The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

which part of each source describes historical jesus and which part describes biblical jesus?

How many times do you want me to repeat this. You can not completely separate the two. You trying to do so just shows your ignorance, and lack of a want to understand.

 

[jelly]

How many times do you want me to repeat this. You can not completely separate the two. You trying to do so just shows your ignorance, and lack of a want to understand.

if you cannot completely separate the two then why present the argument that they are different in your OP?
is there something wrong with your thinking or do you not understand that if you cannot separate the two then there is no reason to compare them?
if historical jesus is an apple and biblical jesus is a pear... then what you are suggesting is for me to consider them a pearpple AND decide if I don't believe in apples...
thanks for your humility.

 

[fallingblood]

if you cannot completely separate the two then why present the argument that they are different in your OP?

Did I completely separate the two in the OP? No. Just another sign of you not paying attention. My question was, to make it extremely simple for you, did Jesus exist, or was he fabricated/made up/ a fictional character?

Maybe, before stating what I supposedly said, you may just take the time to read it.

is there something wrong with your thinking or do you not understand that if you cannot separate the two then there is no reason to compare them?

What in the world are you rambling on about? Oh yeah. You once again making an asinine statement because you refuse to actually take any time to read the posts, or the OP.

if historical jesus is an apple and biblical jesus is a pear... then what you are suggesting is for me to consider them a pearpple AND decide if I don't believe in apples...
thanks for your humility.

Again, a clear and positive sign you have not read the OP, you do not understand what is being spoken of, and really have no business responding in this thread if you are unwilling to even try to understand what is going on. You're rambling on something that hasn't even been said. Really, if Jesus is food, it would be an onion. With layers and layers.

 

[jelly]

oh well then if a body is found of jesus who is going to be biblical jesus or historical jesus?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who can say about scholarly consensus. It's usually just another arguing point.

What a pathetic and self-serving disregard of scholarship.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How many times do you want me to repeat this. You can not completely separate the two.

You are wasting your time on someone who cares so little for intellectual honesty that he doesn't even attempt it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

That limitation is hardly an argument. You're looking at the situation with a mythicist bias through a 21st century lens. Is it similarly beyond your ability to believe that the Mishna was produced decades after the fact?

If you want me to think of you as serious participant in this debate, you'll have to address me with at least a pretense of politeness.

The sad (but predictable) thing is that you learned absolutely nothing from a relevant piece of history. There's actually an even more interesting tidbit courtesy of Ki Tavo, but I'm afraid it would be wasted on you. So I'll leave you to dance around with eyes wide shut while whining about politeness.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

All of that seems so obvious that I guess I feel the need to complain again about you delivering me such lectures. When dialoguing with you, I often feel like I've wandered into a lower-school class and am now trapped, forced to sit and listen with the children as they're instructed on their ABCs.

Sorry, but that's really how it feels. Do you think we could pick things up a bit?

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.

Obviously it's not out of the question. The issue is whether it's likely. Since we have no writings, it's most likely that he didn't write them. Might've. Might not've. Probably didn't.

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.

This idea seems to have some meat on it. So you think that Paul went out and founded churches intended to be squats for Doomsday? Little Jonestowns?

Even if so, I see no reason why they would have destroyed the essential writings of their faith. Or even why they might have treated them sloppily. Koresh, the Essenes... do you know of any cults which take a casual attitude toward their writings?

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.

And you believe that he had no time for jotting down notes about his Lord and Savior's earthly life -- so preoccupied was he with The Kingdom? He couldn't be bothered to tell Jesus' story?

When we first met, you asked how I could be so cheeky as to disagree with the consensus of Biblical scholars on certain matters.

My first answer was this: I think scholars often misunderstand human psychology. They can read all the old manuscripts, attend all the seminars, learn all the esoteric bits they like, but unless they understand the human heart, their conclusions are likely to be flawed. Add a heavy dash of cultural awe at Christianity itself, and bad conclusions and theories are inevitable.

If you believe that Paul wouldn't care about writing down the story of his Earthly Lord, I think you badly misunderstand the human heart. If you think he could write all those letters without them containing anecdotes from the life of Jesus, I think you're missing something important. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

It's like the hero thing. For so long, you denied that humans yearn for heroes. But I'm pretty sure that if a Biblical scholar doesn't understand that primal urge, he has little chance of understanding the historical Jesus.

Just my opinion, of course.

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.

It's a reasonable statement but a weak hypothesis. If there were actually eyewitnesses to The Master's earthly life, at least reporting it to literate Jesus-worshippers like Paul, the writings would have begun immediately, I think. They could not have stopped themselves from writing it. I really don't see how anyone could reasonably deny that.

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.
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.

I'm not suggesting it's willy nilly. But I would like to point you to another fundamental human passion, which is the need to be right. It's so powerful that even hard scientists will sometimes cheat the evidence so as to make it support their prized theory. How much more likely might that urge express itself in the field of Biblical study.

So I think it's always important to doubt ourselves, examine ourselves, and even accuse ourselves of bias. The tool with which we examine truth should be tested even moreso than the materials we study. So if someone suggests possible bias in our views, I think we should consider ourselves guilty until proven innocent.

Your whole-hearted embrace of Paul's claim about meeting James looks a bit suspicious to me -- for whatever that opinion might be worth to you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So I'll leave you to dance around with eyes wide shut while whining about politeness.

I'll pay you a dollar if you'll make that a promise. Three bucks if witnessed and notarized.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

It's a fine personal opinion, but why should I embrace your certainty rather than that of your opponents who will claim that inserting the 'embarrassment' idea is simply an attempt to historify Jesus?

So far, I find their explanation more compelling.

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

It was shortcut talk, Blood. It's not about the dove. It's about God declaring Jesus as His son. Baptism would be the natural vehicle to carry such a claim, wouldn't it? If I were writing the story, that's where I'd put it.

So that makes me think of the baptism of Jesus as non-historical. It's too convenient and so bears the hallmark of fiction. Of course, there's a chance that the baptism really happened and the 'son of God' thing was added later. It ain't easy figuring things, is it?

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

You might. I might think that traditional Judaism has very little to do with it. You yourself seem to be thinking in terms of a cultish Christianity.

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

The old passive-voice trick. Ask me if you're interested. I'm too tired right now to volunteer the explanation.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope.

Sorry. It's not easy for me to remember which side of the 'scholarly consensus' each one of you guys is taking on any particular issue.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Seriously? I definitely would say neither.

So the Bible can be trusted on historical issues but the BOM can't?

Can you recite a couple of high points for your thinking on that?

 

[jelly]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

just to revisit the OP and carry on as I would believe fallingblood would like.
what the hell does this bolded part mean? does it mean you don't believe the bible when it comes to the protrayal of biblical/historical jesus?
was jesus an apple or an onion and some how the bible got it wrong, PLEASE fallingblood PONTIFICATE. and if you don't know what that means: explain what you are talking about when you say "that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him"

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not the consensus at all. Basically, all but a handful of scholars believe that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

Can't take your word for it. Sorry. I've heard from about 50 folks that it is the consensus, so you'll need to gather some voters behind you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My god I can't wait until I can corrupt young minds.

You take the minds; I'll take the bodies. The souls we'll sell for scrap.

 

[jelly]

hey I saw a movie about jesus is that a better portrayal of jesus than the bible?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

you admit to not reading the whole wiki link.

Yeah, I don't go to church and let the preachers instruct me on John's historicity either. Better things to do.

from past debates with you it seems like a waist of my time

I don't remember you ever engaging me in a substantive debate. Sorry. Mostly you send me to your favorite evangelist website while telling me that I obviously haven't done my homework or else I'd know as much as you do about it all.

You're a curious guy, outhouse.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Scholars? and anyone who bothers to read what they have to say?

Yeah. The problem is that if I ask 10 scholars about the nature of the consensus, I'll get a dozen different answers.

Seriously. We have Christian scholars right here among us who make opposite claims about the consensus. So how do I decide what's the real consensus?

You consider identification as a Conservative Christian a credential

I don't know what you're asking. Do you mean that I should ignore the consensus opinions if I think a guy is conservative?

Maybe you should seek out dumber opponents.

Tried it. No luck so far.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What a pathetic and self-serving disregard of scholarship.

Sorry to hear that. But I'm an optimist. I think you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are wasting your time on someone who cares so little for intellectual honesty that he doesn't even attempt it.

Oh, come on. That's just too much humility. I don't think fallingblood is wasting his time by trying to reach you. I mean, that you have such insight into your nature as to make the admission above... it speaks very well of you.