The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yep. A dangerous question indeed. We might find out whether there's any special pleading afoot!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

there have been many posts by me with substance, you have not noticed them.

:biglaugh::biglaugh: OMG - Stop it! You're killing me. :biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm pretending to be polite. :foryou:

And doing a damned fine job of it. But I worry about the rain. I hope you used an oil-based paint when you painted on that strained smile.

Mine's an actual mask.

 

[jelly]

:biglaugh::biglaugh: OMG - Stop it! You're killing me. :biglaugh::biglaugh:

and your response to my substantive posts can be summarized by using the word "blather".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yep. A dangerous question indeed. We might find out whether there's an special pleading afoot!

I would suggest something a bit more creative. The Gospels, for example, describe events 30 years or so after the fact - and people have problems with that.

Now that doesn't compare to a book that describes events more than 1700 years later.

Maybe if you chose a first century work that describes more recent events?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And doing a damned fine job of it. But I worry about the rain. I hope you used an oil-based paint when you painted on that strained smile.

Mine's an actual mask.

why.... so....serious

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here ya go, second paragraph: Josephus on John the Baptizer

Hey, Quagmire. Thanks for the link, but I'm not qualified to do source research. If you showed me Josephus' mention of Jesus (Christus?), I'd have no idea how to demonstrate that it's probably a fake, as seems to be the consensus among the experts who study such things.

So the Josephus quote about John the Baptist is the same for me. Is it a fake? Is it really about the John of the Bible? Did Josephus have reason to concoct it?

I don't know. All I can do is listen to the arguments and try to reach the conclusion which seems most seemly. I'll be happy if outhouse wants to attempt that argument.

 

[jelly]

I would suggest something a bit more creative. The Gospels, for example, describe events 30 years or so after the fact - and people have problems with that.

Now that doesn't compare to a book that describes events more than 1700 years later.

Maybe if you chose a first century work that describes more recent events?

this is the first comedic post that I have see you write that I don't even begin to understand......

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:slap:

I appreciate the gesture, but I really don't require any back-patting. I'm a rugged guy who does not cry easily.

Well, not in public, I mean.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey Ambiguous -

I'll pretend to be polite and you can pretend that I'm Jay.

A younger, much better looking Jay.

Sorry, but my love for you is not of that sort.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:biglaugh::biglaugh: OMG - Stop it! You're killing me. :biglaugh::biglaugh:

That phrasing might not have the effect you intended.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I would suggest something a bit more creative. The Gospels, for example, describe events 30 years or so after the fact - and people have problems with that.

Now that doesn't compare to a book that describes events more than 1700 years later.

Maybe if you chose a first century work that describes more recent events?

OK, but it has to be a theological work, filled with fabulous claims of magic, in which Blood is not invested... so I can see if he views it as historically reliable.

Suggestions?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

why.... so....serious

Who... so... serious

 

[jelly]

OK, but it has to be a theological work, filled with fabulous claims of magic, in which Blood is not invested... so I can see if he views it as historically reliable.

Suggestions?

thanks AmbigousGuy punchlines with no stories leave me baffled...

 

[jelly]

Who... so... serious

"With no brains, no heart, and no blood, it's amazing jellyfish have existed for 650 million years!"
[youtube]JoMCTvRkvxo[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Stunning Jellyfish‬‏

 

[Quagmire]

Hey, Quagmire. Thanks for the link, but I'm not qualified to do source research. If you showed me Josephus' mention of Jesus (Christus?), I'd have no idea how to demonstrate that it's probably a fake, as seems to be the consensus among the experts who study such things.

That isn't actually the current consensus.

So the Josephus quote about John the Baptist is the same for me. Is it a fake? Is it really about the John of the Bible? Did Josephus have reason to concoct it?

There are a lot of people in here more qualified to address this than I am. All I can tell you is that according to everything I've ever read about Josephus, the John the Baptist references are considered authentic.

 

[fallingblood]

so far this is what I understand you to be saying:
1) people communicated with words and markers (?which would have had words on them?) to each other commonly in order to travel, but at the same time people were illiterate so they couldn't write about jesus.
2) biblical jesus is not a story about historical jesus because historical jesus did not perform miracles.

Read my posts again, and then reply. Maybe this time you will get closer to what I'm saying. Really, I can't simplify it any more than I have (or at least I don't care to).

 

[jelly]

Read my posts again, and then reply. Maybe this time you will get closer to what I'm saying. Really, I can't simplify it any more than I have (or at least I don't care to).

I am not interested in claiming victory.
is the source of information used to describe historical jesus the same source used to describe biblical jesus?

 

[fallingblood]

I realize that there's lots of speculation in Biblical studies. There has to be, what with the state of the evidence. But I think that in the absense of writings, our first guess should be that such writings never existed -- rather than working to explain how they might've existed but were lost. Occam's Razor and all.

With the evidence we have, our first guess should be that it is likely that we don't have all of the writings. Paul tells us that he wrote various letters which we no longer have. The Bible makes mention of various books that we no longer have. Various other ancient sources make references to books we no longer have.

Books are lost, destroyed, or simply forgotten. So it is not out of the question to assume Paul probably wrote before the first letter we have of his.

I agree that it's possible, of course. But I feel pretty sure that if he'd written about the historical Jesus, that at least some of those writings would have survived. I'd think that the early church in Jerusalem would have a great interest in preserving such writings.

Not really. They were not in it for the long haul. If we read Paul, we can see that the idea was that the end of this age/world was near. That Jesus would come back in his time, and replace the earthly kingdom with the Kingdom of God.

They were not thinking that their movement would last 2,000 years. They thought the end was coming soon. Thus, there was little reason to prepare for the long haul and collect the writings.

That doesn't work for me at all. I think passionate Paul would have written extensively about the historical Jesus, if he'd actually had any reports about it. Jesus was the center of his life.

The death and resurrection were the center of his life. That is what is important to Paul. The life of Jesus was not the main focus. It was the death and resurrection that made the big difference, and what much of Paul's theology centered on.

The gospel writers -- 30 to 50 years later -- felt it important to tell the historical story of Jesus, but those who actually experienced it (and Paul who interviewed them) felt no such urge? That's way beyond my ability to believe.

The times had greatly changed. In 70 C.E., the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed. With that, Christianity began to form into it's own religion, as Judaism pushed it away. And for both, having been based on Judaism, and focused, to a point, around the Temple, the religions had to change. The idea that Jesus was to return soon began dissolving, and they prepared for the long run.

There was then more of a reason to write about the life of Jesus.

Do we have any of Paul's letters in his own hand? If not (which is my assumption), why don't you wonder whether the James' mention could be an interpolation or confusion or even a falsehood -- as you seem to believe about so much other NT material?

I don't think much of the NT is interpolations. Yes, there are some, but scholars are pretty good at seeing what actually goes back (or most probably goes back) to the earliest records. I trust in textual criticism.

As for a falsehood, I see no reason for that. James was really played down in the Gospels. Even the idea of Jesus having siblings was not an idea that was very well received later on.

More so, the sources we have concerning Jesus, and James do list them as their brothers. I see no real reason to add it, and it is attested to in so many sources.

Why do you accept it uncritically, when you discount so many other Biblical claims?

I don't accept it uncritically. When I discount something in the Bible, or I accept something, I do so based off of research. It is not just willy nilly.

 

[fallingblood]

I've heard quite different explanation as to why Jesus was baptized by John. It's been a long time ago now, but I think it had to do with showing his humility. Plus, a story was needed for the dove to come down, if I'm remembering. Wasn't there some kind of requirement for the messiah... to be baptized? I'll have to review all of that if you want to discuss it further.

It doesn't have to do with humility. Yes, later traditions were formed trying to explain it away, but that is solely based on a theological need.

There was also no need for a dove, and really, a dove could have been placed nearly anywhere.

We have to place baptism into a proper historical context, within Judaism. It is in that light that we must see it.

So how do we know that John the Baptist even existed as an historical person? Is he mentioned outside of the gospels?

He is mentioned in Josephus. It is quite certain he existed.