The Jesus Myth

[sojourner]

Thanks for that insight. I think Biblical scholarship is just fine, though I wouldn't want to go there myself.

...and yet, you're arguing in the realm of Biblical scholarship...

I'm no sort of scholar at all,

...yet you're pretending to have all sorts of knowledge on the topic...

 

[sojourner]

If you're going to continually demand that I 'prove' things, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to define 'prove.'

a guy who has studied linguistics surely shouldn't need the word "prove" defined for him...
This is nothing more than misdirection -- like most of your other posts.

 

[sojourner]

So are you here only to snipe, or do you think you're ready to engage a discussion of language with me?

Are you only here to spout vapid opinion, insult and misdirect, or do you think you're ready to engage a discussion with me? Personally, I doubt it.

Words mean things to the sending and receiving minds, yes?

But words don't mean anything to the cosmos, yes?

So words mean things.

And words don't mean things.

Yes?

I didn't think you were ready to discuss...

Please don't despair, sojourner. I am here for you, and there is enough of me to go around.

Anyone who has studied linguists and purportedly written fiction would have noticed that the post in which the quote was made was a parody of your own dialog, presented to show the absurdity of your posts. Perhaps you can "be there" for yourself?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

...and yet, you're arguing in the realm of Biblical scholarship...

I'm not a literary scholar either, but I'll be happy to argue the structure and meaning of Silas Marner with you... even if you're not a literary scholar yourself. Or even if you are.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not a literary scholar either, but I'll be happy to argue the structure and meaning of Silas Marner with you... even if you're not a literary scholar yourself. Or even if you are.

Nope. Didn't think you were ready.

I'll be waiting...
:grill:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

a guy who has studied linguistics surely shouldn't need the word "prove" defined for him...
This is nothing more than misdirection -- like most of your other posts.

I'm not like you. I don't believe that words have meaning in some cosmic sense. They only have meaning to individual human minds.

So if a guy repeatedly demands that I 'prove' something, it's reasonable to ask him what he means by that request.

 

[sojourner]

Okay. After rereading your post, I get more of what you were saying, and will admit that I took it wrongly. I was under the wrong assumption when I read what you said, and I do apologize for that.

I can see where it makes sense. I accept that Jesus is a historical person, but like others, he was mythologized later on. So it would make sense why certain characteristics are attributed to Jesus, that most likely are not historical.

I can also see how acknowledging that would help Jesus scholars break down the mythology around Jesus, and thus get back to the historical character.

Just so I can get it straight though, are you of the opinion that Jesus was a historical figure, or not? I'm under the assumption you don't; however, I do want to make sure.

have you explored the work of the Jesus Seminar?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you only here to spout vapid opinion, insult and misdirect, or do you think you're ready to engage a discussion with me? Personally, I doubt it.

Don't worry about the harm you might be doing to my delicate psyche. Just let it out.

Anyone who has studied linguists and purportedly written fiction would have noticed that the post in which the quote was made was a parody of your own dialog, presented to show the absurdity of your posts. Perhaps you can "be there" for yourself?

Someone who doesn't care to descend into silly insult-making might pretend not to recognize ham-handed attempts at insult.

 

[outhouse]

taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

this is what the OP asked

how did this thread get derailed so bad???

if someone is iognorant in the studies at hand and doesnt want to defend his stance because they cannot, so be it

but why argue about nothing??

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

if someone is iognorant in the studies at hand and doesnt want to defend his stance because they cannot, so be it

but why argue about nothing??

I share your outrage, brother!

 

[jelly]

Why would that make my story believable?

nothing would make your story believable, but you can't seem to realize that.

So lets take the idea Jesus is dead on the cross. Most Jews, going to Jerusalem for the Passover, did so over a week before in order so they could go through the purification rituals.

Jesus was crucified outside the city. So very few Jews would have been coming into the city, and thus saw Jesus on the cross. Fewer would have been able to recognize him because of the condition he would have been in. So that really reduces the number to virtually none (especially since Jesus was crucified on Passover).

As for people in town, they also would not have gone out to see Jesus crucified. It was Passover. So really, we are basically getting to virtually no one seeing Jesus when he was on the cross.

So how many would have remembered Jesus there, a handful at most.

1) you are making an assumption here, that jesus even existed.
2) are you suggesting that jews entered the city through a path that did not include going past the city gates?

 

[outhouse]

1) you are making an assumption here, that jesus even existed

avalible evidence points in that direction, so much so most scholars do not debate it

 

[Quagmire]

nothing would make your story believable, but you can't seem to realize that.

1) you are making an assumption here, that jesus even existed.

No he isn't. He qualified his statement with "So lets take the idea Jesus is dead on the cross."

 

[sojourner]

2) are you suggesting that jews entered the city through a path that did not include going past the city gates?

Which gates? There are more than one set...

 

[jelly]

hmm next paragraph changes from the idea to an attempt at a factual statement.
anyways the story goes that imaginary man was crucified.
other than that I don't too much about the ctiy's layout, do you? can you let me know how many jews wouldn't enter the city as falligblood explained.
did jews even go to the city?

 

[sojourner]

hmm next paragraph changes from the idea to an attempt at a factual statement.
anyways the story goes that imaginary man was crucified.
other than that I don't too much about the ctiy's layout, do you? can you let me know how many jews wouldn't enter the city as falligblood explained.
did jews even go to the city?

Unqualified skepticism is a waste of intellectual energy.

 

[Desert Snake]

hmm next paragraph changes from the idea to an attempt at a factual statement.
anyways the story goes that imaginary man was crucified.
other than that I don't too much about the ctiy's layout, do you? can you let me know how many jews wouldn't enter the city as falligblood explained.
did jews even go to the city?

You know what happens right, when you question the actual existence of Jesus? You open the doubt of existence for thousands of historical figures, many with less evidence to support their 'existence' than Issa.

 

[jelly]

why not doubt?

 

[jelly]

Unqualified skepticism is a waste of intellectual energy.

did jews visit the city?

 

[outhouse]

did jews visit the city?

not allot is known about the beginning of he first century.

there are guestimates for population but that wont help for which you seek.


jesus was not well known during his lifetime

deities on overy coner was the norm, some roman emporers claimed they were in fact deities


biblical jesus was not historical jesus.


Im with you, biblical jesus did not exist the way most think he did