The Jesus Myth

[jelly]

Perhaps someday we could pursue the topic of literacy in 1st century Palestine in a different thread.

yes please do!

 

[fallingblood]

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.

:biglaugh:

 

[jelly]

:biglaugh:

and the world laughs with you now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Archaeological integrity, for starters. There's no proof of ancient source for the BOM.

Huh? Smith said himself that the Golden Tablets were the ancient source. And we know that Smith was a real man. We have court records from when he was tried for fraud. So how could you deny an ancient source for the BOM?

You'll simply declare that Smith was wrong? If so, I think you're embarking on a slippery slope indeed. Next thing we know, people will be declaring that we can't even believe in the historicity of the Gospels simply because such a claim doesn't pass the straight-face test!

 

[fallingblood]

I often wonder how old some of the texts were that got burned up. Couldn't they have burned first century texts especially considering the fact that few originals can be found in whole pieces.

Burning didn't happen until some quite later. So first and second century texts, if they were not accepted, usually just weren't copied, and thus were lost.

Well good cause that kid in the infancy gospel reminds me of the twilight zone kid with too much power and little understanding.

That is partially another reason it is not thought to be authentic. The differences between that Jesus and the Jesus of later are just way too different.

If Jesus had power than it is credible. He could have killed a kid or resurrected a kid as that was within his supposed power. So it goes against the general consensus of his character? There are clues in the NT that Jesus wasn't as nice as it tries to make him. There always was a strong desire for certain authorities to paint Jesus a certain way and I don't think the later idea of a sinless Jesus was originally thought to be the case.

I would agree that Jesus was not sinless. However, he isn't a sociopath either, which the little kid is.

 

[jelly]

Burning didn't happen until some quite later. So first and second century texts, if they were not accepted, usually just weren't copied, and thus were lost.
That is partially another reason it is not thought to be authentic. The differences between that Jesus and the Jesus of later are just way too different.
I would agree that Jesus was not sinless. However, he isn't a sociopath either, which the little kid is.

when I think of jesus I think of historical jesus and biblical jesus, it helps my cognitive dissonance!

 

[idav]

Burning didn't happen until some quite later. So first and second century texts, if they were not accepted, usually just weren't copied, and thus were lost.

That makes sense and goes with what I've said that the popular texts are what would have survived.

That is partially another reason it is not thought to be authentic. The differences between that Jesus and the Jesus of later are just way too different.

On the other hand it does make him sound a lot more like the OT god, hehe.

I would agree that Jesus was not sinless. However, he isn't a sociopath either, which the little kid is.

Almost like most the OT prophets. God used to be big on vengeance I don't know what happened with Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm wondering if Ambiguous is going to engage Fallingblood on the issue of the historical validity of the E at Delphi and the NT (or more fairly, on Gospel?).

I don't know if Fallingblood has read the E at Delphi, but he needs to.

If you'd like a head start, see Hans D. Betz, ed. Plutarch's Theological Writings and the NT. There's an article in this book about the E at Delphi w bibliography. There is also a companion volume entitled Plutarch's Ethical Writings and the NT. If you don't want to engage it now, these are excellent resources for future reference.

I have read the E at Delphi, but I can't I'm the most familiar with it anymore (it was a while go).

I tried looking for the books you mentioned, but I couldn't find any place selling them. I did read some excerpts, but only on Google books.

 

[jelly]

I have read the E at Delphi, but I can't I'm the most familiar with it anymore (it was a while go).

I tried looking for the books you mentioned, but I couldn't find any place selling them. I did read some excerpts, but only on Google books.

what good is a scholar without his books?

 

[fallingblood]

That makes sense and goes with what I've said that the popular texts are what would have survived.

There is a reason why it wasn't popular though. One, is because of the late date of the stories. The older stories did seem to stick better, and that is partially because they were seen as more accurate.

Almost like most the OT prophets. God used to be big on vengeance I don't know what happened with Jesus.

Many OT prophets were not sociopaths. Yes, from time to time we do see various prophets do atrocious acts. However, that has a lot to do with the time period they were in, and the cultural context.

 

[jelly]

There is a reason why it wasn't popular though. One, is because of the late date of the stories. The older stories did seem to stick better, and that is partially because they were seen as more accurate.
Many OT prophets were not sociopaths. Yes, from time to time we do see various prophets do atrocious acts. However, that has a lot to do with the time period they were in, and the cultural context.

I agree, I read it so it must be true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

haha are you going to abductive reasoning all of a sudden?

Shhh.... I don't think Jayhawker enjoys hearing that sort of talk, even though he was the one to use the term 'abductive reasoning' in a recent OP. It is apparently a bit disturbing, at least to its users, to hear it described as 'guessing'.

We may want to contact Wiki and ask them to take down their entry, the first line of which reads:

"Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as "guessing".

It does seem to explain many of the conclusions reached by Biblical scholars, I must admit.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's funny, because, the two who have been arguing the most against the historicity of Jesus have only done so by making ignorant and asinine remarks.

outhouse is your daddy.

 

[jelly]

outhouse is your daddy.

I think fallingblood was discussing our mythical selves and not our historical selves...

 

[idav]

There is a reason why it wasn't popular though. One, is because of the late date of the stories. The older stories did seem to stick better, and that is partially because they were seen as more accurate.

Well that just went full circle again.

Many OT prophets were not sociopaths. Yes, from time to time we do see various prophets do atrocious acts. However, that has a lot to do with the time period they were in, and the cultural context.

Makes sense to me that people would have chosen to believe the nicer jesus as opposed to another OT prophet but it is likely that Jesus spoke more like an OT prophet especially being a "messiah" bringing on end times.

 

[Quagmire]

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

And you most likely wouldn't understand any of them.

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?

First off, acquaint yourself with the meaning of the words "Scholar" and "Consensus".

Once you've done that we can go from there.

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?

Nope. You were suggesting that "Conservative Christian" was somehow a synonym for Bible scholar. Again: you need to look up the word "scholar".

Once you do, if the problem still isn't clear to you, let me know and I'll do my best to explain.

Tried it. No luck so far.

The only thing you're trying here is everyone's patience.

 

[jelly]

And you most likely wouldn't understand any of them.



First off, acquaint yourself with the meaning of the words "Scholar" and "Consensus".

Once you've done that we can go from there.



Nope. You were suggesting that "Conservative Christian" was somehow a synonym for Bible scholar. Again: you need to look up the word "scholar".

Once you do, if the problem still isn't clear to you, let me know and I'll do my best to explain.



The only thing you're trying here is everyone's patience.

not everyone's patience is as limited as everyone elses...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:biglaugh:

Hey, at least when I poke out my chest and cockwalk around the forum, I realize that I am performing comedy.

If only everyone could see themselves so clearly.

 

[jelly]

Hey, at least when I poke out my chest and cockwalk around the forum, I realize that I am performing comedy.

If only everyone could see themselves so clearly.

this is turning into a re-run of hee-haw only better....
think this thread can get 5 times the views as posts?

 

[fallingblood]

Can someone just close/delete this thread? I really don't think it is going to go anywhere, and basically it has nothing to do with the OP anymore.