The Jesus Myth

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most of the world's population still seems pretty deep in it.

Your point?

 

[fallingblood]

I'd figure that the most popular would survive the test of time but most popular doesn't necessarily mean most accurate and truthful. It's no wonder that miracle versions would get copied ad nauseam.

We are not really talking about most popular here though. That is not one of the criteria in seeing which text is best.

 

[fallingblood]

I think I prefer to post as I please unless the moderators object somehow.

And I think it's quite relevent to point out that the OP asks an incoherent question.

That seems to be only the case for you. It could be that you simply haven't done any research on the subject, or that English is not your strong suit. I don't know, nor do I really care. But the fact that most people understood the OP (as in most, pretty much everyone besides you), shows that the problem is not with the OP, but with you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I found Bart Ehram's approach interesting.

How refreshing it was, to hear an historian spend so many of his opening remarks on the issue of historical uncertainty.

I wish some of our locals would watch it and take it to heart.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

... and I'm not sure how to proceed in determining a real historical character.

It requires magical thinking to know that an historical character existed in the form in which we believe him to have existed.

 

[fallingblood]

How refreshing it was, to hear an historian spend so many of his opening remarks on the issue of historical uncertainty.

I wish some of our locals would watch it and take it to heart.

I wish you would actually read the vast majority of what the "locals" have said, then you wouldn't continue to make uninformed statements. I also wish that you would continue on with the actual discussion, instead of derailing this thread even more. A good start with you, which you have yet to do, would be to address the rebuttals that offered on your points. But I'm sure you will just come back with some useless statement, that again avoids any parts of the actual OP.

 

[fallingblood]

It requires magical thinking to know that an historical character existed in the form in which we believe him to have existed.

Really, you should spend even a quarter of the amount of time you spend here being wasteful, on actually studying the scholarship. Because clearly, you have absolutely no idea who the Historical Jesus is, or what the current research on him is.

There is no magical thinking. It is based on the same type of thinking used to determine that Augustus was a historical figure. In fact, the same techniques are used for the most part. But I don't expect you to even care. It is a lot easier to stay uninformed, and post waste, as you have done, then actually participate in an intellectual debate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your point?

Didn't have any particular point. Just making an observation.

 

[idav]

We are not really talking about most popular here though. That is not one of the criteria in seeing which text is best.

One of the criteria you mentioned is comparing to other works. With the NT we are comparing thousands of copies with other copies seeing that they have the same source. Then if a manuscript goes against the majority of copies it is thrown out in favor of the most copied versions. As if the textus receptus are manuscripts that survived majority rule due to popularity.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That seems to be only the case for you. It could be that you simply haven't done any research on the subject, or that English is not your strong suit.

Sure. Or it could be that most people just aren't very thoughtful. But they need not despair... for am I not among you?

(Bored, folks. Just treading water here.)

But the fact that most people understood the OP (as in most, pretty much everyone besides you), shows that the problem is not with the OP, but with you.

Actually, not a single reader seems to have understood it. It's the 500-pound gorilla in the room. And it's why there's so much chaos in the thread. You can't address a question clearly unless you first understand it.

And I can prove it. I'll accept your burden of proof in this case and prove to you that "Is Jesus historical or is he mythical"... is an incoherent question.

How's about it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wish you would actually read the vast majority of what the "locals" have said, then you wouldn't continue to make uninformed statements. I also wish that you would continue on with the actual discussion, instead of derailing this thread even more. A good start with you, which you have yet to do, would be to address the rebuttals that offered on your points. But I'm sure you will just come back with some useless statement, that again avoids any parts of the actual OP.

I'm only trying to help you adjust your philosophical stance on historical matters.

One can't study history unless one first knows how to think about it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Really, you should spend even a quarter of the amount of time you spend here being wasteful, on actually studying the scholarship. Because clearly, you have absolutely no idea who the Historical Jesus is, or what the current research on him is.

There is no magical thinking. It is based on the same type of thinking used to determine that Augustus was a historical figure. In fact, the same techniques are used for the most part. But I don't expect you to even care. It is a lot easier to stay uninformed, and post waste, as you have done, then actually participate in an intellectual debate.

If you don't stop with the personal nastiness, I intend to ask the moderators to review the thread.

 

[fallingblood]

One of the criteria you mentioned is comparing to other works. With the NT we are comparing thousands of copies with other copies seeing that they have the same source. Then if a manuscript goes against the majority of copies it is thrown out in favor of the most copied versions. As if the textus receptus are manuscripts that survived majority rule due to popularity.

That isn't quite true. Yes, manuscripts are compared to other manuscripts. But just because one stands out, that does not mean it is thrown out. In fact, it could be the better manuscript.

One factor in this would be, can an ancestor manuscript be found? What time period did it come from? Where was it produced? Do those manuscripts have additions, subtractions, or the like from other trusted copies?

That source could be from the 18th century and mass produced. That source could be from the 14th century and be based off of a manuscript that we know was less than ideal. On the other hand, the odd manuscript may have been based off a 5th century manuscript, that was copied down by professional scribes.

All of those factors do make a difference. Just because we have more of one particular manuscript (even those manuscripts will have differences), it does not mean it is better.

 

[fallingblood]

Sure. Or it could be that most people just aren't very thoughtful. But they need not despair... for am I not among you?

(Bored, folks. Just treading water here.)



Actually, not a single reader seems to have understood it. It's the 500-pound gorilla in the room. And it's why there's so much chaos in the thread. You can't address a question clearly unless you first understand it.

And I can prove it. I'll accept your burden of proof in this case and prove to you that "Is Jesus historical or is he mythical"... is an incoherent question.

How's about it?

If you read the OP, it has to do with the Jesus myth. The first portion of this thread actually did contain debate about just that subject.

Much of the chaos has been created by you ranting about who knows what most of the time, and acting as if you are some how have more wisdom then us lowly folks.

You can't even seem to read what I say anyway. Of course there is going to be confusion started by you then if you fail to even try to comprehend what is going on or what I'm saying. My question wasn't "is Jesus historical or is he mythical." My initial question was, is the Jesus myth true? I have also stated, was Jesus a historical figure, or was he an imaginary figure that people created. That doesn't rule out other possibilities either.

For someone who spouts quite consistently about being so knowledgeable about linguistics, you certainly don't portray that.

 

[fallingblood]

If you don't stop with the personal nastiness, I intend to ask the moderators to review the thread.

Still refusing to actually address the matter.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm only trying to help you adjust your philosophical stance on historical matters.

One can't study history unless one first knows how to think about it.

Why? Seriously why clog this thread with such a ridiculous thing? Who says your philosophical stance on historical matters is better then mine? And really, why would I even care to have you adjust such when you show not a single amount of credibility?

All you are doing is making ridiculous statements, that bolster your own opinion of your self, and cut others down. And really, if I'm studying history, by what you're saying, I of course know how to think about it. Not that your opinion or statements hold any credibility, because you have basically destroyed any you had.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

fallingblood, would please very briefly summarize your position on teh historical Jesus debate?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you read the OP, it has to do with the Jesus myth. The first portion of this thread actually did contain debate about just that subject.

What is "the Jesus myth" exactly? The idea that "Jesus is myth"... yes?

Much of the chaos has been created by you ranting about who knows what most of the time, and acting as if you are some how have more wisdom then us lowly folks.

I think that's fairly ironic. From the moment I met the Jesus scholars around here, my ignorance seems to have been the main topic. But I wasn't offended by it. The air did seem to need some clearing, though.

You can't even seem to read what I say anyway. Of course there is going to be confusion started by you then if you fail to even try to comprehend what is going on or what I'm saying. My question wasn't "is Jesus historical or is he mythical." My initial question was, is the Jesus myth true? I have also stated, was Jesus a historical figure, or was he an imaginary figure that people created. That doesn't rule out other possibilities either.

OK. If it's possible that the questions themselves are incoherent, then I'm fine with the state of things.

For someone who spouts quite consistently about being so knowledgeable about linguistics, you certainly don't portray that.

Have you thought any more about what you might mean by the verb 'prove'? As we left things, you were still working on it. Have you done any more work on it?

Do you believe that 'to prove' a thing means 'to be the last guy to post in a thread'?

That's how your last explanation looked to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that's fairly ironic. From the moment I met the Jesus scholars around here, my ignorance seems to have been the main topic.

Perhaps there's a lesson there?

 

[fallingblood]

fallingblood, would please very briefly summarize your position on teh historical Jesus debate?

Will do.

I accept that there was a historical Jesus. This historical figure existed in the first century in Palestine, and is the foundation of the Biblical Jesus.

When it comes to know anything about Jesus, one can not know for sure; however, one can be relatively sure of a few basics (he was a peasant, a teacher, and died by crucifixion).

One can learn about Jesus from the Gospels (to a point), as well as more general information based on culture of that time.

Personally, I am more liberal on this subject, but I still try to make sure I read the conservative scholars as well.