Hoping to be post #100.
Hoping to be post #100.
Of course, with the Titanic we have "non-Titanicist" sources. For the existence of Jesus, all we have are pious sources and later only sources that just report what Christians were saying about themselves. It is up the the folks who think the Bible is reporting history to tell me why other ancient sources are not. Why are the biblical canonised books history but the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla are not? Not to mention the Life of Apollonious of Tyana?
A better parallel might be to ask if there was a historical Socrates and I would put even odds that there wasn't - that he was a literary character invented by Plato. I also doubt there was a bistorical Buddha.
My point being that the gospels seem to be a late, and unnecessary, addition to Christ-belief. The Pauline epistles and the non-Pauline epistles seem to have no need for a historical Jesus. Pauls eem to think Jesus "appearances" to others are exactly of the same sort he received - a spiritual one. He calls himself an "apostle" exactly like the twelve. People read Paul in light of the gospels. The other epistles seem even less interested in a historical Jesus.
honorable discharge wrote:
Jesus was not only rejected by the Romans but by the Jews. Don't forget that. Both groups wanted him dead.
What on earth makes you think that? The Jews? Which Jews? The Gospels have neither a consistent view of what Jesus taught or who killed him and why. Depends on what gospel you read and how firmly attached you are to the lame harmonizations of later theology. I noticed this as a kid - the Jesus of Mark, for example, sure didn't seem to be preaching about himself.
I think Christians proceed with the dim notion that 1st century Judaism was some sort of monolith and that it had absorbed no influences from the Hellenistic world. Similar to the dim notion that Christianity dropped into the world with a coherent and full formed theology that was later corrupted by heretics. I blame a pitiful exposure to comparative religion.
It is conspicous you don't know the bible.
No, my vote is for Radiohead.
So much bigger than Jesus.
Lone Gun wrote:
No, my vote is for Radiohead.
So much bigger than Jesus.
Too bad you gun is filled with blanks. Jesus rocks the socks.
I am afraid it is mostly the pious who don't know the Bible. The learn theological dogma, then have a preacher cherry pick quotes here and there that are threaded together with theology and lifted from their context. The pious start with a worldview of dogma and then hunt for pieces of evidence in the Bible to support it and ignore counter-evidence or ignore the evidence in its manuscript context. They assume the writer of Mark though the same thing as the writer of Luke, that Paul thought the same thing as the writer of Acts (despite obvious evidence to the contrary) and then hramonize.
Some glaring examples. What, exactly, was the gospel? You think you know, but if you read each Gospel independently and don't layer your pre-existing theological beliefs on it, you won't be so sure. Another example is what is Satan? You have a theoology that tells you ahead of time so you believe that The Devil, Satan, The serpent in Eden, Lucifer, etc. are all the same character despite the obvious evidence that they are all different (and that different characters were later and slowly combined in theological understanding. Another example is the belief that Jews were always monotheistic despite the obvious evidence in the OT that Jews were at very least monolaters and at least at some stage believed El'Aliyan and Yahweh were two different Gods (a father and son) and that Yahweh had brothers who were also Gods, but who they weren't obliged to worship.
It don't matter. It is all fake. Who cares.
Earl, I'm still curious, do you really think Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist? The reason I'm curious is because I've never really understood that position historically. Yes, I'm aware of how limited the sources (especially non-Christian sources) are for Jesus. But it seems like to argue for the non-existence of Jesus is unnecessary. Using Ocham's razor, it seems the simplest explanation historically is that the Jesus movement suffered a tragic setback when Jesus was crucified and the gospels were written to try and defend who Jesus was and why he died, which is why they don't attempt to tell the entire life of Jesus but only emphasize the end of the story.
To argue for the non-existence of Jesus seems to be forcing an unnecessary dichotomy: either you have to believe all of the gospels or there can be absolutely no history behind any of them at all. Back to my example of the Titanic, imagine if the only account of the Titanic was the movie. Obviously, the romance story is fiction, but it's still based on a real event. And the fictional romance doesn't mean the event didn't occur. But even a fact like the mention of Lake Wissota in the movie is out of place since the lake is man-made and the dam for that lake wasn't built until 5 years after the Titanic sank. Oops. It would be wrong to argue that the Titanic never sank since the movie has historical errors. But it would also be wrong to argue that the movie is 100% true historically. But such a dichotomy in positions is unnecessary. The truth is actually in between those two extremes.
"Using Ocham's razor, it seems the simplest explanation historically is that the Jesus movement suffered a tragic setback when Jesus was crucified and the gospels were written to try and defend who Jesus was and why he died, which is why they don't attempt to tell the entire life of Jesus but only emphasize the end of the story."
Are you so sure Jesus was from Nazareth? Depends on which gospel you read.
To me it seems like special pleading for one's favored dying/rising God. Do you apply the same liklihood of existence to Hercules (who, if you'd have asked a 1st century Greek would have said he was historical), Apollonious of Tyana, William Tell, King Arthur, Achilles, etc.?
The basis for thinking Jesus was a myth is that there is nothing left over when one removes the obvious pagan/literary/theological/old testament midrashic elements from the Gospels. And because the NT books outside of the gospels can be read very easily as though there was a period of Christianity where no historical Jesus was required (and to get this, you have to understand 1st century religious beliefs, late Jewish apocalypticism, mystery religion, etc.). When these texts use much of the same imagery and concepts as non-Christian dying-rising myths that predate it (and images from hellenic judaism such as that found in Philo of Alexandria) it starts to make the most sense of the evidence that Christianity followed the course of other religions - that characters originally thought of as Gods are turned into legendary heroes and then historical figures.
My assumption is that the canonical NT books are a mere snapshot of Christianity fixed at a given time with texts that existed both before and after it that would give us a cleaner idea of its development. We have many of these texts (by luck) and many we do not have, now owing to some conspiracy, simply owing to the fact that paper and scribal skill was expensive and once they fell into theological disfavor, they were not copied.
Plenty of Christian doctrines (at least catholic ones) are found outside of the canon. And we can trace much of the NT theological landscape to late Jewish sources such as Philo, the Book of Enoch, etc.
And, keep in mind, I am utterly unconvinced that Mohammed existed either. The textual evidence for him is not contemporary with his alleged dates, despite what Islamic piety maintains. I am not saying both couldn't have existed and formed the character around which a historicized myth coalesced (a myth that pre-existed the actual character), but I am not convinced that is the best explanation.
Do you think John Frum existed? Does it even matter, at this point? Whatever was historical is unknowable now.
I don't think it's special pleading because I'm not skeptical of the existence of Mohammad, for example. The existence of Mohammad (to me, at least) seems to be the simplest explanation for the rise of Islam.
Personally, I think that early Christians were far more influenced by Jewish sources, not Greco-Roman sources. New Testament writers seem much more concerned to show Jesus patterned after Jewish heroes like Moses, Elijah, or Elisha or fulfilling aspects of Jewish expectation than trying to incorporate hellenistic sources.
Of course they did. That was the religion they were tagging along with. I can be deeply influenced by Inca theology but if I'm Joseph Smithing a new judeo-christian-islamic faith, I won't name a prophet Quetlzcotl.
Sorry to state the obvious (or what may seem obvious to some). But there are some who tend to go overboard with Greco-Roman influences on the rise of early Christianity, which to me seems like it's barking up the wrong tree. Yes, Greco-Roman sources don't need to be neglected, but the early Greek-speaking Christians were raised reading the Septuagint, not the Iliad. It's obvious in the nuances of the Greek they use.
But sometimes I feel this way (arguing for the obvious) about the whole argument for the existence of Jesus (and I don't mean this as an insult towards Earl). To me (at least), the big issue is not the existence of Jesus, but his identity, intention, and mission.
The Vikings in recorded history were only one of a half-dozen major Asian and Semitic conquerers of White Europe (Greece, Rome, Germanic Ostrgoths, Scandinavia). The Human Genome Project is uncovering other major Central Asian, Mesopotamian, Far East Asian, and North African invasions of Europe as we speak. It has even been proven that Native Americans traverse the Bering Straight and Asia landmass and dropped their semen in the wombs of Europe. Researchers have yet to uncover the complete history of human migration from the 1st human family in Kenya, 60,000 years ago, to the 1st Civilization in Black Egypt, 15,000 years ago, until today. Stay tuned. It's going to be very exciting !
without sin wrote:
Jesus, a 30 year-old virgin who lived with his mom. Something letsrunners can relate/aspire to.
___________________________________________
Now THAT is very very accurate.
Many posters I have read, I envision living with their mom.
"maaa, the meatloaf!! Maaa"
Jesus, a 30 year-old virgin who lived with his mom.At work iv'e heard from Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese (non-Christian/Jew/Muslim) for years that they learned in school that Jesus Christ lived in India from his teenage years until late 20s. Jesus studied and practiced Hindism, Buddhiism, and Confucianism. I wonder what has been written about that and the evidence ?
Years and Years wrote:
Jesus, a 30 year-old virgin who lived with his mom.At work iv'e heard from Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese (non-Christian/Jew/Muslim) for years that they learned in school that Jesus Christ lived in India from his teenage years until late 20s. Jesus studied and practiced Hindism, Buddhiism, and Confucianism. I wonder what has been written about that and the evidence ?
Isn't that convenient...he reflects their belief systems in a way that is totally unsupported by any documentation, just doctine.
Jesus and Muhammad liked to suck penis.