Quest for the historical Jesus

[AmbiguousGuy]

Would you like a one-on-one debate with you claiming the mythicist position? Simply tell the moderators and provide an opening statement.

Thanks for the invitation, Jay. I accept.

Here is my opening statement so you can be thinking on it.

My best guess is that no man lived in first century Judea upon whom the gospel stories were based. I think that Jesus was a creation of Mark or Q or maybe some sect of storytellers and that he was made from oral stories about ancient godmen mixed up with the idea of a Jewish messiah.

I'll set it up with the mods when I have an extra minute, probably later today.

And I'd like to invite anyone with an interest in the (non)historical Jesus to come and watch Jayhawker and AmbigGuy debate the issue one-on-one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for the invitation, Jay. I accept.

Here is my opening statement so you can be thinking on it.

My best guess is that no man lived in first century Judea upon whom the gospel stories were based. I think that Jesus was a creation of Mark or Q or maybe some sect of storytellers and that he was made from oral stories about ancient godmen mixed up with the idea of a Jewish messiah.

I'll set it up with the mods when I have an extra minute, probably later today.

And I'd like to invite anyone with an interest in the (non)historical Jesus to come and watch Jayhawker and AmbigGuy debate the issue one-on-one.

No thank you. I have neither the time nor the interest in debating someone who openly and forcefully lies. Feel free to claim victory ... or not. In either case you'll be on my ignore list.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps, but what is it's relevance to the question of historicity?

The main legends of Jesus the NT deals with "in gerneral" is the last week of his life, ending with a trip to the temple for Passover.

For me, this legend was one of the many different passover events recorded.

Had there beem a substancial riot, the Romans may have murdered tens of thousands and everything would have been recorded much quicker. But because this legend wasnt like the time the Roman guard urinated in front of everyone, it was recorded as the legend of the crucified man grew.

 

[outhouse]

So you disagree that Paul met some of the disciples in Jerusalem shortly after 30 CE?

All my opinion.

If they did meet, Paul would not talk about what was really discussed.


Here is a man who was not a real apostle, who did terrible things to early Christians, who was teaching this Jewish movement to the hellenized world.

The real disciples would have viewed Paul as their mortal enemy.

The reality is this, OK guys I hunted you down for years, your so lucky I didnt catch you, but now I figured I'd tell you I'm running the show now. We are not following the Noahide laws to the T anymore, and ill pervert them as much as I want. Want to eat some pig ?

 

[Desert Snake]

All my opinion.

If they did meet, Paul would not talk about what was really discussed.


Here is a man who was not a real apostle, who did terrible things to early Christians, who was teaching this Jewish movement to the hellenized world.

The real disciples would have viewed Paul as their mortal enemy.

The reality is this, OK guys I hunted you down for years, your so lucky I didnt catch you, but now I figured I'd tell you I'm running the show now. We are not following the Noahide laws to the T anymore, and ill pervert them as much as I want. Want to eat some pig ?

oh my goddess. Were you there? Assume much?

 

[outhouse]

oh my goddess. Were you there? Assume much?

Im sorry, but you will need to break down what you think is wrong if you want to debate the topic.

Paul persecuted the early movement.

Paul took his message to those outside of Judaism.

Jesus did not send Paul out in person to be a apostle.

Paul was the enemy of this movement at one point in time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

outhouse, perhaps you'll appreciate Paula Fredriksen's

Gospel Chronologies, the Scene in the Temple, and the Crucifixion of Jesus.​

Read it over a couple of times and let me know what you think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The reality is this, OK guys I hunted you down for years, your so lucky I didnt catch you, but now I figured I'd tell you I'm running the show now. We are not following the Noahide laws to the T anymore, and ill pervert them as much as I want. Want to eat some pig ?

OK. So you agree that Paul was in Jerusalem around 30 CE, but you believe that not a single person in that city would tell him any details about Jesus' earthly life?

 

[outhouse]

outhouse, perhaps you'll appreciate Paula Fredriksen's

Gospel Chronologies, the Scene in the Temple, and the Crucifixion of Jesus.
​

Read it over a couple of times and let me know what you think.

Thank you

Will do.

 

[Desert Snake]

Im sorry, but you will need to break down what you think is wrong if you want to debate the topic.

Paul persecuted the early movement.

Yes, and why if the entire story is fictional even include that? It certainly doesn't porteay him in a positive light.

Paul took his message to those outside of Judaism.

yes, is this supposed to mean something significant? Because it really isn't as far as I can tell.

Jesus did not send Paul out in person to be a apostle.

Perhaps the only valid argument.

Paul was the enemy of this movement at one point in time.

So were many people who converted to Christianity, it doesn't prove motive or character.
Why would I have to break down your assumptions/theories? Rather you have to give evidence beyond speculation.

The explanation behind motive is the Saul-->Paul change in character, you are simply stating that this is false, as if people can't change.

 

[Desert Snake]

Incidentally, why would Jesus have been baptizing people into the new teachings if Christianity was only meant to remain within Judaism? How much of the Bible are you claiming to be false, just give a list of Books you consider false.

 

[outhouse]

OK. So you agree that Paul was in Jerusalem around 30 CE, but you believe that not a single person in that city would tell him any details about Jesus' earthly life?

No I do not agree he was there. I dont know.

And who in Jerusalem knew a Galilean well enough to describe the details you are personaly looking for?

He didnt live in Jerusalem, and always avoided teaching in big cities. With up to 400,000 packing the Passover, he would have been invisible in a sea of people and teachers, unless he caused a disturbance. That is all these residents of Israel and travelers of the Roman empire knew.

Jesus few real apostles, would have fled in fear back to Galilee.

Paul was not interested in details of his life, he could care less. But rather he wanted to shine his light, his version of Jesus legend to non Jews.

For all I know some leader who was a hellenistic called Thomas said he was a brother of Christ, and Paul took it literally.

 

[outhouse]

So were many people who converted to Christianity, it doesn't prove motive or character.
Why would I have to break down your assumptions/theories? Rather you have to give evidence beyond speculation.

The explanation behind motive is the Saul-->Paul change in character, you are simply stating that this is false, as if people can't change.

Ok so you agreed with everything I wrote, but still have a bone to pick?


I dont get it.

 

[Desert Snake]

For all I know some leader who was a hellenistic called Thomas said he was a brother of Christ, and Paul took it literally.

Judaism was influenced by Hellenistic thought. Perhaps Jesus was trying to bring Judaic belief back to it's original form.

 

[outhouse]

Incidentally, why would Jesus have been baptizing people into the new teachings if Christianity was only meant to remain within Judaism? How much of the Bible are you claiming to be false, just give a list of Books you consider false.

It would do you well to atleast gain a little knowledge on the subject before debating.

Jesus did not teach Christianity, he taught a sect of Judaim to Jews.

Books are not false. The NT is not wrong. people claiming that it needs to be read literally are the ones who seem to have issues here. This was never written to be literal historical documents. This was theology written exactly how much early writing was written.

 

[Desert Snake]

Many branches of Judaism are far more Hellenistic in thought than the Christianity of the time, all without the influence of Christianity.

Your arguments/reasoning are not holding up to analysis.

 

[Desert Snake]

It would do you well to atleast gain a little knowledge on the subject before debating.

Likewise.

Jesus did not teach Christianity, he taught a sect of Judaim to Jews.

Semantics, unless you completely disbelieve the NT.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok so you agreed with everything I wrote, but still have a bone to pick?


I dont get it.

I was disagreeing with your speculations on how those facts played out, two completely different things.

 

[maxfreakout]

the whole historical jesus argument seems to be based on circular reasoning; we should believe in historical jesus because that is what the majority of scholars believe, but when one of those scholars actually wrote a book called "did jesus exist?", the vast bulk of his argumentation consisted of appeal to the scholarly consensus. So it seems that while most scholars believe in historical jesus, when they are pressed to explain why they believe this, they reply that they believe it because this is what other scholars believe. Scholars believe in the historical jesus just because other scholars believe in the historical jesus = logical circularity.

 

[Desert Snake]

the whole historical jesus argument seems to be based on circular reasoning; we should believe in historical jesus because that is what the majority of scholars believe, but when one of those scholars actually wrote a book called "did jesus exist?", the vast bulk of his argumentation consisted of appeal to the scholarly consensus. So it seems that while most scholars believe in historical jesus, when they are pressed to explain why they believe this, they reply that they believe it because this is what other scholars believe. Scholars believe in the historical jesus just because other scholars believe in the historical jesus = logical circularity.

I believe in the historical Jesus because it makes the most sense to me, scholars opinions are great but that certainly isn't what I'm basing my opinion on.