Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[dogsgod]

The risen Christ was not a man in the strictest sense of the word.

Lets look at this as it applies to a different figure. Julius Caesar, as we know, was fully human. There is no denying that. However, after his death, and his ascension, he was not considered human, but god. There is a transition after death.

When Jesus supposedly raises from the dead, he is no longer a man. At the point that he reveals himself to Paul, he has already ascended to heaven and thus become divine. It is this transition that no longer makes him a man.

Paul is not saying that Jesus was not a man. There is a distinct difference here.

Peter and James also have these revelations of a risen Christ so there would be nothing to gain on Paul's part, nor any reason to boast of his gospel as not coming from man, which this Jesus of Nazareth was, had the other apostles known the real deal. Also, Paul tells us that the crucifixion was known from scripture, that would be the OT. None of the epistle writers elude to anyone witnessing a crucifixion in their recent past. Throughout, Paul considers himself on a par with these apostles even though he claims to be a latecomer. I'm not as convinced that the Jesus of Nazareth written about after Paul's death is the same Jesus that Paul writes about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I accept that as it is worded James is a brother of Jesus, the problem is that, as I pointed out, it contradicts Gal 1: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. That is where the contradiction is ...

:biglaugh: Good grief ...

 

[fallingblood]

Peter and James also have these revelations of a risen Christ so there would be nothing to gain on Paul's part, nor any reason to boast of his gospel as not coming from man, which this Jesus of Nazareth was, had the other apostles known the real deal. Also, Paul tells us that the crucifixion was known from scripture, that would be the OT. None of the epistle writers elude to anyone witnessing a crucifixion in their recent past. Throughout, Paul considers himself on a par with these apostles even though he claims to be a latecomer. I'm not as convinced that the Jesus of Nazareth written about after Paul's death is the same Jesus that Paul writes about.

Peter/James and Paul were preaching to two different groups. Paul was not preaching to the disciples, he was not preaching to the Jews. He was preaching to the "Gentiles" as was agreed to by Paul and James. So there is reason for him to boast about his revelation. He needed to claim some sort of authority.

Also, Jesus was dead. So where is he going to get this authority from? He could be given authority by Peter, James, or some other disciple, but what would that make him? That would make him more of a student of that disciple. That is not what he wanted. He wanted to have the authority himself. So he stated that he got his message from Jesus, or the risen Christ.

Again, you have to look at this in terms of the time period in which it comes from. Jesus was dead, and ascended to heaven. He was no longer man per se. He had shed human flesh and become divine. So no, Jesus was not man per se as he was dead and supposedly risen.

Now what Old Testament are you talking about? The Old Testament, as known today, was not yet formed. We can look at different Jewish groups and clearly see that there was no accepted canon at that time. For instance, compare what scripture the Sadducees and Pharisees used. They were not the same. So you have to define what Old Testament you are referring to because simply, it did not exist as we know it.

 

[Oberon]

Peter and James also have these revelations of a risen Christ so there would be nothing to gain on Paul's part, nor any reason to boast of his gospel as not coming from man, which this Jesus of Nazareth was, had the other apostles known the real deal. Also, Paul tells us that the crucifixion was known from scripture, that would be the OT. None of the epistle writers elude to anyone witnessing a crucifixion in their recent past. Throughout, Paul considers himself on a par with these apostles even though he claims to be a latecomer. I'm not as convinced that the Jesus of Nazareth written about after Paul's death is the same Jesus that Paul writes about.

First, you still have failed to explain how paul claiming that he received the gospel from revelation contradicts knowing jesus' brother. Second, the only sources which claim peter and james experienced the risen christ also state jesus lived in their day as a human and their teacher. Finally, you keep focusing on an argument from silence with the epistles, which weren't written to provide a bio of jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Another point:

It is so painful to achieve the status of authority. 90% of submissions to scholarly journals are rejected because they do not meet the highest standard of proof and argument that give the journals their prestige.

The first journal article that I submitted was accepted, and I had to negotiate with the reviewers and the editor, making my argument better. That was a year ago.

My mentors strongly encouraged me to submit more articles, so I polished up four papers. I submitted two from my minor and two from my major.

Both papers from my minor have been rejected more than once, and I keep revising tweaking my thesis to make it stronger.

One paper from my major was rejected today and it was a kick in the balls, but I stand by the quality of my work and will keep trying.

I read more than 30,000 pages for chapter one of my dissertation, and had to re-write it three times and revise it more than I care to say. I am more focused now and read about 400 pages a day, spread out over five languages.

When people smarter and more experienced than me all review something and agree on a point, it carries a lot of weight... because they have typically thought about it a good deal and were corrected and screened by their peers.

It is unbelievably tough.

 

[Oberon]

At the very least, dogsgod (and other) have illustrated (perhaps even proved) some of the points I attempted to make by starting this thread. Certainly, I did not adequately address those determined to see Jesus as mythical, but a lot of the arguments mustered in support of this theory are what I tried to address in my first post on this thread.

To give a simplified (but accurate) overview of his arguments and "responses" to counter-arguments (some of which have been voiced by others, such as logician), and "reasons" for his position:

Argument: Paul can't be referring to Jesus' brother, because he claims to have received the gospel from no man, which contradicts his knowing Jesus' brother.

Counter: That isn't a contradiction. Even if Paul was being honest about never being taught the gospel or teachings of Jesus from any person, that doesn't mean he couldn't know Jesus' brother. We would have to assume that a) Jesus' brother knew all about the tradition and b) Paul felt it necessary to receive it from him. There is no support at all for the latter, and little for the former.

Response: .......

Argument: I have no stake in this, I just see the contradictions.

Counter: There is a contradiction between Paul's statement that he received the gospel from no man, and his a) staying so long "inquiring into" Peter, b) his citing Jesus' teaching on divorce as coming from Jesus, not him, and then citing another teaching in addition which he specifies as his own, not from Jesus, c) Paul admits to there being disciples before him, and to persecuting the church, so he had to have known something about it even before conversion.

Response: ........

Argument: We can't view Acts or the gospels as history, just look at all the unhistorical parts

Counter: That is par for the course for ancient history. We can look at the primary texts for history and for myth, and clearly see that the gospels and acts resemble ancient history, and certainly not myth. Yes, the gospels cannot be accepted as "gospel truth" by any critical historian. Neither can any work of ancient history. This doesn't preclude them from containing historical facts.

Response: ......

Argument: James can't be Jesus' brother, because according to Acts James was dead during the Galatians visit.

Counter: First, you claim that Acts is a piece of second century myth-making, and then use it as evidence. Second, you have to assume that Paul only made two trips, and that we can know which trip corresponds to which in acts and in Galatians. Only Paul never says he only visited Jerusalem twice, and neither does Acts. You can't claim a contradiction in the timeline, when you have to make up the timeline yourself.

Response: .........

Argument: Both references to Jesus in Josephus are forgeries.

Counter: Even if we ignore all the scholarship on the longer reference, there is no reason to suppose that the shorter is a forgery. There is nothing christian about it; in fact, it is UN-christian. Nor is there any other manuscript with a variant reading. Nor does it jar syntactically with the passage. And so forth.

Counter: .....

Argument: All "pretenders" have are appeals to authority and bandwagon theories.

Counter: Unless one is willing to throw out all of scholarship in every field, one must allow for arguments to be built off of previous scholarship, which are tested over time and are found lacking or found to be the best explanation. This is true for everything from biology to lingusitics to history. When so many arguments have been produced for so long by so many experts of such diverse backgrounds, appeals to this work is not just an "appeal to authority" it is an appeal to the arguments made over the past two centuries which, despite vast diversity in conclusions, all can agree that Jesus was historical.

Response: "Good for the majority."

So, as I said originally, part of the reason the mythicists theory stands is due to a lack of familiarity with actual scholarship and primary sources. The proponents tend to have read only popular works which support their view, compounded by websites.

However, I did fail to account for those who are simply attached to this view for whatever reason and are unwilling to critically view their position. After all, as I noted elsewhere, the same people who appealing to consensus do so when, for example, they maintain that all Matthew and Luke used Mark, a product of years of intense and critical study by scholars which has withstood the test of time, although serious works of scholarship have been published in recent years arguing against this view (which can't be said for the mythicist theory).

Certainly, I still believe that if the problems I outlined at the beginning of this thread (concerning a lack of relevant knowledge) could be overcome, many of those who buy into the mythicist position would change their view. However, it is clear that others are devoted to this view with as much faith as any literalist believer in the bible.

 

[dogsgod]

Let me explain this one last time so that even Oberon can understand. Paul states that the gospel he preached comes from no man, in other words, it comes from a sky god, a spiritual entity that lives in a heavenly realm and was crucified in a heavenly realm and was resurrected. Sky gods that live in heavenly realms do not have literal blood brothers that live on earth. It's a contradiction in terms. These works contain contradictions for any number of reasons, and they also are full of metaphors.

It's apparent that Oberon has issues with those that are sceptical of what he believes. He has now stooped to misrepresenting what I state in order to make straw man arguments based on things I never stated because a straw man is easy to tear down. There is no excuse for not using the quote format that he knows how to use and in stead misquotes me and makes up silly arguments that I never made in order to make me look foolish. There is no point in carrying on a discussion with one that purposefully misquotes another, it's pointless.

 

[Oberon]

Let me explain this one last time so that even Oberon can understand. Paul states that the gospel he preached comes from no man, in other words, it comes from a sky god, a spiritual entity that lives in a heavenly realm and was crucified in a heavenly realm and was resurrected.

You love contradictions. This view is contradicted by Paul's own words, who describes Jesus as descended from david according to the flesh.

This is without getting into all the reasons for your ignoring the contradictions between Paul's words here (I received the gospel from no man) and other parts of his epistles I outlined elsewhere. Again, you make up a contradiction to support your view, and ignore one which doesn't.

Sky gods that live in heavenly realms do not have literal blood brothers that live on earth. It's a contradiction in terms.

Again, invalid argument. Let us presume for a moment that Paul only recieved revelations from a risen Christ. Paul never calls Jesus a sky god. In fact, he distinguishes God from Jesus.

Paul's meaning, even if we assume it to be true, is quite clear: He received his authority from Christ. Now, he acknowledges he never followed the living Jesus, so the only way to gain this authority is by claiming that christ revealed himself to Paul (which he does). This in no way contradicts Jesus having a brother.

These works contain contradictions for any number of reasons, and they also are full of metaphors.

You have yet to produce a metaphor using the syntactic and formulaic method for kin identification.

It's apparent that Oberon has issues with those that are sceptical of what he believes.

Everyone is skeptical of what they don't believe. However, there are many issues many areas of scholarship which I concede are possible or plausible, although I don't agree. The mythicist argument simply isn't a part of scholarship, becuase all the scholars (excepting a tiny, tiny, minority) acccept it as more than adequately proven.

There is no excuse for not using the quote format that he knows how to use and in stead misquotes me and makes up silly arguments that I never made in order to make me look foolish.

\

It's called saving time. Anyone can look back on this thread (and others) and see you making the claims I state you make. You are so unfamiliar with the primary sources you even claimed Paul contradicted Jesus' teaching on divorce:

If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects,

He doesn't reject it. You don't know what you are talking about.

Which brings us to anoter fallacy of yours: ignore the genre of the text and its purpose (i.e. use the epistles to construct an argument from silence when they aren't designed to provide information about Jesus)

There is no point in carrying on a discussion with one that purposefully misquotes another, it's pointless.

Show where I misquote your views, and I will retract and/or modify my statements.

 

[Oberon]

He has now stooped to misrepresenting what I state in order to make straw man arguments based on things I never stated because a straw man is easy to tear down.

Feel free to point out where I misreprent your views, and I will retract or modify my statements. I summarized views you expressed throughout this thread because a) you make the same point more than once and b) it is far easier and more illuminating to summarize the views you express than to go through this and other threads and find precise quotes. But by all means, show where I am mistaken.

In the meantime, I will give direct quotes of a few of the points I made you claim I misrepresented:

This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions.

Yet you ignore the contradiction between Paul's claim to have relied solely on revelation, and all the contrary evidence I presented, which you failed to respond to.

Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,..."
7Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists."

As I framed your argument: "We can't view Acts or the gospels as history, just look at all the unhistorical parts"

And countered: That is par for the course for ancient history. We can look at the primary texts for history and for myth, and clearly see that the gospels and acts resemble ancient history, and certainly not myth. Yes, the gospels cannot be accepted as "gospel truth" by any critical historian. Neither can any work of ancient history. This doesn't preclude them from containing historical facts.

This is Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, Acts 21:18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present., but according to Acts 12:2, James the son of Zebedee is dead.

Counter: First, you claim that Acts is a piece of second century myth-making, and then use it as evidence. Second, you have to assume that Paul only made two trips, and that we can know which trip corresponds to which in acts and in Galatians. Only Paul never says he only visited Jerusalem twice, and neither does Acts. You can't claim a contradiction in the timeline, when you have to make up the timeline yourself.

The pretenders on this board provide worn out appeals to authority and popularity because they can't provide counter arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

Counter: First, you do the same:

Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark ... The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q.

This position is based on scholarly consensus. Furthermore, as I said before: Unless one is willing to throw out all of scholarship in every field, one must allow for arguments to be built off of previous scholarship, which are tested over time and are found lacking or found to be the best explanation. This is true for everything from biology to lingusitics to history. When so many arguments have been produced for so long by so many experts of such diverse backgrounds, appeals to this work is not just an "appeal to authority" it is an appeal to the arguments made over the past two centuries which, despite vast diversity in conclusions, all can agree that Jesus was historical."

In short, feel free to point out how I have misrepresented you. I have now taken the time to specifically quote some of those points I summarized period.

You haven't read the primary sources.
You aren't acquainted with the primary scholarship.
You make up contraditions, and ignore ones which support your view.

I fail to see how I have misrepresented you. So I have offered specific quotes.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

The arguments about the risen christ visiting Paul or even Constantine is problematic because in both cases they were visted by a luciferous light claiming to be Jesus. In Constantine's case he was asked to conquer by the sign of the cross (sign of death and destruction aka Mark of the beast)
Jesus admitted in [FONT=&quot](Matthew 10: 34-40 , [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Thomas Verse 16, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3:10 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]) that [/FONT]he was not the bringing peace but division, war, and destruction and admitted
being Lucifer in Rev 22:16 calling himself the Bright Morning Star.
Reasons why Rev 22:16 Bright Morning star admission by Jesus=Lucifer
1) [See here etymology of "Lucifer": "[ the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, THE Devil, fr. OE. fr. Latin, the morning star, fr. Lucifer light-bearing, fr. luc light + -fer -ferous--more at LIGHT]" (Webster's, p.677)
I Jesus am the bright morning star (Lucifer) Rev 22:16
2) Venus was known as symbolic of the 2 archangels for it's arch in the sky
the fallen arch was symboled by the morning star because it was the fallen arch of venus in the sky thus representing Lucifer's Fall it symbolized Lucifer. Evening star was the risen arch of Venus thus represented Michael the risen arch per Dan 12:1-4.
3) Jesus claiming to be the nemesis of the Evening Star Shalem was the Evening Star and YeruShalem is named after Shalem. YeruShalem means city of Shalem. the Hebrew G-d of Abraham had one of his described names in the name of the city YeruShalem.This is written in more then 3 places:The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemerating his name and essence. In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is refering to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.
YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 & Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23) The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place.
Conclusions: Jesus claimed to be the nemesis of the G0d of the Hebrews named in the city.
The legend has it the word Shalom(Salaam)=Peace came from Shalem (the Evening Star) at the anouncement of the death of the sun where then we will finally have peace. Jesus claims to be that bright shining one represented by the sun, he claims to be the adversary of the Evening Star or thief of the NIght.
Lastly everything in Isaiah 14:12-19 happened in the Jesus story so not only did he claim to be the adversary and fallen one of the Bible , his story fulfilled the fall of Lucifer.

(all my own research)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(all my own research)

:foryou:

 

[Oberon]

I was accused of the following:

He has now stooped to misrepresenting what I state in order to make straw man arguments based on things I never stated because a straw man is easy to tear down. There is no excuse for not using the quote format that he knows how to use and in stead misquotes me and makes up silly arguments that I never made in order to make me look foolish.

So, what follows is mainly a repeat of the points I made previously (with some new points) and was accused of misquoting. I have taken the time to get the actual quotes, so that instead of making dogsgod look foolish with my paraphrasing, his own wording can accomplish this task:



Argument: Paul can't be referring to Jesus' brother, because he claims to have received the gospel from no man, which contradicts his knowing Jesus' brother.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man and Paul states that he did not receive his gospel from a man. He claimed that he received his gospel from revelations of a risen Christ, his saviour in heaven. That is consistent with there being no Q parables or verses found in the epistles, but inconsistent with meeting a brother of Jesus.

Counter: There is no contradiction here. Even assuming Paul didn't receive the gospel from any person, that doesn't contradict his knowing Jesus' brother. Dogsgod's "contradiction" rests not only on deliberately overlooking an actual contradiction in Paul's claim, but on the assumption that a) James knew all about the "gospel of Jesus" and b) Paul would have felt it necessary to talk receive it from him. There is no support at all for the latter, and little for the former.

Response: ...

Argument:

... there [are] no Q parables or verses found in the epistles. If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects, but something meaningful.

Counter: First, dogsgod is simply and obviously wrong that Paul "rejects" Jesus' teaching on divorce. From 1 Cor. 7:10-12:"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." What he DOES do is distinguish his teaching from Jesus'. This is important for two reasons: 1) This teaching, contrary to what dogsgod asserts above, is found in Q (The Complete Gospels p. 294) Lk 16:18/Mt 5:32. So it shows that Paul knew something of Jesus' teachings. 2) If dogsgod is correct, and all of Jesus' teachings Paul knows are through revelation, then there would be no reason to distinguish Jesus' teaching on divorce from his own addition. Both could be attributed to revelation.

Additionally, there are other tidbits in Paul which hint directly or indirectly to his knowing more of the Jesus tradition than he writes about. For example, to again use an quote from Q used by Paul (which dogsgod asserts doesn't exist), Paul states in 1 Thess. 5:2 "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." We find a perfect Q parallel here with Lk:12:39-40/Mt 24:43-44.



Response: .......


Argument:

None of the epistle writers elude to anyone witnessing a crucifixion in their recent past.

If Paul spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth then one would expect him to be aware of his teachings, and not just a paltry opinion as it pertains to divorce which he rejects, but something meaningful.

Counter: As is so often brought up by mythicists, there is very little detail about Jesus' in any of the epistles. This is sort of like known events in WWII didn't exist by examining some select letters written by soldiers which don't mention them. You have to consider the genre. The epistles were not designed to relate Jesus' teachings or mission, but to address issues in specific communities.

Response ....

Argument:

Paul states that the gospel he preached comes from no man, in other words, it comes from a sky god, a spiritual entity that lives in a heavenly realm and was crucified in a heavenly realm and was resurrected. Sky gods that live in heavenly realms do not have literal blood brothers that live on earth.

This seems like a varient on the "there can't be a literal brother" nonsense. There is also:

The risen Christ the epistle writers describe is a mythical being, a saviour figure, a redeemer of mankind, a spirit that resides in the flesh of those that believe, a messenger between man and God that is revealed to the apostles through revelations, visions, therefor not an historical one. This is not an argument from silence, this is an argument from a reading of what the epistle writers explain.

Counter: First, Paul DOES state that Jesus was a being in the flesh, and he places his death at a specific period by the manner in which he was killed. Second, once again, the epistles aren't biographies. Finally, Paul never refers to Jesus as a "sky god" or a god at all. So clearly, even with the epistles, it is clear we are talking about a historical person who has been more or less deified. After all, it is well known that various emperors were historical, and then deified.

Response.....



Argument:

I have no dog in this fight. This is debate for debate sake, and for me it's all about contradictions.

Counter: There is a contradiction between Paul's statement that he received the gospel from no man, and his a) staying so long "inquiring into" Peter, b) his citing Jesus' teaching on divorce as coming from Jesus, not him, and then citing another teaching in addition which he specifies as his own, not from Jesus, c) Paul admits to there being disciples before him, and to persecuting the church, so he had to have known something about it even before conversion.

Response: ........

Argument:

Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,


7Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.

Counter: That is par for the course for ancient history. We can look at the primary texts for history and for myth, and clearly see that the gospels and acts resemble ancient history, and certainly not myth. Yes, the gospels cannot be accepted as "gospel truth" by any critical historian. Neither can any work of ancient history. This doesn't preclude them from containing historical facts.

Response: ......

Argument:

This is Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, Acts 21:18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present., but according to Acts 12:2, James the son of Zebedee is dead.

Counter: First, you claim that Acts is a piece of second century myth-making, and then use it as evidence. Second, you have to assume that Paul only made two trips, and that we can know which trip corresponds to which in acts and in Galatians. Only Paul never says he only visited Jerusalem twice, and neither does Acts. You can't claim a contradiction in the timeline, when you have to make up the timeline yourself.

Response: .........

Argument:

There's problems with the line [in Josephus],"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"

Counter: Even if we ignore all the scholarship on the longer reference, there is no reason to suppose that the shorter is a forgery. There is nothing christian about it; in fact, it is UN-christian. Nor is there any other manuscript with a variant reading. Nor does it jar syntactically with the passage. And so forth.

Counter: .....

Argument:

pretenders on this board provide worn out appeals to authority and popularity because they can't provide counter arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

Counter: First, this is exactly the method dogsgod uses, for example here:

Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q.

It was only by long, painstaking, arduous, and careful scrutiny by many, many experts that these theories became so widely accepted. The idea that the synoptics are dependent on one another is not obvious from simply reading them, particularly in translation. Sure, they share a lot of information, but they are about the same thing, so they ought to. Only after scholar after scholar after scholar put forth arguments and refuted counter-arguments did these theories gain such widespread acceptance.

Second, unless one is willing to throw out all of scholarship in every field, one must allow for arguments to be built off of previous scholarship, which are tested over time and are found lacking or found to be the best explanation. This is true for everything from biology to lingusitics to history. When so many arguments have been produced for so long by so many experts of such diverse backgrounds, appeals to this work is not just an "appeal to authority" it is an appeal to the arguments made over the past two centuries which, despite vast diversity in conclusions, all can agree that Jesus was historical.

Response:

Yeah for the majority.:clap

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(all my own research)

It shows.

 

[logician]

Let me explain this one last time so that even Oberon can understand. Paul states that the gospel he preached comes from no man, in other words, it comes from a sky god, a spiritual entity that lives in a heavenly realm and was crucified in a heavenly realm and was resurrected. Sky gods that live in heavenly realms do not have literal blood brothers that live on earth. It's a contradiction in terms. These works contain contradictions for any number of reasons, and they also are full of metaphors.

It's apparent that Oberon has issues with those that are sceptical of what he believes. He has now stooped to misrepresenting what I state in order to make straw man arguments based on things I never stated because a straw man is easy to tear down. There is no excuse for not using the quote format that he knows how to use and in stead misquotes me and makes up silly arguments that I never made in order to make me look foolish. There is no point in carrying on a discussion with one that purposefully misquotes another, it's pointless.

I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why no historiam contemporary to the time the supposed Jesus lived ever heard of such a man. And this Jesus was supposedly followed by multitudes who wanted to see the wonders he worked, and yet no historian seemed it important enough to take notice.

 

[Oberon]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why no historiam contemporary to the time the supposed Jesus lived ever heard of such a man. And this Jesus was supposedly followed by multitudes who wanted to see the wonders he worked, and yet no historian seemed it important enough to take notice.

That's because you know nothing either of ancient historians or ancient history. You read a list of historians in the jesus mysteries and you fail to realize that not only is it inaccurate, it misrepresents how, when, by whom, and for what history was written in Jesus' day. Those who would have cared did write biographies (the gospels) and when the Jesus sect became big enough, other historians took notice.

 

[Quagmire]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why no historiam contemporary to the time the supposed Jesus lived ever heard of such a man. And this Jesus was supposedly followed by multitudes who wanted to see the wonders he worked, and yet no historian seemed it important enough to take notice.

that's because you refuse to.

 

[logician]

that's because you refuse to.

No, it's because I've seen none.

 

[Quagmire]

No, it's because I've seen none.

Then take your hands away from your eyes.

You're question has been answered several times over the course of this thread and threads like it. I've noticed you never respond to those posts, you just ignore them.

 

[Oberon]

I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why no historiam contemporary to the time the supposed Jesus lived ever heard of such a man.

How many contemporary historians of Jesus (living in or around the area his mission took place in) do you think there were ? You got a list from The Jesus Mysteries which is one of your main sources. They state "This was an extremely literate period in human history. Here is a list of Pagan writers who wrote at or within a century of the time that Jesus is said to have lived..."

They go on to list a bunch of names. What they fail to mention is that a) most of these weren't historians (e.g. Lysias, Ptolemy, Apollonius, Martial, etc), b) those few who were historians were only concerned with roman affairs (e.g. Florus Lucius), or at least cared nothing for Jewish affairs (e.g. Plutarch), and c) even among those who were historians and who did happen to mention things relating to the Jews actually DO mention christians and/or Jesus (e.g. Tacitus and Seutonius).

In other words, you act as if Jesus, if he was a leader of a new Jewish sect, should have been recorded by plenty of historians. To test this idiotic hypothesis, let's look at another figure, parallel in many ways to Jesus: John the Baptist. John the Baptist is recorded in Josephus and the gospels. From these sources, we know he was executed and had a significant following. He was contemporary to Jesus, and living in the same area. Yet compared with Jesus, we have virtually NO information of his life. The only non-christian source to mention him is Josephus.

So why on earth would you think that we should have lot's of contemporary historians talking about Jesus? For that matter, what historians were there you think should have said something about Jesus that didn't? Do you even know the historians from this period whose works have survived?

If you define "contemporary" as a historian living during Jesus' life, the list gets VERY small, and becomes pretty much non-existant if you limit the list to those who would write about the Jews. Shortly after he died, Josephus does mention him, at the very least in passing (in describing the trial of James).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So.....240 comments later....Have we established for a fact that the biblical Yeshua (without the supposed magical powers) actually existed or have we just established that there is some evidence that there was a "possibility" that he existed?

And if he existed......so what?......What I mean is it's quite clear this thread and a few others are trying to deal with a Yeshua (the man) on a supposed historical level and setting aside claims of god like abilities. If that is the case then aren't we simply dealing with the possibility of a mere mortal walking around with a very small following expressing his discontent with some Jewish practices of the day as well has his discontent for the Roman Occupation?

Is so (to a certain degree)....we're talking about some one who was insignificant to the Romans, and a thorn in the side to the Jewish elite.

So I'm not even sure what the big debate is all about. Yes there's a possibility Yeshua existed. OK. There's no denying that. Tacking on claims of god like abilities....well then his existence becomes less believable. As we all know as well have admitted that a lot of the stories contained in the gospels are fictitious or at the very least....exaggerated. I think it's the god like claims and exaggerated stories that have, to some, made the biblical Yeshua "appear" to not have existed.

Just my opinion.....