The Jesus Myth

[outhouse]

No they didn't. Yes, other people had the name Jesus, but they were quite different from the Jesus of the Bible.

funny I asked him to back his statement with proof or a link and I got a philosophical rebuttle avoiding the subject at hand comepletely

 

[outhouse]

You know alot of people are saying alot of things archaeologist looking for Solomon and David
there is no historical person with these names
David is Jakeh, Solomon is Jedidiah, Isreal is Jacob, Joshua is Hoshea etc,etc,etc, I think alot of people need to do a lot more research before they publish there findings

are you sure about this???

how about the shard or rock that states "house of david" how about copper mines that date to the exact time of soloman. How about the possible city?

 

[fallingblood]

Yet Paul's conversion to Christianity ocurred around the time of the alleged crucifixion (30 -35ad). Very curious that Paul seemed oblivious to the man Jesus himself.

If he'd converted before the crucifixion... well, obviously he was not, else he would have gone directly to Jesus side.

If he was converted after the crucifixion, he would have beelined to Jerusalem, questioned everyone in sight, and recorded their statements about Jesus.

Instead, doesn't he declare that he learned nothing about Jesus from other men, but only from the spirit?

Pretty good evidence right there that Jesus was not living in Jerusalem during the time as claimed in the gospels.

Unless I'm wrong about any of the numbers, I mean. I'm ready to be corrected if so.

Paul didn't convert until sometime after the death of Jesus. Instead, he began persecuting members of the Jesus movement. After his conversion, he states that he went to Arabia instead. Some have suggested that he started his first mission trip there, but that it failed quite horribly. If that would be true, there is no reason to assume that if he did write something to those he visited in Arabia, that they would survive.

We are told that he did go to Jerusalem though and that when he was there, he met James, and spent around a week with Peter, learning from him. It is logical to assume that with Peter, he learned about Jesus.

Yes, Paul does claim to learn everything from the spirit, but this has to be understood in entire context of his teaching. He is constantly trying to show that he also has authority, just like the Apostles. His statement about learning everything from Jesus thus fits into him trying to prove his authority.

 

[fallingblood]

Im about 55% for and 45% against

Theres two sides to the story, I started off not believing until I did enough work to figure out there was more to it then I thought

I searched every avenue for and against, more against then for. Price has a strong case but it is a minority view. So are the others

I have to disagree with you there. Price has a weak case when it is fully examined. I have actually offered a rebuttal to his three pillars that he sets out, and they may seem good at first, but as another scholar said (I apologize, I can not remember off hand who it was), Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by ignoring the evidence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Beowulf has a lot of historical characters in it (or at least characters based on historical figures. More so, we are talking about a work that was not meant to be a historical account in the first place. So it really doesn't give a good comparison to the Gospels, which are presented as historical works).

Beowulf was not meant to be an historical account? Really? Who told you that?

How about the Eden Story? Was it meant to be historical, do you think, among the primitive people who first told it around their campfires?

You seem to know a lot about the thinking and motivations of ancient people, yet you deny the most basic of human cravings, like our passion for heroes.

I think I'll trust my own observations and conclusions about the human heart over your own.

Anyway, I doubt the gospels were first presented as non-fiction. I think their writers would be shocked out of their minds to see how people are taking their stories as historical.

We can look at one of the earliest known literature pieces, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that again, there is a hero, but it is based off of a historical figure.

You continue to ignore all of my points about the historicity of fictional characters, so I don't know what else to say to you.

If the story is based on a historical figure, then one can not call that figure made up.

Yikes. Just yikes. And you claim no vested interest in the Bible.

I'm not denying that people have a passion for heros. What I'm denying is that this passion would cause a person to fabricate a hero, instead of looking at the various heros of their time.

Paul Bunyon, Bugs Bunny, Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones.

It is passingly easy to disprove you. People make heroes of thin air all the time.

 

[outhouse]

I have to disagree with you there. Price has a weak case when it is fully examined. I have actually offered a rebuttal to his three pillars that he sets out, and they may seem good at first, but as another scholar said (I apologize, I can not remember off hand who it was), Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by ignoring the evidence.

fair enough

i was playting both sides of the coin

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

never seen a debate course offered in a college to learn a subject.

Umm... you don't realize how much one must learn about a subject in order to successfully debate it at the college level? It's like doing a term paper.

For myself, I learn lots more from watching two informed, capable debaters than by reading books.

Anyway, I don't think much of formal debate. I think we can see debris from that training on some of the posters here.

 

[fallingblood]

As I say, everybody's got to be doing something.

But if an entire culture seemed to me to be entrapped by a belief in Arthur as Cosmic Savior -- so much so that the society around me sometimes seemed essentially insane -- then I might try to discourage people from taking Arthur too seriously.

It could be an actual Mission from God to do so. We must prepare a better world for our grandchildren, after all.

The same thing was true for Augustus, even when he was living. He was the savior, and was called such various times.

The problem with Jesus is that a lot of misinformation has been spread about him, based on ignorance. This includes the stories that have circulated about him in the Bible. Instead of treating Jesus like any other historical figure, people have treated him like a God or some special divine individual. That is a huge problem.

If people had just studied Jesus, as they did with Augustus (who had many of the same stories circulated about him that Jesus did), there would have been no problem. But since Jesus kept being important, he was untouched for the most part until around 2 centuries ago. Now, scholars are treating Jesus as they did with other historical figures; however, that information is not being spread to the masses.

 

[outhouse]

Paul Bunyon, Bugs Bunny, Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones.

It is passingly easy to disprove you. People make heroes of thin air all the time.

correct but you have to take into account how ancient hebrews did in the first century in and out of biblical context to relate your statement.

modern examples mean nothing as no one is argueing that

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are going to have to do a lot better than that sorry, please read the above Quote on Ainon before you comment, thank you

It would help if it made sense.

If you don't start posting something coherent, we're just going to let you happily babble on to yourself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You know I finally understand why this is happening- Nobody is truly serious about wisdom, i tell you anyman who takes up wisdom will become intimate with sorrow

I agree, brother. But we wise guys must continue working on them. God demands it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

are you sure about this???

how about the shard or rock that states "house of david" how about copper mines that date to the exact time of soloman. How about the possible city?

Now that one isn't dated anywhere near the time of David, and I don't think that the copper mines are, either.

The historicity of David and Solomon is questioned more than Jesus. And the two tiny bits of proof are not substantial at all.

 

[fallingblood]

Then you seem to be arguing against a position which no one here holds.

I haven't seen anyone who would absolutely reject the notion that some guy, at some time, in some place, might have "inspired" the Jesus Story.

So you're arguing against something which no one believes.

Of course there could have been some physical person in the mind of the first gospel writer to put pen to paper. Maybe he was thinking about Samson. Who knows.

You argued that Jesus didn't exist. I'm arguing that Jesus did in fact exist, and this Jesus is the historical Jesus, which would have been the figure that inspired the Biblical Jesus.

 

[doppelganger]

Jesus is not full of either. There is no Sun God in the story of Jesus. Being the Son of God, and being a Sun God are two very different things. And to even equate them is ridiculous.

If that's the most you can get out of what I wrote, then nevermind. I'm wasting my time here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yet we have a figure, just around 20 years after the death of Jesus, who wrote about him. Paul saw Jesus as a historical figure, and wrote about him as such.

I think I'll go with standard scholarship on this one and disagree with you. Sorry.

He even states that he met the brother of Jesus, which would place Jesus as a recent historical figure.

If he met the (physical) brother of Jesus, why didn't he relate anything which James told him about Jesus?

James was not the physical brother of the Jesus who modeled for the biblical Jesus. That seems most likely.

There is little reason then to assume that the Gospels came around, took this same character, and wrote about him in a fictional account. Since Jesus was already written about as a historical figure before the Gospels, there is little reason to believe the Gospel writers, when writing about this same figure, believe he was fictional.

Paul spoke of Jesus as a mystical, magical creature. The gospelers took Jesus and set him into the recent past.

 

[Embarkon]

Angellos i know you know DAVID is a knickname- the Beloved the very Beloved a name which was applied to him most likely after he conquered JEBUS, he was DVID per the MEsha Stele

 

[fallingblood]

exactly the linquistics lends itself to the truth, but if you already made up your mind about the matter what use is the linquistics
You came to your original conclusion ithout trying to see Beyond the lingual tie-up
The name of Christ is AINON as is recorded and embedded in the text John the baptist was baptizing near Salem

Linguistics have nothing to do with this. Nazareth, as has been discovered by archeologist, was a small village in Galilee. There is no secret truth to this.

And the name of Christ is not ANION. Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. You are far off of the mark.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If that's the most you can get out of what I wrote, then nevermind. I'm wasting my time here.

I think that it's an issue of mistaking a philosophical statement for an historical one.

Fallingblood simply didn't change gears.

 

[doppelganger]

Can you provide such evidence? Because the life of Jesus really doesn't fit into the Jewish cyclical year. His birth time is not mentioned, so that couldn't have been of help. None of the Gospels state that his ministry was just one year. And his death was on a holiday that didn't have to really do with harvest time or the such, but Jewish freedom from Egypt.

Really, the only thing that is pinpointed in the life of Jesus, as an exact date is his death. I don't see how this would be helpful in teaching the Jewish cyclical year.

Well, Mark doesn't have a birth story, for starters.

And I said "cyclical" for a reason. The birth and death years aren't what would matter anyway. It's how the events of the story map over the key events of the Jewish liturgical calendar - in order - by the way. From Atonement to Passover. As for the specific details, I told you where you can get an accessible summary of this argument - Spong's book. There are others cited by him for a fuller treatment of the subject.

 

[fallingblood]

AINON is also the name the Gnostic text gives to the Christ , Well it might take SHEMANAwho at least has wisdom to explain that to many here- that this is the structure of Biblical text NT and more so OT, the sub -strata is of more importance
Read Isiah 28 the cipher of the planter- the planter is the writer of the Torah and you might understand

Nope. The Gnostic texts call Jesus Jesus. Sometimes Christ. Not AINON. Maybe you want to actually cite some evidence for your claim.

As for the goose chase you are trying to make people go on, why not just spit out the information.