• 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.
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
steppe dweller said:
lol avoidance of the questions. For the length of this thread it's a continual issue

1.Nazarene or not?
2.First written real name.
3.Did Pontias Pilate actually write about Jesus?

The answers to these questions will do for now. Never mind his "actual" existence or not, let's just assume he did.
Click to expand...

1. Nazarene as in "person born in Nazareth," probably.

2. First written real name - κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ in the earliest known Christian writing, 1 Thess. Possibly Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Mark 1:1.

3. This is a fairly outrageous question.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
steppe dweller said:
I think you're right to be skeptical. Notice the the continual vagueries and avoidance tactics of the 'christians'.
Click to expand...
First, I'm not a Christian.

Second, of course there is going to be vagaries. That is a nature of history. Ancient figures are filled with vagaries.

As for avoidance tactics, where?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
angellous_evangellous said:
That's how it is with all of the early Christian art. When they painted Jonah, for example, they basically changed the name above the picture of a myth with a dragon and a sunbathing guy (that's a crude description, but I forget the myth).

The early Christians weren't artists and they weren't particularly creative (but neither was anyone else). They simply took common images and reinterpreted them through Christian myth, just like people before them (Pompey, for example, took statues of rich girls and goddesses and re-labeled them after Greek poetessess and philosophers) did the same thing. It has nothing to do with historicity -- at all. Just because Pompey did not want to re-create statues patterned after Greek poetess doesn't mean that the historicity was lost.
Click to expand...
In addition with that, Renaissance painters did the same things as well. It was just easier.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
steppe dweller said:
Apparently you haven't heard of Greek art, Egyptian art....
Click to expand...
Not the most creative actually. Really, to get to the golden age, you have to travel over a thousand years after the Greeks into the Renaissance era.

Much of the art before was crude and even the motivation, in many instances, was different. A lot of it was religiously motivated (as in for religious ceremonies etc).
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
angellous_evangellous said:
Yeah, that was common. And then the next guy knocked his head off and put his on. So on and so forth.

EDIT: What's really funny to me is replacing a head or renaming a statue after yourself, and using it to mark your grave. No shame back then, lol.
Click to expand...
That was my plan as well. The Statue of David seems appealing to me. It would made a great grave marker.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
steppe dweller said:
Well, you must've seen all the posts about whether Jesus was a Nazarene, whether he was a hellenised Greek, his "real" name, (yeshua,Jesus,Yeshu)etc., so yes, it is amusing how much controversy surrounds even these seemingly, basic aspects of Jesus's life. And the disagreements exist as much between christians as anybody else.
Click to expand...
Those really aren't disagreements. Jesus was from Nazareth, and thus by some, called a Nazarene. Hardly anyone believes that he was a Nazarite (Nazarene) in the style that Sampson was. I don't think I have even come across that idea in modern critical scholarship.

As for his "real" name. No debate there either really. His Hebrew/Aramaic name is Yeshua. It is transliterated into Greek as basically Jesus (a little more complicated, but not really a matter of debate among anyone).

The basics of Jesus life are usually agreed upon. It is when one tries to get more specific that there arises some debate. The same is true for many historical figures. There is even debate surrounding the life of Harry Houdini, a relatively recent figure. And even more debate about Abraham Lincoln.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
What is amusing is the silly resistance of folks to accept the historicity of Jesus.
Click to expand...

I don't accept the historicity of Robin Hood either. I mean, there may have been a guy upon whom the stories were based, but I think he's about on an historical par with Jesus.

Just my absolutely unbiased and ultra-rational opinion, of course.:)
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
steppe dweller said:
lol avoidance of the questions. For the length of this thread it's a continual issue

1.Nazarene or not?
2.First written real name.
3.Did Pontias Pilate actually write about Jesus?

The answers to these questions will do for now. Never mind his "actual" existence or not, let's just assume he did.
Click to expand...
Those really haven't been an issue here. It certainly doesn't have to do with the OP. But I will answer.

1) He was from Nazareth, and I guess being from that town, could be called a Nazarene. He was not a Nazarite, as in the line of Sampson.

2) Jesus. Yeshua in Hebrew/Aramaic. Iēsoûs in Greek. Which gives us Jesus in English (slightly more complicated, but not really).

3) No. He also, as far as we know, didn't write about anyone.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
jelly said:
what is the difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus?
have you thought about that before?
Click to expand...
Yes. I even answered that question at least once in this thread (probably more times in fact). Here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2506641-post929.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2506589-post919.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2506586-post918.html

All you had to do was actually read the thread, and you wouldn't have had to ask such a question. I don't think it is too much to expect you to actually read what is being written if you want to participate.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
fallingblood said:
Not quite. I would argue that one can not completely separate each other. At the very most basic level, they are the same figure. The Biblical Jesus is based off of the Historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is how people, at that time, saw the Historical Jesus.
Click to expand...
then why make this thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top