• 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
AmbiguousGuy said:
An elegant statement of faith, I think. As such, I can't argue with it.



OK, but doesn't this argue for a much earlier Jesus? If the resurrection message was early, wouldn't lots of contemporary Jerusalemites have been calling BS?

Considering the existence of the early churches, it seems to me that people were believing in Jesus' resurrection well before 33ad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The message of early Christianity was only important to early Christians. Jews did not pay any significant attention to Christians for hundreds of years.

I really can't imagine why you would think that the early churches needed a long time to develop their faith. Most of it was taken from Greco-Roman philosophy and rhetoric, the rest a mutilation of Judaism, and very little unique myth. All the raw material was there - someone just came along and put it together (Paul).

It's the material that is older - not Jesus or the churches.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
From seeing what he has said so far, and his responses. I think it slamming ones head into the wall probably would be as productive as answering his posts. At least something good could come of that.
Click to expand...

For the record, I think that blunt third-partyism is as ugly as forum behavior ever gets. It certainly dissuades me from thinking of its practitioner as a scholar to be taken very seriously.

Not trying to start a fight. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
Actually, a physical man could succeed as the Messiah, if one is speaking of the Jewish Messiah. In fact, we know of a few claimants who made a very good go at it. They did fail; however, the fact that some have gotten so far, would suggest that it would be possible.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The fact that they've all failed suggests that they always will fail.

Heroes aren't nearly so attractive when they're standing in front of you, warts and all. They are best nurtured in the imagination.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
jelly said:
are you lying intentionally?
Click to expand...
:yes: Simply, go back and read the conversation. It isn't all about you.
you replied to a question I asked.
there was no predicate statement to you were responding to; your response was to my question!
to understand what I am claiming you have to read my posts in this link AND be sure to read up to post #919 (which is your post)----> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94384-jesus-myth-92.html#post2506535 <---
Click to expand...
Okay, it was a follow up on a question you asked of another person. I was mistaken, because if you look at post 918, I was also responding to something you said. Either way, you didn't provide any substance either besides a foolish reply.
I have considered your OP..
Click to expand...
Then address it.
there is no diffference between biblical jesus and historical jesus when it comes to existence.
there is no evidence that is not fabricated to completely assert (with any truth) that historical jesus/biblical jesus existed.
there is an abscence of evidence everywhere that is looked (with the exception of evidence that is fabricated) and the lack of evidence supports the claim "there is no evidence of jesus that is not fabricated".
are you happy?
Click to expand...
Maybe if you formed coherent statements, I would be happy. Really, it is hard to understand what you're saying when you don't use proper grammar. More so, you are only stating baseless opinions.

Josephus is evidence enough that Jesus was a historical figure. That basically refutes your argument there.
since trolls like to argue and sometimes use incorrect assumptions I will explain to you why you are acting like a troll.
Click to expand...
Please don't. You should actually look in a mirror first.
first, you assert your authority by mentioning you have some knowledge on the subject of "the Jesus Myth" AND you have the audacity to include the fact that you have written papers on the subject "the Jesus Myth" (which I think in your own mind confirms that you an authority on "the Jesus Myth"). Secondly, you assume that a historical jesus existed because there is a biblical jesus or you assume that a historical jesus existed because you just want to believe that a historical jesus existed (or you are a very good troll and believe niether, but I don't think you are a very good troll so I wont digress about your assumptions or beliefs because I think you are just an average person who is not aware they have been acting like a troll). Then, most trollfully, you attribute the real life name "jesus" to a historical jesus because you can then formulate the troll question (which is what trolls do). After you have all the peices of the troll puzzle together (for you the troll puzzle is as follows: a forum, a means to access the forum, a somewhat anonymous name to identify yourself, and a relative degree of comfort to post what you want) you compare your historical jesus to biblical jesus and think of the troll question to ask that would best descibe your disposition which is "is the Jesus Myth true?". Finally, you wait for people to respond to the bait (which is the troll question) and when people do you make stupid comments to assert that the troll question is a valid question to ask when in fact you just wanted to troll...
Click to expand...
Darn. You didn't take my advice.

But let's break this down. First: Me writing papers on the subject means little. Unless they are peer reviewed, I could hardly consider myself an authority. I simply stated my intentions. As in, I was being honest with my motivation for such a question. So really, I will be the first to admit I am not an authority. Some day, I would like to be, but I'm not as of now.

Second: You have no idea what you're talking about when you address me on the issue of the historical Jesus. I don't assume that a historical Jesus existed because there is a Biblical Jesus. In fact, at one time, I didn't believe there was a historical Jesus because of what the Bible said about him. Through research, and by consulting modern critical scholarship, I began seeing that the argument for a historical Jesus was much better than the opposition.

Really though, you are confusing the issue of a historical Jesus and a Biblical Jesus. One can not completely separate the two. The historical Jesus is at the core of the Biblical Jesus. They are the same person. The difference relies on how they are viewed. Maybe someone else could clarify this better, but I would say that is the basics. It is not one or the other. And as I have said before, you can not completely separate the two. (Actually, in the post you were referring to above, 919, I said the same thing. So obviously, you are not really reading).

Also, you use troll way too often. It is not my fault you do not have the ability to comprehend the purpose of this thread. It is not my fault you have not taken the time to actually read this thread carefully, or even enough to form a correct view of the intentions. And it is definitely not my fault you really haven't done research on the subject. But just saying troll and forms of the word troll really doesn't help your case.

My advice to you, take it or leave it, before you post again, read the OP. Then take some time to familiarize yourself with this thread. That, or at the very least, read the OP, and respond to it in a logical fashion.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
idav said:
That is an interesting point. Though the number of churches may not have been all that great but it is possible for it to be in the double digits early on since the number of apostles was in the double digits. Also I get the idea that the churches are few considering how much Paul was up in their business and would travel to them if necessary.
Click to expand...

So far as I understand it, these churches were spread throughout Asia Minor, in a time when people and cultural memes traveled slowly.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
AmbiguousGuy said:
So you're holding that there were no literate people in Jerusalem, who believed in Jesus, within 30-50 years of his death? At least none who could be bothered with writing his story?
Click to expand...

mark and Q possibly go back about 35AD ish Q possibly being a hair older

lieracy rate around 10% at the highest, I believe with 5% possible and more along the normal

belief is one thing, but to write about one like yeshua, one would have to almost be a follower or take serious interest. thats why there was not allot out there
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
AmbiguousGuy said:
So far as I understand it, these churches were spread throughout Asia Minor, in a time when people and cultural memes traveled slowly.
Click to expand...


Might have been gatherings among the poor that started everything before it grew enough to have churches and be written about
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
AmbiguousGuy said:
So you're holding that there were no literate people in Jerusalem, who believed in Jesus, within 30-50 years of his death? At least none who could be bothered with writing his story?
Click to expand...
Yes, none that who bothered writing his story. The same people who did not bother to write about the destruction of Jerusalem, or the Temple, or basically any event during that time period.

That, or all of the accounts were destroyed. That is quite possible as well since the center of the church was in Jerusalem, which was destroyed.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
AmbiguousGuy said:
So far as I understand it, these churches were spread throughout Asia Minor, in a time when people and cultural memes traveled slowly.
Click to expand...

That's simply not the case, man. ALL of the research concerning travel in the first century indicates that travel was fairly quick - it was dangerous and expensive, but it wasn't uncommon. There were trade routes all over the ancient world - by land and sea.

I have a section on ancient travel in my dissertation, and I put it in recently.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
That's simply not the case, man. ALL of the research concerning travel in the first century indicates that travel was fairly quick - it was dangerous and expensive, but it wasn't uncommon. There were trade routes all over the ancient world - by land and sea.

I have a section on ancient travel in my dissertation, and I put it in recently.
Click to expand...
were there maps?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jelly said:
were there maps?
Click to expand...

Only a few, and by that I mean I know of only one or two that survive from the Roman period. Again, this is an issue of skill and cost. The Roman maps are, I believe, woefully inaccurate.

What they did have, though, were markers on some roads that told you where you were and hopefully where you were going.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Only a few, and by that I mean I know of only one or two that survive from the Roman period. Again, this is an issue of skill and cost. The Roman maps are, I believe, woefully inaccurate.

What they did have, though, were markers on some roads that told you where you were and hopefully where you were going.
Click to expand...
imagine that a culture of people were reading during that time and traveling to different locations AND it wasn't uncommon....:facepalm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top