The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[Oberon]

How silly! What is the point of that statement?

To point out the flaw in the logic "a narrative must be fiction because it contains myth." Ancient histories contained myth. Just because the gospels contain miracles and myth doesn't mean they don't record history. It means they can't be accepted uncritically, but then neither can any ancient historical text.

 

[dogsgod]

To point out the flaw in the logic "a narrative must be fiction because it contains myth." Ancient histories contained myth. Just because the gospels contain miracles and myth doesn't mean they don't record history. It means they can't be accepted uncritically, but then neither can any ancient historical text.

Straw man. No one made such an argument, the quote is fictitious just as your so called historical Jesus is fiction.

 

[Oberon]

Straw man. No one made such an argument, the quote is fictitious just as your so called historical Jesus is fiction.

Right:

There are no historical facts regarding the Jesus of the gospels. Jesus is a religious figure without historical merit. The gospels are a narrative, they tell a story about the Son of God, and I hate to be the one to burst the bubble but, God doesn't really have any children. God is imaginary, invisible, and there are no facts regarding his existence either. So sorry.

There is a narrative about Augustus Caesar, describing him as the son of god too. The point is, both the gospels and our sources for Augustus are in the genre of ancient history.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think we've made a good enough argument that the historical Jesus existed

I personally doubt his existence. Notice I said "personally"...? I have no problem with an outspoken charismatic activist preaching a message of love and tolerance. However...I doubt he was the god/man working slight of hand and performing other supposed magical works as attributed to him by the bible.......but I have seen no more than educated guesses of his existence....

and claimed to be the essence of God in the flesh.

That is a matter of what you believe. It is a matter of theological debate not necessary for this particular thread. Additionally the supposed divinity of the biblical Yeshua is not in question.

As far as the miracles go, if you totally throw the supernatural out of the equation, you will never have an open heart and mind to believe.

Throwing them out is easy for the sake of this discussion because it really isn't important.

Regarding the other gods you refer to, if there was the weight of evidence for those beings that I outlined in my argument for Jesus and His deity, we would acknowledge. The problem is it doesn't exist.

There is just as much evidence for the existence of gods of other faiths as yours.

 

[dogsgod]

Right:



There is a narrative about Augustus Caesar, describing him as the son of god too. The point is, both the gospels and our sources for Augustus are in the genre of ancient history.

Your problem is the inability to discern fiction from non fiction.

 

[Oberon]

.......but I have seen no more than educated guesses of his existence....

Maybe you should do some research.

 

[Oberon]

Your problem is the inability to discern fiction from non fiction.

Right. Because when Augustus Caesar is said to be the son of god, that is non-fiction. When Jesus is said to be the son of god, that is fiction. Despite the fact that Jesus was known of by Josephus, and that Paul knew his disciples, and that we have a number of early histories describing his mission.

Mithras, Dionysus, Isis, etc, all these myths have no such historical attestation. Mark places Jesus in Galilee merely 35 or so years before composition. Mark may even have been alive during the events he describes. Certainly Paul was. There is no myth with that kind of closeness (chronologically and geographically) to the myth descibed.

 

[McBell]

Maybe you should do some research.

There is a difference between research and ratification.
Problem is that far to many people think that their ratification is research.

 

[McBell]

There is no myth with that kind of closeness (chronologically and geographically) to the myth descibed.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Oberon]

There is a difference between research and ratification.
Problem is that far to many people think that their ratification is research.

Anybody who has done even a cursory reading in historical Jesus scholarship would be aware that we have more information confirming (at the least) Jesus' historicity than for the vast majority of ancient historical figures. This is why the skeptics are so few and largely non-experts. There is simply too much material attesting to his existence.

 

[McBell]

Anybody who has done even a cursory reading in historical Jesus scholarship would be aware that we have more information confirming (at the least) Jesus' historicity than for the vast majority of ancient historical figures. This is why the skeptics are so few and largely non-experts. There is simply too much material attesting to his existence.

Yes.
You will find exactly what you are looking if you are merely ratifying your beliefs.

Of course, this works both ways.
Did a man named Jesus live during the appropriate time period?
I would be highly surprised if there wasn't at least one man named Jesus back then.
But the thing is...
So what?
So it isn't hard to believe that someone named Jesus lived then.

In fact, Based on the likes of David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Etc. I do not find it difficult at all to believe that the man named Jesus had a cult following.

In fact, given the superstitious nature of people back then, I do not find it difficult to believe that the followers of the Jesus led cult believed 100% that he was the son of god/god himself.

Though the interesting thing is that I do not put much stock in the appeal to popularity/divinity argument.

 

[Oberon]

Yes.
You will find exactly what you are looking if you are merely ratifying your beliefs.

I was less inclined to believe in the historicity of Jesus prior to grad school. I didn't "find" what I was looking for. I evaluated the evidence.

Of course, this works both ways.
Did a man named Jesus live during the appropriate time period?
I would be highly surprised if there wasn't at least one man named Jesus back then.
But the thing is...
So what?
So it isn't hard to believe that someone named Jesus lived then.

It isn't a matter of "someone" named Jesus, but rather a specific jesus of nazareth who formed the basis for the sect which produced the NT.

 

[McBell]

It isn't a matter of "someone" named Jesus, but rather a specific jesus of nazareth who formed the basis for the sect which produced the NT.

Now you are merely proving my ratification point.

I am not overly fond of trying to have conversations with fanatics.

 

[Oberon]

Now you are merely proving my ratification point.

I am not overly fond of trying to have conversations with fanatics.

Interesting. A fanatic whose only obsession is trying to get others at least acknowledge the basis from whicha certain area of scholarship builds. I don't believe, and have not defended, messianic or divine claims concerning Jesus. I have yet to even go beyond the basic fact that he was a person whose teachings and mission formed the basis for the sect which produced the NT. If that makes me a fanatic, then I guess I am.

That won't stop me from interjecting into topics of which I am actually well informed to correct basic misconceptions.

 

[McBell]

Interesting. A fanatic whose only obsession is trying to get others at least acknowledge the basis from whicha certain area of scholarship builds. I don't believe, and have not defended, messianic or divine claims concerning Jesus. I have yet to even go beyond the basic fact that he was a person whose teachings and mission formed the basis for the sect which produced the NT. If that makes me a fanatic, then I guess I am.

That won't stop me from interjecting into topics of which I am actually well informed to correct basic misconceptions.

Interesting how you are so quick to always assume I am speaking about you.

Most revealing it is.

 

[Oberon]

Interesting how you are so quick to always assume I am speaking about you.

You quoted me.

Most revealing it is.

A syntax found in no language except one: Yoda's.

 

[McBell]

You quoted me.

That is because I was replying to your post.

A syntax found in no language except one: Yoda's.

ROTFLMFAO

You should really do stand up comedy.

 

[Oberon]

That is because I was replying to your post.

Is it any wonder then I thought you were referring to me?

ROTFLMFAO

You should really do stand up comedy.

Thank you. It was a joke. Although it is a true statement. The particular syntax associated with Yoda (e.g. told you I did) is unique to him. It is not found in any actual language.

 

[Mr Cheese]

It's impossible to prove that something didn't exist . . . lol
If you would want us to prove the 'Christian' (there are other bibles you know?) Bible is not an authoritative word of God, then 'you' will first need to prove there is this God, then we can work to disprove that these gospels were in fact written by men with the intent to initiate and solidify a new sect of Jewish religion while promising political and emotional control over its subjects.

exactly....

this whole thread is an exercise in "what if....."

and should be treated as such.....

but of course the usual suspects from this forum have decided its time to proclaim their ideas are correct and no one else's are.... (because they have read journals, or they believe talking spider monkeys...or whatever wonderful justification for pretending opinions are superior to one another)

 

[blueman]

exactly....

this whole thread is an exercise in "what if....."

and should be treated as such.....

but of course the usual suspects from this forum have decided its time to proclaim their ideas are correct and no one else's are.... (because they have read journals, or they believe talking spider monkeys...or whatever wonderful justification for pretending opinions are superior to one another)

My belief is what it is. I believe it to be true and have never said it was superior to anyone. The main thing I've stressed is come to the table with rational argurments based on research and fact, not the "This is ludicrous or rubbish defense".