lukethethird
unknown member
Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark and elaborated on it, fan fiction as it were.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus
- Thread starter Thrillobyte
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Ok, ok, how about Johnny Appleseed? Both a legendary mythical story, and a real person.
Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia
lukethethird
unknown member
Big difference, in the case of Jesus we only have the storied fictional account, everything funnels down to Mark. Mark cannot be verified in any way, there are no non-religious writings of Jesus from the first century and no witnesses.Ok, ok, how about Johnny Appleseed? Both a legendary mythical story, and a real person.
Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Yeah, I know, but this is a real example of a person who was made into a mythical legendary figure. Traveled around, and stories were made up about him.
OK, here's another one:
Ichabod Crane and the headless horseman? Ichabod was a real person.
Who Was the Real Ichabod Crane? (Published 2015)
Answering questions about the basis of a famous character in Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” and the scene of the first bloodshed in the American Revolution
lukethethird
unknown member
There may have been a Jesus but with what we have we just don't know. With your examples we perhaps do know and make the connections but not with Jesus, Jesus is an unknown.Yeah, I know, but this is a real example of a person who was made into a mythical legendary figure. Traveled around, and stories were made up about him.
OK, here's another one:
Ichabod Crane and the headless horseman? Ichabod was a real person.
Who Was the Real Ichabod Crane? (Published 2015)
Answering questions about the basis of a famous character in Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” and the scene of the first bloodshed in the American Revolutionwww.nytimes.com
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Quite a difference. It is getting late and I will go over later what scholars, historians, and evidence shows about the existence of Jesus. Plus much more is written about Jesus and his appearance in Israel than Johnny Appleseed. I kind of liked the idea when I was in school in that he planted apple seeds all around but what records really are there about him?Ok, ok, how about Johnny Appleseed? Both a legendary mythical story, and a real person.
Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I thought the account of the headless horseman was interesting, wondering especially how did the author come up with that, but I didn't give that much thought to it. Maybe all told about 30 minutes in my life if that much. I don't think lives changed much because of Ichabod Crane but maybe they did and I didn't learn about it.Yeah, I know, but this is a real example of a person who was made into a mythical legendary figure. Traveled around, and stories were made up about him.
OK, here's another one:
Ichabod Crane and the headless horseman? Ichabod was a real person.
Who Was the Real Ichabod Crane? (Published 2015)
Answering questions about the basis of a famous character in Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” and the scene of the first bloodshed in the American Revolution
OK, I think it probably was more like 15 minutes. Maybe 10. Adding on a few due to this discussion but not really wondering much about it, thinking it was just a crazy story and wondering why someone would write such a stupid story anyway.
Augustus
…
The life of Muhammad.
All secular scholars would consider it to contain numerous non-factual stories, but pretty much all would consider it to be based around some degree of truth (range goes from mostly theological myth to mostly fact if you take away the supernatural stuff).
The Alexander Romance, again mostly myth but based on a kernel of historical truth.
Hagiographies were fantastical accounts of (mostly) real people.
Honestly much of ancient history is a mix of fact and narrative fiction, and ancient biographies were written to illustrate character rather than record factual events. People would invent scenarios and contrive events to make whatever point they wanted the hero to make.
lukethethird
unknown member
True, though each has to be approached on a case by case basis. A few religious origins are based on dubious sources so no surprise about questions surrounding what we can know of Muhammad.
PureX
Veteran Member
I have already done so many times on many threads. But the religion haters here never learn because their bias has them so invested in their ignorance that they're unwilling to give it up. Cultural myths are a combination of historical fact and ideological fiction. And the older they are, the more impossible it is to tell which is which. And none of that even matters since their historicity has nothing to do with the purpose or importance of the myth. But you will continue to ignore this and continue to claim that because it can't be proven accurate in every detail, that it's all completely 'false', and should therefor be disregarded and dismissed. Because that's what you wanted to do with the story all along.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
The answer to that is very simple and easy to understand once you accept that the point of the story is IDEOLOGICAL, not historical. So that when people accept the ideals the story presents them as true, they then also tend to accept the historical illusion as true, as well (the suspension of disbelief that accompanies all story-telling). Because they simply don't care about the historical aspects of the story being factual.
YOU care about this because YOU ignore the ideological importance of the story, leaving you with nothing else but the history to focus on. Even though that is not the purpose of the story and has nothing to do with it's validity. So for YOU, the fact that we can't prove the historicity negates the veracity of the story. But to everyone else, none of that even matters.
Welcome to the human condition. What DON'T we humans interpret individually and then debate and argue about?
Augustus
…
From Pythagoras and Socrates to Emperor Frederick II to Abraham Lincoln, we have real people with fantastical elements to their narratives.
On their own, fictitious elements to a narrative are so common they have minimal impact on the perceived existence of those from the past, especially in ancient history.
But as you say, we do need to take them on a case by case basis.
Audie
Veteran Member
Something so utterly predictable and typical is
surprising to you.
Fits with believing most anything.
Audie
Veteran Member
Given the wealth of bible- nonsense there's no need to
make things up.
Look at what's become of those who have relied on it. They did their part - submitted, prayed, read their Bibles, went to church, tithed, wore a cross, etc.. They weren't rewarded in life more than those who lived without religion, but they were told that the payoff comes after death. How many got an afterlife? How many met a god? How many got into heaven? None that you or anybody else knows of, but as long as people are willing to believe that promise, the religion will persist however unreliable those promises.
It has the opposite effect for me. We can see the legend of Jesus evolving beginning with Mark and with new source material being added to both Luke and Matthew.
The biblical myths were originally told as literal historical fact, the questioning of which would be considered blasphemy. As recently as a century ago, Scopes challenged the teachings of the church and was roundly rebuked by people who did not consider the creation myth symbolic, but rather, historical fact being challenged by upstart science - the same reaction Luther had to Copernicus.
Biblical mythology is the vehicle for some very toxic ideas about mankind that directly oppose humanistic principles.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I often hear people say that if it wasn’t real, people would have said so, but the Bible shows people saying so.
Why tell me that? It is your fellow religious folk that believe the gospels, and even the whole Bible, is literal history. I suggest you set them straight.
And can you understand that these people are adopting this type of interpretation as much as they are adopting the habit of religious belief?
Is that right? What ideological importance am I missing? Have I ever denied that religious belief doesn't assign importance to various types of Christian ideology? Heck, I acknowledge the many tens of thousands of sects that each have their own "ideological importance". I make no bones about the fact that it is groups of Christians who have decided, or adopted, frameworks and ideas they deem important. Let's note they are important because their social community has decided they are imorrtant, not because they are naturally important.
Clean water and safe food is naturally important. Shelter is important. Health is important. The idea that "Jesus saves"? Well, it's important for the ego, and identity, and meaning, but disposable, and replaceable.
It's worse than not being able to prove the history" of the supernatural bits of the Jesus myth, it's that those elements are implausible. There is no data, no experiences, no observations of any supernatural phenomenon existing in our universe. It is VASTLY more likely that these elements were invented by humans at a time in history where embellishment and legend was common. I don;t deny that there are many humans who have unconsciously conformed to religion, and adopted ideas that they would not likley believe if they were presented outside the pressure of social experience. The Ashe experiments show how easily and quickly humans adopt untrue ideas from their peers, and religion is just the biggest example of this.
The fact that cake is delicious.
Your comment here is your usual vague misdirection. If humans were uniformly wise, educated, emotionally intelligent, they would be seeking truth accross the board. Science leads the way in determining what is true about the universe. There is a way for we humans to determine true from false, and many have little interest in knowing what is true. Religion? Qanon? Biased media? Among other areas of human thought, there is a lot of work spent creating false and irrational conclusions about our human experience. Critical thinkers ahve an easier time with this, but the religious folk we debate have little interest in understanding how their religious beliefs are unlikley true as they believe it. They want the comfort of their illusion, and fight to maintain their prison of illusion even though they are shown the door to freedom. I find this really interesting. Is it that believers won't walk away from religion, or is there something they can't do anything about?
Last edited:
Thrillobyte
Active Member
You don't hear an argument from me. I think all 4 gospels should be dismissed as any sort of credible evidence Jesus was real, RR or no. All credible scholars label them as testimonies of faith, not historical evidence of Jesus. As testimonies of faith, anything goes no matter how wild and wacky the narrative might read, even to talking crosses marching out of the cave. Now there's one you won't find in the RR scale.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not ask him what he meant? Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am. You are probably "satisfied" because it is always easier to defeat a strawman rather than one's actual argument. If one can steelman a person's case and still show it to be wrong then one has something. If one can only defeat a strawman that person often makes a joke of himself.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So instead of elucidating the difference, you've attempted to denigrate me instead and display your inability to read minds. Cool beans!
The historicity of the story matters very, very much to many people. Apparently you haven't noticed.