• 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!

The Jesus Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
jelly said:
define jesus the historical character.
because I am also thinking that Thor (the norse god) was a historical character.
Click to expand...
We can add Hercules and Merlin to the list but those would be different threads.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
AmbiguousGuy said:
Studying the gospels as an historian seems to me like studying Gone With the Wind as an historian, except with GWTW, one has much more supporting material.

Who was Rhett Butler? I mean, can we strip away all the obvious fiction and theology in GWTW and find the 'real Rhett' of historical importance?

I dunno, but it seems like a wishy washy endeavor to me.

As for 'philosophical errors'? Yeah, that's like peer reviewing for spiritual errors... which doesn't seem far from peer reviewing for ghost-theory errors.

But as I say, I wouldn't be making these comments except for the 'hysterical' jab.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. But first of all, I don't think that the 'hysterical' thing was a jab (I certainly didn't say it) --- it was poking fun at biblical scholars and historians, not you.

As for 'philosophical errors' .... a historian's philosophy can help or unndermine his/her understanding of the evidences at hand. It guides interpretation, and must have its proper place and be relevant to the subject. Errors in philosophical approach without exception leads to errors in historical judgment.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
That is the OP, that is what the thread was started on. We can simplify and ask, was Jesus a historical figure or was he an imaginary figure that people created?
Click to expand...

Nah, I can't work with that either. I'm a fictionalist. I create characters. It really doesn't make sense to ask whether my characters were actual historical figures or else imaginary figures. I tried to discuss this earlier but no one seemed interested.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
AmbiguousGuy said:
Nah, I can't work with that either. I'm a fictionalist. I create characters. It really doesn't make sense to ask whether my characters were actual historical figures or else imaginary figures. I tried to discuss this earlier but no one seemed interested.
Click to expand...
the foolish scholars were too busy thinking they were comedians.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
As for 'philosophical errors' .... a historian's philosophy can help or unndermine his/her understanding of the evidences at hand. It guides interpretation, and must have its proper place and be relevant to the subject. Errors in philosophical approach without exception leads to errors in historical judgment.
Click to expand...

I understand. For a long time now, I've been pretty sure that people who don't share my own philosophical stance are headed for confusion.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
jelly said:
because I a comedian and I recognize the bible as a comedic piece of art.
what criteria does a scholar have?
Click to expand...
It doesn't make any difference what you recognize the Bible as being. The Bible, speaking from a literary standpoint, is what it is. And it's not comedy. Scholars use the criterion of empirical data, not personal desire. How funny is that?!
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
fallingblood said:
I could agree with that. I would wish that some of those intellectually responsible Jesus mythers would present themselves though.
Click to expand...

I'm a myther but not in the strict or "militant" way. My personal view is that the way he is portrayed in the gospels gives me the impression a lot was hyped up about him. That leads me to think that the "biblical" Yeshua did not exist.

I can imagine a flesh and blood Yeshua but trying to determine that I'm not qualified to do. I can personally strip the biblical Yeshua out of the gospels without all the fantastical claims but then I would be accused of "creating a Yeshua that appeals to me"...and I'm not sure how to proceed in determining a real historical character.
 
Last edited:
J

jelly

Active Member
sojourner said:
It doesn't make any difference what you recognize the Bible as being. The Bible, speaking from a literary standpoint, is what it is. And it's not comedy. Scholars use the criterion of empirical data, not personal desire. How funny is that?!
Click to expand...
there is no punchline so it is not funny yet.
the punchline depends on if you believe that the content of the bible is empirical data.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jelly said:
there is no punchline so it is not funny yet.
the punchline depends on if you believe that the content of the bible is empirical data.
Click to expand...

I think that you're confusing "comedian" with "troll."
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
From what I understand, the mythic Jesus and the historic Jesus are two different personalities. John Dominic Crossan points out that it is highly likely that a man named Jesus did exist and that he was crucified. He goes on to say that his body was probably thrown to the dogs. This puts the two personalities in an extreme juxtaposition. I don't think there's any way we can argue the historic Jesus from evidence other than what has been told and written about him. In order to separate the two, we have to apply Biblical scholarship -- textual criticism -- in order to discover what is hyperbole and what is, perhaps, authentic quotation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top