets in the Andromeda galaxy, does that mean planets are absent from the Andromeda galaxy?

I can understand drawing the conclusion of absence if the object we are investigating is limited to a specific time and place i.e. if i find no evidence of an apple in a box, then its safe to assume there is no apple in the box. But when our investigations are separated by great distances in either time or space from the object, i don't see how the same logic can apply - since the evidence could simply be beyond our reach.

But the probative value of that 'evidence' is fully a function of the improbability of such absence. I have no way of knowing what, if anything, you know about 2nd Temple Period Judaism. I suspect very little. But the fact is "the nearly totally lack [sic!] of any record" of a circa 30 CE Jewish sect leader is far, far from atypical or noteworthy. Try again ...

So i totally agree with this, i guess i just dislike that sentence. It seems rather unscientific to me.