Was Jesus real?

[Windwalker]

Yes, I believe that is the hope. Personally, I wouldn't go on a wild goose chase like that if the chances of finding the goose are at best 0%, but hey, if somebody is that passionate about it, let them go ahead. It's not really harming anyone, and we have the choice to ignore it or not. Certainly, as someone totally detached from Christianity, I don't really care what people want to do with their lives, although I can think of somewhat more productive things to do.

This is somewhat the point I was trying to make. Somehow, the teachings are not evaluated on their own, and either they are embraced because someone believes Jesus was a historical person, or rejected if not. This makes no sense to me, actually.

I've asked born again Christians (of the fundamentalist sort), that if they found there was no afterlife, would they still follow Jesus? I'm surprised (not really, actually), by how many say they wouldn't. This to me says that the teachings, are not personally meaningful to them, but rather are viewed a magical things that if they just follow them they'll get rewarded by not having to die and get a big house in the sky, or some other narcissistic pursuit. The entire thing is external to them, and teachings of personal guidance are not about their internal person and quality of life, and most certainly not about love of others.

And so, to say that if Jesus wasn't an actual historical person it means we can just throw away the teachings and get on with it, what does that say? Isn't that really just the same thing, on the other side of the coin? Searching for some other magic pill to look to outside ourselves to save us from our own misery?

 

[Vinayaka]

This is somewhat the point I was trying to make. Somehow, the teachings are not evaluated on their own, and either they are embraced because someone believes Jesus was a historical person, or rejected if not. This makes no sense to me, actually.

I've asked born again Christians (of the fundamentalist sort), that if they found there was no afterlife, would they still follow Jesus? I'm surprised (not really, actually), by how many say they wouldn't. This to me says that the teachings, are not personally meaningful to them, but rather are viewed a magical things that if they just follow them they'll get rewarded by not having to die and get a big house in the sky, or some other narcissistic pursuit. The entire thing is external to them, and teachings of personal guidance are not about their internal person and quality of life, and most certainly not about love of others.

And so, to say that if Jesus wasn't an actual historical person it means we can just throw away the teachings and get on with it, what does that say? Isn't that really just the same thing, on the other side of the coin? Searching for some other magic pill to look to outside ourselves to save us from our own misery?

Personally, I don't view it as a this or that situation. I view it as irrelevant. But I agree that to take steady belief in one or the other makes life rather external. The mind is the mind, and where we choose (or are led) within that stratum varies a lot.

 

[steeltoes]

There's no historical evidence that Socrates actually has walked the earth, he could've just been a made up, fictional character by Plato.

But the importance of Socrates was the ideas attributed to him, and the same with Jesus.

Very true, it appears to have been a long standing tradition to assign all kinds of teachings and sayings to Jesus as evidenced by the sayings Gospel of Thomas and the Q sayings.

 

[steeltoes]

Which comes back to the question I asked earlier. Why is it important to disprove Jesus was an actual historical person? What does this hope to accomplish? Can someone answer that?

Jesus could very well have been an historical person but unfortunately some people get carried away with their own importance by claiming to have read enough to know for certain. There is nothing to accomplish by such boasts of pride nor is there anything to accomplish by trying to disprove Jesus was an actual historical person. However, it is possible to come to differing conclusions. Seeing what appears to be a mythical Christ at the beginnings of Christianity is not necessarily a means of disproving anything, it's just a another view of the literature leading to a different conclusion than those that see that an historical person is necessarily lurking behind the myth.

 

[Windwalker]

Seeing what appears to be a mythical Christ at the beginnings of Christianity is not necessarily a means of disproving anything, it's just a another view of the literature leading to a different conclusion than those that see that an historical person is necessarily lurking behind the myth.

I can grant it is another way of understanding history, and perhaps has some value towards understanding the evolution and value of the teachings themselves. But I tend to see many who use it as a means to say "It's all bull chips". It almost has a 'debunking religion' agenda, and thus why some seem so insistent it's all myth (as though that were the meaning of myth), as though it were the Truth!, with a capital T, and all the ensuing zeal proving their position as that Truth.

In other words, it's not a question for academia, but for those deciding what to believe, or disbelieve, operating on a religious level.

 

[steeltoes]

I can grant it is another way of understanding history, and perhaps has some value towards understanding the evolution and value of the teachings themselves. But I tend to see many who use it as a means to say "It's all bull chips". It almost has a 'debunking religion' agenda, and thus why some seem so insistent it's all myth (as though that were the meaning of myth), as though it were the Truth!, with a capital T, and all the ensuing zeal proving their position as that Truth.

In other words, it's not a question for academia, but for those deciding what to believe, or disbelieve, operating on a religious level.

I haven't come across the 'debunking religion' agenda as much as I have seen the accusations of that coming from those that advocate an historical Jesus. I don't think there is any real truth to it with perhaps the odd exception. I've come across the accusations of "anti-religious" on the internet but never from books written by scholars on either side of the historical/myth question. edit; I shouldn't say never, Erhman equates questioning the historical Jesus with holocaust denial.

 

[outhouse]

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you about the historicity of Jesus is an ignorant dumb*ss? Or at least 99.99% of those who disagree with you? They fit the nasty descriptions which Legion has been posting here lately?

I'll tell you what I think. It seems to me that 99.99% of all Jesus Realers are feeling backed up against the wall lately and that's why all the ugliness. People who are confident in their views and education do not speak as Legion speaks to those who oppose him.

Its hard to beat Legions education, never met a more well read person yet who retains the information on a wide subject variety. Dude has a rare high IQ that most of us are not lucky enough to possess.

I dont say they are ignorant, you know who I argue with daily. But 99.9999% is sort of factual. outside of a few safe haven blogs and forums they have no support and for the most part, they are untrained.

You have to ask yourself why Price and Carrier are the only two that have real credentials and popularity. Poor Carrier is losing those quickly now that he has finally jumped off the middle of the road he used to hide in.

I agree apologetic scholars have no real say so.


The reason mythicism fails drastically isnt th untrained people who have doubts. Its the fact they cant explain away "a martyred man at passover who died on a cross fighting for the poor people who viewed his death as the untimate sacrifice.

Times were bad, very bad for traditional Jews, and the divisions in Hellensitic Judaism were ready to break free, and with the fall of the temple some 40 years later the division was solidified.

It was a perfect storm that makes perfect sense without any leaps of imagination required by mythicism.


Traditional scholarships are far from backed to a wall, that really is laughable

 

[outhouse]

I haven't come across the 'debunking religion' agenda as much as I have seen the accusations of that coming from those that advocate an historical Jesus. I don't think there is any real truth to it with perhaps the odd exception. I've come across the accusations of "anti-religious" on the internet but never from books written by scholars on either side of the historical/myth question. edit; I shouldn't say never, Erhman equates questioning the historical Jesus with holocaust denial.

I ignore biblical Jesus followers for the most part, unless im really bored.

They do not have any real historal legs to stand on

 

[sojourner]

Very true, it appears to have been a long standing tradition to assign all kinds of teachings and sayings to Jesus as evidenced by the sayings Gospel of Thomas and the Q sayings.

And, by all accounts, a very, very early tradition. The Thomas and Q source appears to be dated from before the year 40 c.e. -- less than 10 years following the crucifixion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And, by all accounts, a very, very early tradition. The Thomas and Q source appears to be dated from before the year 40 c.e. -- less than 10 years following the crucifixion.

I'm going to disagree with that unless someone can explain to me how we know that the sayings originally began with "Jesus said" rather than "Christ said" or "Mithra said". I asked you about that elsewhere but didn't see an answer.

 

[outhouse]

I'm going to disagree with that unless someone can explain to me how we know that the sayings originally began with "Jesus said" rather than "Christ said" or "Mithra said". I asked you about that elsewhere but didn't see an answer.

We dont know.

The thing I take away is people believed a real man said these things. Gmark was a complation as well as the other gospels, and each segment they believed in a real man that died for their sins.

Again, no one has ever overcome a martyred man at passover that died on a cross which was viewed as a sacrifice for the common poor man being taken advantage of by Herod and his cronies running the temple.

The only reason the Romans didnt crush the temple sooner was because it was their cash cow

 

[Windwalker]

I haven't come across the 'debunking religion' agenda as much as I have seen the accusations of that coming from those that advocate an historical Jesus.

I have, and you're not going to be able to lump me into any "defend the faith" crowd. Maybe they don't realize it themselves, but one does have to ask the question why so many that are atheists are so quick to sign up for this, while at its heart it is a religious question? Why should they care so much? Why should you see these 'fan boys' coming out of the Achyra S camps whose understanding of things gleaned from her much be right at all costs? That's so very strange to me, for people that already don't believe. Isn't it?

I have my thoughts as to why this is so, but I'll wait to share those if anyone cares to hear them.

I don't think there is any real truth to it with perhaps the odd exception.

Actually, I think its more the rule based on what I've seen and myself have gotten embroiled in discussions with others elsewhere. In this discussion, I'm approaching this from another angle, since I know the types of responses Legion is getting. He can do a better job than I in making these points. My experience was all sorts of logic fallacies of "appeal to authority" and whatnot leveled at me for citing qualified scholars, when in fact it is entirely correct to cite those who are authorities in the subject matter at hand! "Oh, but they have an agenda!," and whatnot sorts of less-than-critical analysis responses. I'm simply looking at this more from a birds-eye view, on philosopical grounds as opposed to trying to argue upstream against a decision that's already been made in their minds, aka, a religious belief.

Yet even then, the one person who did engage there ended up trying to debunk me by discrediting me as some sort of so-called "born again" fundamentalist type! I laughed when the exact same thing was leveled at Legion for daring to say Jesus was historical! What is that? You think this is reasoned dialog? If not, then my point above stands. It has an agenda itself.

I've come across the accusations of "anti-religious" on the internet but never from books written by scholars on either side of the historical/myth question. edit; I shouldn't say never, Erhman equates questioning the historical Jesus with holocaust denial.

Erhman is more outspoken. Most scientists don't bother with Creationist arguments either because they are uniformed and largely baseless. Only Dawkins took that on, and it's gained him a lot of love from the popular neo-atheist crowd. Which raises that point as well. Dawkins is cited as an authority on the ridiculousness of religion, as if he had any actual understanding beyond just popularized nonsense. I'm telling you, it seems no different to me than those who cite God's Word as proving their beliefs. Flip side of the same religious coin of looking to validate themselves through correct beliefs; "I have God's word! I have Scientific evidence!". No different.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Its hard to beat Legions education, never met a more well read person yet who retains the information on a wide subject variety. Dude has a rare high IQ that most of us are not lucky enough to possess.

We'll have to disagree about Legion, and that's all I'll say. But I welcome him to address me directly about the historical Jesus or any other issue.

You have to ask yourself why Price and Carrier are the only two that have real credentials and popularity. Poor Carrier is losing those quickly now that he has finally jumped off the middle of the road he used to hide in.

Who the heck cares? I realize that the Jesus Game is a big part of your life, but I'm not interested in 'realer' or 'mythicist' scholars. You spoke of 'mythicists' as ignorant dumb******. But I've seen 'mythicists' easily kick your butt in historical Jesus debates.

Sorry. I'm really sorry to have to say that. But I am so tired of the 'Realer' crowd and its continual personal insults against anyone who dares to doubt the historical Jesus.

What is it that makes you guys get so ugly?

The reason mythicism fails drastically isnt th untrained people who have doubts. Its the fact they cant explain away "a martyred man at passover who died on a cross fighting for the poor people who viewed his death as the untimate sacrifice.

You are like a dense hedge to me, outhouse. Again I apologize, but really I cannot penetrate very much of the verbiage you post. I still love you and all. But, jeez, I can't tell what you are on about sometimes.

Traditional scholarships are far from backed to a wall, that really is laughable.

Bring your champion Jesus realer here. I will have my easy way with him. My IQ is off all known charts, you know. Unmeasurable.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yet even then, the one person who did engage there ended up trying to debunk me by discrediting me as some sort of so-called "born again" fundamentalist type!

Oh my God. You can't be serious. My point cannot have whizzed that far over your head.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh my God. You can't be serious. My point cannot have whizzed that far over your head.

You lost my attention when you went the path of citing magical pink elephants (a typical rhetoric of atheists engaging fundis) as any sort of comparison to what I was saying, and I only bothered to glance a little further to see you say what I was saying sounds just like the born-again Christians you know. You slipped down a few notches actually to the bottom rung, of the ladder I was talking with you on. As I said, you weren't talking to me but some imaginary fundi you must think I am. I expected more.

If you wish to engage with me, you should set those ideas out of your mind and engage with a bit more sophistication than that level of argument.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We dont know.

OK, then sojourner has no point here. But maybe he disagrees with you about our ability to know to whom the Thomas sayings were attributed in those early days.

The thing I take away is people believed a real man said these things. Gmark was a complation as well as the other gospels, and each segment they believed in a real man that died for their sins.

Disagree. Mark was a work of fiction, and Matthew and Luke were revisions of that original fiction. (I like this. It's fun to make bold assertions about things we can't possibly know!)

Again, no one has ever overcome a martyred man at passover that died on a cross which was viewed as a sacrifice for the common poor man being taken advantage of by Herod and his cronies running the temple.

No idea what you are talking about. Sorry. You're welcome to try again, with smaller words, though.

 

[outhouse]

You spoke of 'mythicists' as ignorant dumb******. But I've seen 'mythicists' easily kick your butt in historical Jesus debates.
.

The only one who has superceeded my knowledge has been Spin and DC, and DC isnt a myther so to speak. Stephan I like a lot but his knowledge is stronger on the church fathers more thne a HJ


Ive also stopped Earl in his tracks


You have to admit, mountainman, chili, AA and a few of the others are a embarrassment to any forum.


Uneducted in general terms does not equate to your statement.

What is it that makes you guys get so ugly?

You dont take any of this debate stuff serious do you?

Its like Toto, she barks a lot and like a mythicist, she attacks opponents better then she can provide a stance on a topic.

but really I cannot penetrate very much of the verbiage you post.

I can't tell what you are on about sometimes.

And if you understood where I was coming from it would be crystal clear. Legion hasnt msit a word yet.

. Again I apologize, I still love you and all. But, jeez,

Its all good. I dont care what side of the fence your on personally, your a brother in here learning more about religion. Thats the context I carry.


All I want is the truth, and so far no mythicist has provided a decent explanation for the scripture we are left with. carries new math book is a Joke, Price and his 3 pillars are easily refuteable and he is a genius himself.

 

[steeltoes]

I have, and you're not going to be able to lump me into any "defend the faith" crowd. Maybe they don't realize it themselves, but one does have to ask the question why so many that are atheists are so quick to sign up for this, while at its heart it is a religious question? Why should they care so much? Why should you see these 'fan boys' coming out of the Achyra S camps whose understanding of things gleaned from her much be right at all costs? That's so very strange to me, for people that already don't believe. Isn't it?

I have my thoughts as to why this is so, but I'll wait to share those if anyone cares to hear them.

I have rarely come across anyone defending Achyra S so I wouldn't know.

Actually, I think its more the rule based on what I've seen and myself have gotten embroiled in discussions with others elsewhere. In this discussion, I'm approaching this from another angle, since I know the types of responses Legion is getting. He can do a better job than I in making these points. My experience was all sorts of logic fallacies of "appeal to authority" and whatnot leveled at me for citing qualified scholars, when in fact it is entirely correct to cite those who are authorities in the subject matter at hand! "Oh, but they have an agenda!," and whatnot sorts of less-than-critical analysis responses. I'm simply looking at this more from a birds-eye view, on philosopical grounds as opposed to trying to argue upstream against a decision that's already been made in their minds, aka, a religious belief.

Citing scholars as in quoting their actual argument in their own words when discussing a particular aspect is one thing, but historical Jesus advocates here have been known to take appeals to authority to another level altogether, a level that is totally fallacious.

Yet even then, the one person who did engage there ended up trying to debunk me by discrediting me as some sort of so-called "born again" fundamentalist type! I laughed when the exact same thing was leveled at Legion for daring to say Jesus was historical! What is that? You think this is reasoned dialog? If not, then my point above stands. It has an agenda itself.

Yes, Legion has called me a Christian fundamentalist too, so I know what you mean.

Erhman is more outspoken. Most scientists don't bother with Creationist arguments either because they are uniformed and largely baseless. Only Dawkins took that on, and it's gained him a lot of love from the popular neo-atheist crowd. Which raises that point as well. Dawkins is cited as an authority on the ridiculousness of religion, as if he had any actual understanding beyond just popularized nonsense. I'm telling you, it seems no different to me than those who cite God's Word as proving their beliefs. Flip side of the same religious coin of looking to validate themselves through correct beliefs; "I have God's word! I have Scientific evidence!". No different.

Yes, I agree, in some ways it is no different.

 

[steeltoes]

Ive also stopped Earl in his tracks

I doubt it, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so cough it up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You lost my attention when you went the path of citing magical pink elephants (a typical rhetoric of atheists engaging fundis) as any sort of comparison to what I was saying,...

Sorry but my opinion differs. I think my comparison was frightening. You were claiming mystical knowledge and spoke of your special knowledge. Here's your quote: Think of it like this. If you've never had a love relationship with another person, you would have no knowledge of what that looks like to those who do. It's not until you actually do, that you gain that knowledge yourself. And no amount of reading about it, analyzing it, creating models of it, etc will impart the knowledge that can only come one way, which is to actually enter into that experience and participate in it. .

I showed you that hallucinators tell the very same story as you tell. They just tell it about pink elephants rather than about love.

That's a frightening thing for me to say, I know, but I wanted to see your reaction. And so I did.

Isn't enlightenment all about letting go of ego?

Think of me as a tester of your claims.

You slipped down a few notches actually to the bottom rung, of the ladder I was talking with you on.

It's so interesting to watch how the enlightened behave in real life.

For all their claims of special knowledge, they do not seem at all distanced from their egos.

Just my perception of it, of course. I'm not speaking for God just now.