That's not the whole argument.
So read another book.
When did one scholar become "most scholars"?
Last edited:
-
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!
Quest for the historical Jesus
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
That's not the whole argument.
So read another book.
When did one scholar become "most scholars"?
maxfreakout
Active Member
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The historical Jesus as opposed to the mythical Jesus or the idea that Jesus is an amalgamation of different people of the era.
maxfreakout
Active Member
It is by far the most often repeated, and heavily relied on argument right throughout the book. Ehrman offers very little substantial argument besides appeal to scholarly consensus, which is blatant circularity given that Ehrman is a leading scholar of historical Jesus studies
Also Ehrman seems to be the only scholar who is seriously and explicitly addressing the question of Jesus' historicity (please correct me if im wrong about this), there arent any other books which actually pose the question "did Jesus exist?".
maxfreakout
Active Member
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I've read mythic stories, and by comparison the general format for say a possibly completely mythical figure does not match the figure of Jesus IMO. There are other characters in mythology that may or may not have been real but considering the nature of Jesus's personhood, a man, as Messiah, and the time period/circumstances, apostles, Israel under Rome, and the general feeling of the story, that's my conclusion.
My opinion is all religion/belief aside btw.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
That's sure how it seems to me. And biblical scholars are, of course, not the best people to look objectively at the historical Jesus question.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
OK. I thought it was 99% accepted that Paul went to Jerusalem during that time. This is what makes it so hard to even discuss the historical Jesus. There so little agreement on even some of the most basic facts.
OK, so you don't believe the whole rampage-through-the-temple story?
Then why was he crucified? Or do you disbelieve that, too?
outhouse
Atheistically
page #10 now. I will have to read it more then once, definately quite the bit to digest.
So far I like how she is using a in depth study of John in relation to the synoptics.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Non-historical Jesus implications
1. James: Either completely delusional or flat out lying/fiction
2. Matthew: Basically completely fictional // lying
1. James: Either completely delusional or flat out lying/fiction
2. Matthew: Basically completely fictional // lying
Why is that?
outhouse
Atheistically
Not done yet, but here is the jist you may have wanted me to focus on. This negates the Table tipping and any political incident, that would have had his followers executed as well.
It seems her arguement so far, relies on Jesus being crucified alone. She has also noted the JtB was killed soley by Herod and previous scholars used that in parrallel to mend their version of events with Mark, instead of her partial reliance on John.
From the link above.
Thanks to Jesus’ multiple trips to Jerusalem, Pilate — and for that matter, the priests also
— would have known the content and tenor of Jesus’ message well before the trip to the city that
proved to be his last. This explains why only Jesus died. But this also means that, when Jesus did
15
die, neither his message itself nor his view of himself can have been the precipitating factor
leading to his execution.— would have known the content and tenor of Jesus’ message well before the trip to the city that
proved to be his last. This explains why only Jesus died. But this also means that, when Jesus did
15
die, neither his message itself nor his view of himself can have been the precipitating factor
Last edited:
3. Jesus mystical but later considered to be literal, probably due to Roman politics. So much surrounding Jesus is mystical, but its openly mystical whether Jesus begins as a historical figure or not. James is speaking to people who understand what he's talking about, and so is Matthew. They aren't lying, and they aren't writing fiction in a modern sense. They're sharing a common parable which is later rendered into a literal story by some politicians. It could be that so many Christians were killed, and then the Romans replaced them with people who hadn't a clue. There are many scenarios.Disciple said:
Last edited:
Can you give a few examples?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So it's supposed to be read as fiction? How did you reach that conclusion?
It's a story. Stories are not considered lies, they are considered to be fiction and in the case of the gospels allegorical fiction.
It could very well be that the non-historical implications are that those that believe they are reading non-fiction are in fact reading fiction, in other words, they are simply mistaken.
Can it be known what this Jesus consisted of? Poor historical methods do not automatically mean Jesus is a complete myth, it just means that we may have no good leads and so are grasping at straws.
What steeltoes said.
Good question. :yes:
Which of these books have you actually read?