The Jesus Myth

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not so certain of that. I think there's a fair chance that the gospels were written as fiction. By that, I mean that the gospelers might have been aware that their stories were substantially created by their own imaginations, rather than being reportorial.

Yes there's a chance but are you certain they were?

 

[jelly]

Yes there's a chance but are you certain they were?

do you mean the gospels about a person preforming miracles?
I don't know all that much about them but I would think that some of the things in the gospels were from the imagination, but then again I am a comedian.
can anybody agree on the all things suggested in the gospels that aren't miracles?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does mainstream scholarship accept Paul's authorship of 1st Corinthians?

Yes.

......

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes there's a chance but are you certain they were?

There's virtually nothing about which I am certain. In other words, if you ask me "Is it possible that".... I will always answer Yes.

How could anything not be possible.

My certainty about gospels-written-as-fiction is probably around 50% right now. But it depends which gospel. The Gospel of Thomas? Around 98%. Mark is closer to the 50%.

My certainty about a pre-0 Jesus is around 80% and rising.

But I'm learning a lot by arguing the issues here. Ask me tomorrow what I think, and I hope you'll get new answers.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes.......

OK. So you believe that Paul recited the story of the Last Supper? Do you have any idea about where he got it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's rather difficult to discern exactly what's being debated at this point.

It's supposed to be about the historical Jesus. I'm trying to work out my own opinion on it and am proposing a possible Jesus model but prior to the year 0.

 

[jelly]

It's supposed to be about the historical Jesus. I'm trying to work out my own opinion on it and am proposing a possible Jesus model but prior to the year 0.

don't confuse the poor guy, bibilical jesus is the story of historical jesus who preformed miracles..

 

[fallingblood]

Really? That seems especially odd to me. Why did he wait 20 years to start writing about Jesus? He was alive and adult in 30 AD, wasn't he?

We don't know for sure he waited. In the opinion of Crossan and Borg, Paul, after joining the Jesus movement, went on a mission to Arabia (as Paul states that he did go to Arabia; however, he doesn't mention much about it). The mission was seemingly a failure, and thus, there would be no reason to expect writings to be preserved there.

We know that Paul wrote more than what we actually have. He tells us this by mentioning letters we no longer have. So it is very possible that Paul wrote before 49 C.E.

If Paul converted in 33 to 36, I cannot imagine how his writings could be empty of Jesus reports. Is that what you believe? That a man with Paul's passion for Jesus, in touch with men who lived and worked with Jesus, would not give us a single report from those men about Jesus himself?

That's beyond belief. His writings would be full of stories about his Master's worldy work.

I really don't see how anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature could argue otherwise, but I'll be glad to listen if you have a reasonable explanation.

Why didn't Paul speak copiously of Jesus' ministry on earth?

You have to understand the purpose of his letters. The letters were not evangelical tools. He wasn't trying to spread the message of Jesus with his letters. He had already done that previously.

The people Paul was writing to had already converted to the Jesus movement. He had already been in their cities, preached to them, and gave them the background that they would need in order to continue when he was gone.

Later, he would receive letters, or sometimes reports from these churches he already founded, asking either questions, or stating problems they were having. Paul would then address those questions and problems.

All we can gleam from the fact that he wrote little about Jesus is that people were not having a problem with his life. No one was questioning aspects of the life of Jesus. So there was no reason to really address that.

More so, much of the focus was not on the life of Jesus, but on the death and resurrection. It was that which was most important to them.

One tossaway comment about meeting the brother of Jesus... and that's enough for you.

It seems awfully curious to me.

It is more than one comment though. He states specifically once, that he met the brother of Jesus. He later mentions this same James on various occasions.

 

[fallingblood]

I can't understand you here. Are you saying that Jesus took over where John left off?

That makes no sense to me. Can you expand on it?

I can expand a little bit on that. The four Gospels tell us that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. He can be fairly certain that this is historical, as it is embarrassing. It signals that Jesus was sinful, and that he accepted the authority of another leader.

The baptism is also the earliest time that all four gospels agree on. It is the start of his ministry. Because Jesus was baptized by John, and that his message was similar to John's (we get this from the little said about John in the Gospels, and what is said in Josephus), the conclusion is that Jesus was a disciple of John. This conclusion is also strengthened by the fact that we are told that other former disciples of John also followed Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

what questions did they ask to get from one location to another?

Hey, what way is Jerusalem? Or, hey, what way is Rome? Or, I'm trying to get to Corinth, which road would lead me there? Not very hard.

Also, they had roads connecting the Empire. That helps with travel a lot.

 

[fallingblood]

great.
now what do you think the response would have been?

Let's see. That way *pointing to the nearest gas station*. Seriously, this is not that hard. They weren't stupid.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul was certainly literate. And he was in Jerusalem within a couple of years of Jesus death. And I have a hard time believing that all of the early church leaders were illiterate.

Actually, in Acts, we are told that some of them are (we aren't told that any could read). But Peter and John, pillars of the church in Jerusalem, are said to be illiterate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's supposed to be about the historical Jesus. I'm trying to work out my own opinion on it and am proposing a possible Jesus model but prior to the year 0.

It's an old theory that is far more ideosyncratic than compelling ... somewhat reminiscent of adolescents trying to be difficult by pushing back just for the heck of it.

 

[fallingblood]

don't confuse the poor guy, bibilical jesus is the story of historical jesus who preformed miracles..

:banghead3 You just don't even try do you?

 

[outhouse]

Paul was certainly literate. And he was in Jerusalem within a couple of years of Jesus death. And I have a hard time believing that all of the early church leaders were illiterate.

jesus spread his message to the poor, there were no modern churches and jesus preached outside of the normal hebrew script that got john killed. he wasnt in a church preaching

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

jesus spread his message to the poor, there were no modern churches and jesus preached outside of the normal hebrew script that got john killed. he wasnt in a church preaching

What on earth are you babbling about?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

:banghead3 You just don't even try do you?

au contraire - few have show themselves to be so trying.

 

[outhouse]

Ah, my bad. I thought you were talking about the gospeler John.

I don't know much about John the Baptist. Can you tell me what we know about John and how we know it? Do you consider him an historical character?

he has more historicity then jesus

just look up

john the babptist wiki and read yourself

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, that's a bit of data which I didn't have. Can you tell me how you know that?

There were no churches outside of Jerusalem until around 45CE?

If there were, we don't know about them (with the exception of the Ebionites).

As far as we know, Paul founded the first Christian churches outside of the greater Jerusalem area about 12 years after his "conversion."

 

[outhouse]

What on earth are you babbling about?

I was answering this below

I have a hard time believing that all of the early church leaders were illiterate.

All im saying is jesus wasnt in allot of churches, literacy doesnt matter in a church, jesus spread his message to the poor as a traveling teacher

jesus spread his message to the poor, there were no modern churches and jesus preached outside of the normal hebrew script that got john killed. he wasnt in a church preaching


can you follow now??? keep up will ya