The Jesus Myth

[Caladan]

Thanks Jay.

 

[jelly]

Corehent questions are often sentences as well. :yes:

is that why you end your sentences with question marks?

 

[jelly]

What I meant to say, or what I actually did say *snort snort* is that the majority of scholars consider the popular discussion of the Jesus myth as a hysteria. it has no scholarly content and often attaches itself to popular conspiracy theories.
an easy solution for easy people. a better challenge would be to study early christianity, in light of the Judaic and Hellenic populations, and their disagreements.

the easier solution is to believe everything you read.

 

[Caladan]

the easier solution is to believe everything you read.

I rest my case.

 

[jelly]

I rest my case.

why did you read about early christianity?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What I meant to say, or what I actually did say *snort snort* is that the majority of scholars consider the popular discussion of the Jesus myth as a hysteria.

Ah. The hysterical mobs are storming the castles of Biblical scholasticism?

That makes me feel better. I don't like mobs, but I despise even moreso those who cloister themselves in lofty castles.

 

[Caladan]

why did you read about early christianity?

Well jelly. it existed. it took place in Palestine where I was born and lived most of my life, its an interesting topic of discussion, and in light of recent discussions of the Judeo-Christian relations it is a great topic of study.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sure there were people who attempted being the messiah and may have tried to perform miracles from the OT. A real jesus though I'm not sure. They got the sayings from somewhere and older records like the gospel of thomas have all the sayings without any mention of miracles.

Neither does Q recount any miracles. There is one instance, where the centurion's daughter was cured, but that cannot be reconstituted in Q. It probably is a later addition by one of the other gospelers. Since Q and Thomas are both quite early -- corroborating material points to a common source prior to the year 40 c.e. -- we can assume that these very early proto-Christians were more interested in Jesus-the-man than in Jesus-the-superman. In other words, it was what Jesus said and not necessarily any miracles performed that were most compelling for them.

 

[sojourner]

What I meant to say, or what I actually did say *snort snort* is that the majority of scholars consider the popular discussion of the Jesus myth as a hysteria. it has no scholarly content and often attaches itself to popular conspiracy theories.
an easy solution for easy people. a better challenge would be to study early christianity, in light of the Judaic and Hellenic populations, and their disagreements.

Indeed.

 

[jelly]

Well jelly. it existed. it took place in Palestine where I was born and lived most of my life, its an interesting topic of discussion, and in light of recent discussions of the Judeo-Christian relations it is a great topic of study.

so it is enough for you to believe it took place because the writings existed and you were born and raised in Palestine?
I find it entertaining to discuss but I wouldn't study it.
of course I don't believe everything I read.

 

[sojourner]

Ah. The hysterical mobs are storming the castles of Biblical scholasticism?

That makes me feel better. I don't like mobs, but I despise even moreso those who cloister themselves in lofty castles.

Straw man. No one's "cloistering themselves." The scholarship -- and the scholars -- are well-publicized for scrutiny. Problem is, the "scrutiny" usually takes the form of History Channel bathos and exaggerated intrigue. In other words: Hysteria. This precludes any real scrutiny of their work. Fortunately, there is this little thing called "peer review."

 

[jelly]

Straw man. No one's "cloistering themselves." The scholarship -- and the scholars -- are well-publicized for scrutiny. Problem is, the "scrutiny" usually takes the form of History Channel bathos and exaggerated intrigue. In other words: Hysteria. This precludes any real scrutiny of their work. Fortunately, there is this little thing called "peer review."

what are the facts about this peer review you are referring to?

 

[fallingblood]

hold on a second.
are you that foolish to believe that men didn't tell tales before the jesus story came along?
are you serious that you don't understand that special men called druids told stories.
there is WAY too much evidence, but you wouldn't believe me if I told you petorglyphs were stories.

I didn't say that. You stated that the Jesus story was just a rehash of previous stories. Thus, I want you to show how that is true.

Trying to twist what I said simply is dishonest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Straw man. No one's "cloistering themselves." The scholarship -- and the scholars -- are well-publicized for scrutiny. Problem is, the "scrutiny" usually takes the form of History Channel bathos and exaggerated intrigue. In other words: Hysteria. This precludes any real scrutiny of their work. Fortunately, there is this little thing called "peer review."

Since the scholars are so disdainful as to call the mob hysterical, I guess I feel justified in giggling at the concept of 'peer review' among the bluebloods. They're studying a theological tome -- at least 2000 years old -- and 'peer reviewing' each other? That's like peer reviewing the academic field of ghosts, I think.

Sorry. I wouldn't have said it except for the 'hysterical' comment. We mob members get to express ourselves, too.

 

[Caladan]

so it is enough for you to believe it took place because the writings existed and you were born and raised in Palestine?

to believe early Christianity took place? no I don't believe it took place. archaeology supports it, the writings of the church fathers support it, the early councils support it, and the disagreements between the major branches of Christianity are still discussed today in a scholarly manner.

I find it entertaining to discuss but I wouldn't study it.

Sure, this is why some people study for a BA in archaeology, and some people study for a BA in biology.

of course I don't believe everything I read.

good.

 

[jelly]

I didn't say that. You stated that the Jesus story was just a rehash of previous stories. Thus, I want you to show how that is true.

Trying to twist what I said simply is dishonest.

just apply the same criteria that you use to justify jesus' existence to the claim that I can show you jesus in a petroglyph.

 

[sojourner]

Since the scholars are so disdainful as to call the mob hysterical, I guess I feel justified in giggling at the concept of 'peer review' among the bluebloods. They're studying a theological tome -- at least 2000 years old -- and 'peer reviewing' each other? That's like peer reviewing the academic field of ghosts, I think.

Sorry. I wouldn't have said it except for the 'hysterical' comment. We mob members get to express ourselves, too.

Peer review is the standard in any discipline: Science and medicine included. I think it's funny that a self-proclaimed "non-scholar" would dis the idea of peer review. It's like a non-cook saying, "You don't really need heat to cook the food..."

Since the mob is so disdainful as to ignore the scholarship, I guess they feel justified in giggling at the concept of sensationalism among the bottom-feeders.

 

[Caladan]

just apply the same criteria that you use to justify jesus existence to the claim that I can show you jesus in a petroglyph.

I did not debate the existence of jesus. at all, whatsoever. I discussed the beliefs of the early christian sects. and their relations to hellenic societies.

 

[jelly]

I did not debate the existence of jesus. at all, whatsoever. I discussed the beliefs of the early christian sects. and their relations to hellenic societies.

and...?

 

[fallingblood]

1) I am stubborn and want evidence not testimony
and

The Gospel of Luke is written history. Really, it is like the various writings about Augustus. Josephus, a historian, writes that Jesus existed. That is evidence, not testimony. And again, I don't need to prove that Jesus existed. That is the accepted view.

2) produce a body.

If that is something you need, then you might as well state that the vast majority of ancient figures did not exist. Why? Because we don't have bodies for them.

ok so it is true that the accepted view by somebody else is enough for you.

It is the accepted view of the vast majority. In general, it is the accepted view. Yes, there are a few who doubt it; however, they have the burden of proof.

Again, it is the accepted view. Not just the accepted view of somebody, but the accepted view. Meaning that the vast majority accept it as true. Having said that, you then have the burden of proof. The reason being that I don't have to prove something that is already accepted to be true. You have to show why your view is better then the general consensus.

I am sure you got a million suggestions, but what I really want is a believable story.
can I suggest that you are incorrect in your assessment of the time when jews would have entered the city?

You can suggest that, but then you would have to provide evidence showing that to be true.

Also, what I was saying wasn't a suggestion. Jews, for the most part, simply would not have entered Jerusalem on Passover day, when Jesus was being crucified. Why? Because they would have missed the majority of Passover, and they would not have been there in order prepare the Passover meal, or partake in it.