The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

Perhaps but why find any of the other stories of Jesus credible when dealing with the miracles. The popular opinion of Jesus was he could do miracles? Why not at childhood? It is likely childhood stories were also being circulated around. What makes the infancy of jesus gospel less credible than gospel of matthew for example other than mere popularity since we don't really know of a historical jesus without gospels?

Actually, it is unlikely that childhood stories were circulating around. Our earliest sources do not have really any childhood stories. And really, when looking at ancient figures, childhood stories were not common. They were not deemed important for the most part.

As for the credibility of the miracles in the Bible, who said they were? I didn't. Yes, the popular opinion was that Jesus could do miracles; however, that not mean he could. It just means that people thought he could. This is exactly the same with modern day miracle workers. People believe they can do miracles, but that is only their perspective.

What makes the canonical Gospels more credible than the infancy Gospel? One, they are earlier. The infancy Gospel is of a late date. Second, the information in the infancy Gospel are not multiply attested to. Third, there is little reason to assume that people would have recorded his early life in the first place. There are quite a few reasons. It's late date is a major one though.

 

[fallingblood]

oh i see so you have two perspectives about every figure? one out of the left eye and one out of the right eye?
how on earth do you see?

Are you playing a game, or are you really that clueless?

 

[jelly]

Actually, it is unlikely that childhood stories were circulating around. Our earliest sources do not have really any childhood stories. And really, when looking at ancient figures, childhood stories were not common. They were not deemed important for the most part.

As for the credibility of the miracles in the Bible, who said they were? I didn't. Yes, the popular opinion was that Jesus could do miracles; however, that not mean he could. It just means that people thought he could. This is exactly the same with modern day miracle workers. People believe they can do miracles, but that is only their perspective.

What makes the canonical Gospels more credible than the infancy Gospel? One, they are earlier. The infancy Gospel is of a late date. Second, the information in the infancy Gospel are not multiply attested to. Third, there is little reason to assume that people would have recorded his early life in the first place. There are quite a few reasons. It's late date is a major one though.

is the source of your information for biblical childhood jesus or historical childhood jesus?

 

[jelly]

Are you playing a game, or are you really that clueless?

no I am pretty aware of what you have written and apparently it is not a game.
who is the scholar here?

 

[fallingblood]

interesting... do you want me to show you why there was no historical jesus from which there is a historical jesus or do you want me to show you why there is no biblical...
heck why don't you think about your OP....
can you do that...?

It is not my fault if you can't understand the OP. It is not my fault if you refuse to try to pay attention. Really, all that you are showing is that you are uninformed, and foolish.

You continuing to ask me the same question, just shows that you have no intention of actually supporting your asinine position anyway. So until you can make an intelligent post, I will simply ignore you. Which, from how things have gone, that will probably just remain what I do (ignore you).

 

[jelly]

It is not my fault if you can't understand the OP. It is not my fault if you refuse to try to pay attention. Really, all that you are showing is that you are uninformed, and foolish.

You continuing to ask me the same question, just shows that you have no intention of actually supporting your asinine position anyway. So until you can make an intelligent post, I will simply ignore you. Which, from how things have gone, that will probably just remain what I do (ignore you).

so which is it do you or do you not hold the position that historical jesus is not portrayed in the bible?

 

[idav]

Actually, it is unlikely that childhood stories were circulating around. Our earliest sources do not have really any childhood stories. And really, when looking at ancient figures, childhood stories were not common. They were not deemed important for the most part.

As for the credibility of the miracles in the Bible, who said they were? I didn't. Yes, the popular opinion was that Jesus could do miracles; however, that not mean he could. It just means that people thought he could. This is exactly the same with modern day miracle workers. People believe they can do miracles, but that is only their perspective.

What makes the canonical Gospels more credible than the infancy Gospel? One, they are earlier. The infancy Gospel is of a late date. Second, the information in the infancy Gospel are not multiply attested to. Third, there is little reason to assume that people would have recorded his early life in the first place. There are quite a few reasons. It's late date is a major one though.

Not having a earlier date may just be due to the fact that it wasn't widely circulated or that some didn't like the story or that it was purposely destroyed. Finding a later date only seems like it just wasn't popular enough to be make it. Also the fact that they loved to burn up anything that sounded like heresy which again goes by what most people thought was accurate even if it wasn't necessarily historical. The infancy gospel at least does confirms the idea of the major gospels that a child was instructing with superior knowledge. Im sure the child got into more trouble than the major gospels might portray.

 

[jelly]

It is not my fault if you can't understand the OP. It is not my fault if you refuse to try to pay attention. Really, all that you are showing is that you are uninformed, and foolish.

You continuing to ask me the same question, just shows that you have no intention of actually supporting your asinine position anyway. So until you can make an intelligent post, I will simply ignore you. Which, from how things have gone, that will probably just remain what I do (ignore you).

my asinine position is as follows: I think historical jesus is a figment of your imagination just as biblical jesus is a figment of the bible.

 

[fallingblood]

Not having a earlier date may just be due to the fact that it wasn't widely circulated or that some didn't like the story or that it was purposely destroyed. Finding a later date only seems like it just wasn't popular enough to be make it. Also the fact that they loved to burn up anything that sounded like heresy which again goes by what most people thought was accurate even if it wasn't necessarily historical. The infancy gospel at least does confirms the idea of the major gospels that a child was instructing with superior knowledge. Im sure the child got into more trouble than the major gospels might portray.

Burning books really didn't happen until much later. In the second century, there really wasn't any burning of books. That happened much much later.

The infancy Gospel simply is not credible. Again, it is not multiply attested to. It is of a late date. No one really wrote about the childhood of ancient figures (yes, it does happen from time to time, but again, they are usually thought to be important from an early age. Jesus was not). No one mentions anything like that anywhere else. Even Matthew and Luke who mention very briefly the childhood, seem to have no idea about that information. No one in facts seems to be aware of those stories until much much later, thus there is little reason to assume there was an oral tradition that stretched back to any time that could be considered credible.

There is just no reason to assume it is credible at all.

 

[fallingblood]

my asinine position is as follows:

The first true thing you've said. At least you admit it is an asinine position.

 

[jelly]

Burning books really didn't happen until much later. In the second century, there really wasn't any burning of books. That happened much much later.

The infancy Gospel simply is not credible. Again, it is not multiply attested to. It is of a late date. No one really wrote about the childhood of ancient figures (yes, it does happen from time to time, but again, they are usually thought to be important from an early age. Jesus was not). No one mentions anything like that anywhere else. Even Matthew and Luke who mention very briefly the childhood, seem to have no idea about that information. No one in facts seems to be aware of those stories until much much later, thus there is little reason to assume there was an oral tradition that stretched back to any time that could be considered credible.

There is just no reason to assume it is credible at all.

when was the first book burned?

 

[jelly]

The first true thing you've said. At least you admit it is an asinine position.

I am glad you agree with the asinine.

 

[sojourner]

use abductive reasoning (wild guessing) and let me know if Jaywalker Soule thinks like fallingblood: that historical jesus and biblical jesus are the same and the bible doesn't portray historical jesus.

Neither one of them thinks that to the extreme to which you allude here.

I think A_E, Jay, Blood and myself are all basically on the same page here. That page says that the Bible contains the preponderance of what we can know about the historic Jesus, but that the Bible portrays Jesus largely in mythic terms. In order to extrapolate the historic Jesus from the mythic Jesus, we have to engage Biblical anthropology and lay the findings alongside the mythic nature of the texts.

The result of those findings is that the Bible portrays an historic figure in mythic terms.

 

[sojourner]

Paul wrote lots. That seems to be an actual historical fact which makes your point irrelevant.

But he never wrote about the physical life of his Lord. It looks to me like overwhelming evidence that he'd never heard any stories about Jesus' life.

Paul was far more interested in the present state of the community than he was in history.

 

[jelly]

Neither one of them thinks that to the extreme to which you allude here.

I think A_E, Jay, Blood and myself are all basically on the same page here. That page says that the Bible contains the preponderance of what we can know about the historic Jesus, but that the Bible portrays Jesus largely in mythic terms. In order to extrapolate the historic Jesus from the mythic Jesus, we have to engage Biblical anthropology and lay the findings alongside the mythic nature of the texts.

The result of those findings is that the Bible portrays an historic figure in mythic terms.

so if you find any information about the figment of your imagination jesus do you attribute it to historical jesus or biblical jesus?

 

[sojourner]

I think you should probably spend your forum time exclusively with Jay. Your posts seem to hold exactly the same content as his.

thanks for the compliment!

Everyone is ignorant except sojourner and his favored associates here on the forum.

You said it yourself: You're not a Biblical scholar...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to continually reassert it, though.

I'm asserting nothing except the good reading practices you seem to forego.

 

[jelly]

thanks for the compliment!

You said it yourself: You're not a Biblical scholar...

I'm asserting nothing except the good reading practices you seem to forego.

if great minds think alike do feeble minds think alike also?

 

[sojourner]

This is like Jay, A_E, Blood and Soj. trying to engage Beavis and butthead on the finer points of social decorum...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is quite funny. Because as it stands, I did refute your six points. You still have not even addressed the majority of my rebuttals, and the ones you did, it came down to ridiculous posts like the one I'm quoting of yours.

Actually, I have decimated all of your positions, demonstrating that your beliefs about Jesus are rooted in others places than the historical record.

I'm sorry. I know it must be difficult for you to face a truth like this. But we can't learn and grow unless we deal with the world open-eyed, I think.

 

[jelly]

This is like Jay, A_E, Blood and Soj. trying to engage Beavis and butthead on the finer points of social decorum...

so if you find any information about the figment of your imagination jesus do you attribute it to historical jesus or biblical jesus?

come on sojourner...
answer..