The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why? Seriously why clog this thread with such a ridiculous thing?

Well, you're asking me to go back to my fundamental beliefs, my worldview, and I'm happy to do that.

I think that intellectual certainty is a bane on human civilization and a roadblock to whatever we might be growing toward. Have you noticed my screenname?

So I counter such certainty everywhere I see it.

Yes... it's an actual Mission from God.

Now tell me why you object to me questioning your own certainty. Why would you object when I preach intellectual humility?

Who says your philosophical stance on historical matters is better then mine?

The debate. I'm not saying that I've won or anything. I'm saying that the debate tells us which of us thinks more clearly about historical matters.

And really, why would I even care to have you adjust such when you show not a single amount of credibility?

Let me ask you an important question. I hope you'll answer.

Is AmbigGuy's lack of credibility an objectively real thing? Or is it only the opinion of fallingblood.

I'm curious if you'll answer that.

All you are doing is making ridiculous statements, that bolster your own opinion of your self, and cut others down.

You know, I rarely think that it's my fault for getting so sorely under the skin of other debaters. I think it's something in them. Usually, I think of it as them loving ego more than God.

In other words, what's more important to you? Dropping your defenses in an effort to learn something new? Or protecting your current truth at all costs?

And really, if I'm studying history, by what you're saying, I of course know how to think about it.

I don't think that all history students know how to think about historical truth.

Not that your opinion or statements hold any credibility, because you have basically destroyed any you had.

Ego or God. Which do you think is more important?

 

[sojourner]

You do realize of course that there is no consensus that Thomas is pre-70 CE.

Thomas, itself, may not be pre-70, but the community that produced both Q and Thomas must have separated very early (say, prior to the year 40) in order to account for some material common to both. The Q community was probably rural and Galilean and the Thomas community split and went toward Syria. It was not until that community had gotten settled that they began to write the tradition, so Thomas was probably actually written later. I'm talking about the tradition that would have produced Thomas. it would have been oral and early.
I understand that there are several schools of thought here, but that's the camp I'm in.

 

[fallingblood]

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

Here:Jesus myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

How so? For me, the main topic has been provide some evidence for your arguments, and stop dismissing or avoiding what I'm saying.

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

Okay, it is incoherent to you, and pretty much only you. Meaning, that is probably you, and not the questions.

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.

So you didn't read any of my explanations huh? That's fine, I didn't expect it anyway. You have refused to do so basically since you began posting here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you didn't read any of my explanations huh? That's fine, I didn't expect it anyway. You have refused to do so basically since you began posting here.

I read your explanations quite thoroughly, but maybe I missed something. Would you mind defining 'prove' for me as you use it here in the debates. It should look something like this: "prove" means "_______"

I'll show you what I'm meaning by defining it myself.

To "prove" a thing -- outside of math -- means "to convince another human being or group of humans that one's position or claim makes good sense."

Now you. Can you define "prove" for me, in your own words?

 

[sojourner]

But they need not despair... for am I not among you?

well ... every good story does need a pariah...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Perhaps there's a lesson there?

Oh, yeah. When people call you pig ignorant, politely demonstrate that they couldn't fight their way out of an intellectual wet bag if their lives depended on it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thomas, itself, may not be pre-70, but the community that produced both Q and Thomas must have separated very early (say, prior to the year 40) in order to account for some material common to both. The Q community was probably rural and Galilean and the Thomas community split and went toward Syria. It was not until that community had gotten settled that they began to write the tradition, so Thomas was probably actually written later. I'm talking about the tradition that would have produced Thomas. it would have been oral and early.
I understand that there are several schools of thought here, but that's the camp I'm in.

Fair enough. Thanks. (BTW: ever read The Case Against Q?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, yeah. When people call you pig ignorant, politely demonstrate that they couldn't fight their way out of an intellectual wet bag if their lives depended on it.

Would you do me a favor please? Give me a thoughtful response to this OP. Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

Fair enough. Thanks. (BTW: ever read The Case Against Q?)

I've skimmed it -- not familiar enough with it to comment. I'm pretty firmly in the Q camp, though. In the end, either camp gets one to the same destination, which is a whole lot of probability.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

well ... every good story does need a pariah...

Thanks, man :sad4:

Verily, have I not wandered among the heathen long enough, oh Lord!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It just occurred to me that the 'case against Q' is in some ways comparable to the 'case against JEDP' - both of which I believe have some merit - but that's a far different thread.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Would you do me a favor please? Give me a thoughtful response to this OP. Thanks.

I'll be happy to do that. But I'm new to the forum. Would you mind a little copying and pasting... to get the OP directly in front of us?

The link you gave me contains a quote and a response. I'm not sure exactly what you're wanting from me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, you might consider just responding to the OP.

 

[sojourner]

It just occurred to me that the 'case against Q' is in some ways comparable to the 'case against JEDP' - both of which I believe have some merit - but that's a far different thread.

I was thinking the same thing -- you beat me to the post.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here:Jesus myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I go there, it says, "The term does not have an exact and agreed-upon meaning, but has been used to describe various related concepts such as...."

So now I find your original OP even more obscure. I'm not trying to irritate you. I'm just saying....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I find your original OP even more obscure.

The question asked in the OP concerning "Jesus myth" is both true and not true.

Without a doubt there was a 1 century Jew by the name Yeshua. This actually goes beyond probability and becomes a definite. It was a common name back then.


Now the question is...which Yeshua are we talking about and why is the question important if we're not talking about NT miracle yielding Jesus..?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, you might consider just responding to the OP.

OK. Done.

 

[fallingblood]

I've skimmed it -- not familiar enough with it to comment. I'm pretty firmly in the Q camp, though. In the end, either camp gets one to the same destination, which is a whole lot of probability.

I was pretty firmly in the Q camp as well, however, after reading Donald Harman Akenson's book, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, I am not as firmly in that camp anymore. I certainly do like the idea of Q, but at the same time, I see some credibility in the idea that Mark was first, Matthew used Mark, and then Luke used both Matthew and Mark. Granted, it does have some problems, but I am interested in the idea anyway.

 

[fallingblood]

When I go there, it says, "The term does not have an exact and agreed-upon meaning, but has been used to describe various related concepts such as...."

So now I find your original OP even more obscure. I'm not trying to irritate you. I'm just saying....

You shouldn't have skipped the first paragraph:

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

why is the question important if we're not talking about NT miracle yielding Jesus..?

I think that fallingblood gives the best answer to that. It's important because Christianity is such a big deal, culturally, historically. And part of studying Christianity might be searching for the historical Jesus, whatever that term might mean.

For myself, I'm saddened by all the intellectual energy which goes into studying Christianity. I think one should be able to minor in it, at the most.

We could be building spaceships and exploring the universe.

But everybody's gotta be doing something, and lots of folks still think that studying Christianity is an important thing to do. The pulpits and a few ivory towers are full of them.