most people on this forum probably agree religion is BS...but

[Pythagoras]

Jesus' existence was not documented by any historians that I'm aware of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory)

I believe that the Academic consensus of Theologians and Biblical scholars is that Ieshua Ban Joseph (Ben Pantera?) or Chrestus, was a real person. One need only look to Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny (the younger) and the Babylonian Talmud for historical reference to the existence of Jesus. There is equally strong historical evidence for Saul of Tarsus (and his numerous letters) who shared a belief in the person-hood of Jesus with the Jerusalem Church (made up of the Ebionites and members of Ieshua's family, such as James the Just).

I agree its debatable and as with all History we cannot ever know the full truth. But the academic consensus points to early first century Rabbi, named Ieshua ben Joseph who was killed by the Romans for his breach of the peace at passover.

Another popular theory is that Ieushua was an admixture of several historical people, overlayed with a Midrash, and neo-Platonic, Hermetic and Jewish elements.

The a-historical Ieshua remains on the fringe of Academic debate, but has a strong foothold in the non-Academic, popular books of the current Zeitgeist.

I agree with you that it is hard to prove either way, however I tend to agree with the consensus opinion, and less the esoteric attempts at discrediting the historicity of Ieshua.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I agree with you that it is hard to prove either way, however I tend to agree with the consensus opinion, and less the esoteric attempts at discrediting the historicity of Ieshua.

This.

My brother (an agnostic) majored in history in college, and took a course which examined the issue of gauging the likelihood of characters from old works having been real historical people. I'm not a historian and can't give you the finer details, but apparently the corpus of works referring to Jesus follows more the pattern of a real historical figure whose life has been coated with legend, rather than an entirely fictional literary character. We'll never know for sure, because so far no document has been found that was certainly written by someone who could have known the man, and there are no artifacts of his either. But certain characteristics of Jesus persist over all the works that refer to him, and the consistent parts of the story have a certain 'can't make this shit up' quality to them, to a historian's eye.

Then again, just to muddy the waters, I reckon most fictional characters are based on someone the author knew, with artistic liberties taken for the sake of intrigue, memorability, and avoidance of retribution. The line between 'fictional' and 'based on a true story' is a very blurry one.

The Jesus-as-myth people always gave me the same 'axe to grind' feeling as garden variety conspiracy theorists, to be honest. Yes, I'm aware that some serious academic historians and biblical scholars are on this bandwagon. But most writers in this genre are just as guilty of having an ulterior motive as Christian fundamentalist writers -- they want Jesus to have never existed. They may be right. But that's not good scholarship.

I also abhor the black and white thinking of a lot of this crowd. "Either Jesus walked on water and cured the sick and led a huge parade into Jerusalem and was executed and made a huge splash... or he never existed at all!" 8) I can see a lot of potential middle ground -- stories about real people get exaggerated, and real people get confused and conflated with other real people.

My response on this whole issue tends to please neither side. I think it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was a real person, or which parts of his story are historically accurate. The point of Christianity is to become Christ (Gk='annointed') -- to rise above the petty bullshit of this painful world by standing up and daring to be compassionate to one's fellow man, even when those in charge aren't. Even if Jesus was not real, his story was passed along to teach a valuable and enduring lesson, which is no less valid.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm very much of the Hans Küng proposition that the message is far more important than the historicity, miracles or not, one and only son of God stuff etcetera. I can not remember thetitle of his book that is particularly focused on that but I've called the Star Trek The Next Generation episode that deals with the Klingon messiah Kahless the Hans Küng episode so much I had to look up that is actually called Rightful Heir

 

[Pythagoras]

^^

Great link. It is because Scripture is fundamentally a dialogical enterprise (Bahktin, Habermas, Soler|), rather than strictly dialectical endeavour. Kung seems to support this, adopting the biblical narrative and expanding on its key precepts to create a new body of work.

Scripture is a living, and ever evolving dialogical approach, unalterable if lacking a historical Jesus. It IS the message that counts, not the historicity. The Augustinian approach to Scripture was the first to devise a narrative from the creation myths, to the mythologem of 'Revelations', picking up from the Johhanite narrative of an ahistorical Jesus as eternal contemporary to YHWH LOGOS. It is one's relationship with God, and the intertextual dimension of sacripture that are most important, not the historicity of it characters.

Though I stated that I agree with the Academic consensus, I am open to accepting the peronhood of Jesus, as having theological accretions created by the Gospel writers, to anhance the message, which to my mind is more important that their historical accuracy.

Remembering that the NT is a form of Midrash of OT scriptures - that the text are intertextual, and historically inaccurate in places (See the Lukian attempt to fit the Jesus story into a known event, the census of Quirinus which throws out his dating by several years) tell us more of the disposition of of the authors, than to a strict historicity.

A.N. Wilson's biographies of Jesus and Paul explore these issues in depth, and are highly accessible reads from an outstanding Historian and Theologian.

 

[TheDeceased]

I believe that the Academic consensus of Theologians and Biblical scholars is that Ieshua Ban Joseph (Ben Pantera?) or Chrestus, was a real person. One need only look to Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny (the younger) and the Babylonian Talmud for historical reference to the existence of Jesus. There is equally strong historical evidence for Saul of Tarsus

None of those historians were alive during the time of Christ, nor did any of them meet anyone who knew Christ personally. You said there is equally strong evidence for Saul of Tarsus, but I don't find these few historical accounts, written up to a century after Christ's death, to be strong evidence at all. You're right though, it is clearly the consensus among scholars that Jesus was in fact a man.

A lot of the major critics of the Christian myth theory are Christian theologians. James Dunn for example spent his life examining the life of Christ, so clearly he's not going to be very open to the idea that the man didn't exist. Same goes for Herbert G Wood (son of a minister), Richard Whately (was an archbishop), Frederick Conybeare (was a bishop), Albert Schweitzer (son of a pastor) and many others. These are some of the major critics of the Christian myth theory.

One of the problems of agreeing with the consensus simply because majority rules is that a lot of theologians who spend time discussing, exploring and publishing work relating to the life of Christ are Christian. I know half a dozen theologians. They are all hardcore Christians. I don't have the time or motivation to do it, but I think you'd find that if you removed all the Christians scholars from the picture the ratio of supporters/critics re: the Christian myth theory would be greatly reduced.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that he existed, but there is very little evidence and what evidence there is, is flimsy. There are inconsistencies between the various historical accounts of Christ that were written, on average, over fifty years after his death. Whereas there were numerous historians living during the time of Christ who never mentioned him. Not one. Personally, I find that a little suspicious. The gospels were also written decades after his death. Why? Why was there not a single documented account of the supposed son of God? I can't see any rational explanation.

But certain characteristics of Jesus persist over all the works that refer to him, and the consistent parts of the story have a certain 'can't make this shit up' quality to them, to a historian's eye.

Can you be specific?

I'm very much of the Hans Küng proposition that the message is far more important than the historicity

I agree, however I believe the truth should be explored regardless of priority in one direction or another. Whether or not he was a man is not as significant as the message, granted, but it is significant nonetheless. Literal interpretations of myths lead to fundamentalist lunatics (sometimes) and it would be beneficial if it was possible to prove or at least convince people of his non-existence so that they could focus on his message rather than believing, to any degree, that the story is literal.

 

[Pythagoras]

None of those historians were alive during the time of Christ, nor did any of them meet anyone who knew Christ personally. You said there is equally strong evidence for Saul of Tarsus, but I don't find these few historical accounts, written up to a century after Christ's death, to be strong evidence at all. You're right though, it is clearly the consensus among scholars that Jesus was in fact a man.

First, Saul of Tarsus could have met the early Jesus, he was a temple guard at the time of Jesus' execution so would have been aware of Jesus - this perhaps reflects his later statements that

He had seen Jesus and was therefore allowed to the ranks of apostle.

Saul's writings - approx 10 years after death of Jesus
Tacitus - A meticulous Historian mentions Christ in his Annals c. 116 reports on an event during Nero's reighn (the Burning of Rome), where Nero pins the blame on the followers of Chrestus). Josephus, who's History of the Jews and 'The Jewsih Wars' give insight into the Jewish history, which can be cross referenced from the time of the Macabees to the Jewish Revolts, as any Historian of the time he would have used other collected sources which he would not attribute. His comments on Christ are strong evidence for Jesus' existence. We have an idea of the proto-Gospel of Matthew and Mark, circa60-80 CE, which is termed 'Q', this proto gospel informed both Gospel writers and could be as old as dating from 30-50 CE - a contemporary source. There is also the Secret Gospel of Thomas (the 'so called' fifth gospel which again could have been source material for the synoptics). I could go on but don't wish to bore all with the details.

I maintain that the academic consensus is that all references in the Gospel, and these independent sources either contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, or meticulously recordings of disinterested historians within a one hundred year period - point strongly to his existence. There may be further writings as yet undiscovered (see impact of Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi codices and onyrynchus papirii - all discovered in the last century).

In the case of Nag Hammadi, hidden from scholarship for 1400 years, all the content of the codices point to the historical Jesus, with no evidence to counter the claim.). As such archaeology may uncover the high level of proof that you require to believe in the Historical Jesus.

Where are the contemporaneous accounts~? If any were ever made (remember 2000 years ago there was no 'daily tablet' newspapers. As at the time reading and writing was a virtue of having Roman citizenship. Further texts may arise, however with the destruction of the Jerusalem church, along with Jesus' family, during the pogroms of the Roman decimation of the Jews
may preclude written evidence which for the Romans was just another meddlesome Rabbi trying to kick off during passover, so they killed him. Hardly worth mentioning, or committing to papyrus on what was a near daily/weekly ritual going unnoticed by scribes at the time, if they were ever even in attendenc in Judea.

Patristic scholars, NT scholars, and Biblical Historians agree the very high likelihood of the historicity of Jesus.

You should also note that not all Theologians are Christian, with many agnostic and atheists represented in departments. My OT tutor was an atheist, my supervisor considered himself a Gnostic Christian, and much NT history comes from the Classics and History departments.

Theology is a disipline like any other, working through the peer review process using multifarious methodologies that are 'borrowed' from the social sciences, Classics and History.

The Jesus myth theory shifts popular paperbacks, but remains o the margin of modern day Academic Theology.

Biblical literalism is a modern concept...the church father adopted various exegetical styles, often Hellenistic and neo-Platonic in character. I have found little original thought in the assumptions ofthe Jesus as Myth explication but would be ready to shift my position if a serious liberal Theological movement emerged with Historical or philologetical evidence that undermines the extant view.

There is a precedence for this - in the 20th century a group of German scholars applied the new field of literary criticism on the Bible and soon hypothesised that rather than being penned by Moses, the pentateuch bore the marks of four authors (J, E , P, D) spanning nearly a millennia. This brought down a central tenet of Biblical literalism and is now the Academic consensus, which is rarely literalist. Further study has shown how the NT id a form of Midrash on the OT, giving rise to the dialogical approach to Theology - the Bible displays stunning intertextuality which is still being uncovered today. It is a highly regarded subject that is often shockingly frank in its assessments leading to the epithet of 'Rigorous Academic subject' - to whitt, If I had Christian children I would dissuade them from studying Theology as it immediately attacks faith through the Academic honesty it provides its students.

All that said, for Xs one lives in Christ in the present day, and not in the historical minutiae of his biography, contemplating instead his ever present existence,a need to emulate his life (help orphans, abused children and those less fortunate than oneself). The Gospels inform humanism as much as it does the Christian community.

PAX

 

[Talksick]

If Jesus never existed then why would every historian in the world use BCE and AD to describe time periods?

 

[sssssssssss]

its more politically correct.

 

[TheDeceased]

If Jesus never existed then why would every historian in the world use BCE and AD to describe time periods?

If Janus never existed then why would westerners refer to the first month as January?

Pythagoras - will respond later, have to go to work.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I'm very much of the Hans Küng proposition that the message is far more important than the historicity, miracles or not, one and only son of God stuff etcetera. I can not remember thetitle of his book that is particularly focused on that but I've called the Star Trek The Next Generation episode that deals with the Klingon messiah Kahless the Hans Küng episode so much I had to look up that is actually called Rightful Heir

My parents were big fans of Hans Küng -- I can remember volumes with his name on their shelves. I'll have to look into inheriting those books, I think.

Can you be more specific?

Check out the work of the Jesus Seminar:
http://www.westarinstitute.org.
This group is actually a pretty mixed group of scholars, with Christians, non-christian theists, and nontheists all well represented, which is pretty typical of academe in the English speaking world in general right now.

In one of their big studies, they took all the utterances spoken by Jesus in any of the Gospels (the ones accepted by churches as well as others), and compared them for similarity of wording or content, and consistency across multiple Gospels, and quantified how likely it was that each one of them was something the historical man upon which Jesus was based actually said. When all the 'highly likely' ones were considered together, what emerged was a picture of a local folk hero, renegade, or wise man -- in other words, quite possibly a real person.

The Jesus Seminar has more or less concluded that the events of Jesus' conception, birth, and childhood, and more importantly the resurrection accounts, as depicted in all the extant gospels, are highly likely to be tacked on. I think there are hidden symbolic, esoteric, and literary meanings to some of these added-on parts, no doubt. But understanding these is not necessary for understanding and integrating the main messages of the Jesus story.

 

[TheDeceased]

So they found similarities between the gospels. There are similarities between the four main accounts of Jesus. If you take into account all the gospels, however, the similarities across the board are far and few between. Their conclusion was, according to you, that he was quite possibly a real person. I agree. It is indeed possible.

But they also concluded that the gospels have been heavily edited, so even if the gospels were very similar in their depiction of Jesus, which they're not, I still don't think it's a credible source of information. You've said that various aspects of the story have been "tacked on" yet you still believe, selectively, in part of the story. Why?

The only sources cited for the study you mentioned were books that you admit were edited/ falsified to some extent.

which is pretty typical of academe in the English speaking world in general right now

In general, yes. In terms of Christian theology, no.

...

Pythagoras, I know that not all theologians are Christian obviously. What I said was that Christian theologians tend to be Christian more often than not.

First, Saul of Tarsus could have met the early Jesus, he was a temple guard at the time of Jesus' execution so would have been aware of Jesus - this perhaps reflects his later statements that he had seen Jesus and was therefore allowed to the ranks of apostle.

I could be mistaken but didn't Paul claim to have seen Jesus after his death, as a vision?

Where are the contemporaneous accounts~? If any were ever made (remember 2000 years ago there was no 'daily tablet' newspapers. As at the time reading and writing was a virtue of having Roman citizenship. Further texts may arise, however with the destruction of the Jerusalem church, along with Jesus' family, during the pogroms of the Roman decimation of the Jews
may preclude written evidence which for the Romans was just another meddlesome Rabbi trying to kick off during passover, so they killed him. Hardly worth mentioning, or committing to papyrus on what was a near daily/weekly ritual going unnoticed by scribes at the time, if they were ever even in attendenc in Judea.

Daily tablet. :D

I realize obviously that there were no newspapers at the time, but there were quite a lot of non-Roman historians living in and around the area during the time of Christ. It seems unusual to me that he doesn't get a single mention. Romans weren't the only ones capable of maintaining records. The written word existed in many cultures at the time. If many people believed Jesus performed miracles including bringing people back from the dead and walking on water, you would think that would get a mention. Unless that's just all bullshit too along with the immaculate conception and the resurrection. In which case, what's left when you strip away the bullshit from the story of Christ? Almost everything in the story is clearly untrue. If you take all that out, what you're left with is a travelling philosopher. And although the general tone of his message is positive, it is not particularly profound or well articulated. It certainly doesn't warrant the sort of attention that he is given to this day. A lot of it is derivative of the Old Testament and various other unrelated holy texts and ancient philosophies.

In the case of Nag Hammadi, hidden from scholarship for 1400 years, all the content of the codices point to the historical Jesus, with no evidence to counter the claim.). As such archaeology may uncover the high level of proof that you require to believe in the Historical Jesus.

I don't require a high level of proof to believe. Rather, you require very little proof to believe.

The Nag Hammadi is an early edition of the Bible prior to the Books of Thomas etc. being removed by the Church. But like Saul, it is gospel. And I don't consider gospel to be the truth, regardless of whether or not it hasn't been edited since roughly four hundred years after the death of Christ. If the gospels were completely unedited, I still wouldn't assume that they were true in any way.

Patristic scholars, NT scholars, and Biblical Historians agree the very high likelihood of the historicity of Jesus.

Not all of them. And as I said, most of the scholars who insist that he was a man and who openly criticize the Christian myth theory tend to be Christian. I'm not saying they're all Christian, but a lot of them are. If you remove them from the picture your generalized statement would probably remain true. Even among the non-Christian historians/ theologians there tends to be a lean towards the idea that he was a real person. But it's not certain. Historians are divided to some extent on the issue.

See, Robert M. Price (a member of the Jesus Seminar MyDoorsAreOpen mentioned earlier).

Re: the existence of Jesus he said "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." And he's right. We don't know. There is not sufficient proof.

You may believe that he existed based largely on the gospels which we all know are non-literal heavily edited holy texts. I think it's possible he existed based on the limited amount of evidence available (and, it is limited) but I'm certainly not convinced whereas you guys seem to be certain that he was a man - and I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude this as an unquestionable fact.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

You've said that various aspects of the story have been "tacked on" yet you still believe, selectively, in part of the story. Why?

See the last paragraph of each of my last two posts. I'm not going to repeat myself.

In general, yes. In terms of Christian theology, no.

My point being that the Jesus Seminar is closer demographically to a slice of greater academe, than the demographic breakdown you claim for Christian theologians.

 

[TheDeceased]

The last paragraph of both of your last two posts say the message is separate from the story and that it doesn't matter if he existed in terms of the validity of his word. I agree. That's not what I was asking you. The "part of the story" comment was not in reference to the message. I was asking you why you believe he was a real man and why people who disbelieve in him should be discredited and labelled as conspiracy theorists.

The Jesus-as-myth people always gave me the same 'axe to grind' feeling as garden variety conspiracy theorists, to be honest. Yes, I'm aware that some serious academic historians and biblical scholars are on this bandwagon. But most writers in this genre are just as guilty of having an ulterior motive as Christian fundamentalist writers -- they want Jesus to have never existed. They may be right. But that's not good scholarship.

I disagree with this statement. You paint Christian myth theorists as people driven by some sort of agenda, but really there is insufficient evidence to prove that Christ existed and it is possible that he did not. Is Robert Price a "garden variety conspiracy theorist"? If so, why? He seems to have pretty well articulated arguments. If he's not, can you point out some prominent Christian myth supporting scholars who fit the description you've put forward, people who are intent on disproving Jesus just for the sake of it? There's probably one or two, but most of the stuff I've read doesn't come across like that at all.

I have no reason to prove Jesus didn't exist. I'm not biased one way or the other.

 

[Pythagoras]

Academic Theology

So they found similarities between the gospels. There are similarities between the four main accounts of Jesus. If you take into account all the gospels, however, the similarities across the board are far and few between. Their conclusion was, according to you, that he was quite possibly a real person. I agree. It is indeed possible.

There are over 100 books/codices on Jesus' life, his companions, his theology and doctrine. The canon was not chosen at random but at the council at Nicea, and later Constantinople to agree on THE cannon. The synoptics were chosen for being temporally close to the life of Jesus, with John being added to quench the increasing needs for the congregation for a more developed mysticism. By the standards of the time, the synoptics were seen as in broad agreement with each other, three independent sources (two of whom possibly) worked with 'Q', a source document that though lost, is believed to have penned circa 40-60 CE, with each book building on the metanarrative of Mark (c. 70 CE), each was written by different people for different audiences. Luke is more Hellenitic/Roman in his telling of the story but this was because his readers would have been mainly pagan.

The is no doubt that there is a single narrative theme that spans the the canonical and non-canonical gospels. Embelishments were added, and omissions made to fit the gospel with the audience.

For example Luke, writing for a pagan audience, played down the role of the Roman occupation, had the Jews kill Jesus with the Romans coming out smelling like roses.


I think we are all working to levels of degree here. No one can assume with 100% accuracy either way. To use the Historical parlance, it is evidentially underdetermined.

But they also concluded that the gospels have been heavily edited, so even if the gospels were very similar in their depiction of Jesus, which they're not, I still don't think it's a credible source of information. You've said that various aspects of the story have been "tacked on" yet you still believe, selectively, in part of the story. Why?

The synoptic gospels are similar in biographical detail regarding Jesus, and their differences are on minor points, rather they are in agreement on several important events, central to the gospel narrative. Bring in the Gospel of Thomas as a possible secondary source for Matthew and Luke, with an early date and one has a body of work, by multiple writers from various backgrounds made from eye-witness accounts from people who could easily have known Jesus. There historical claims are in little doubt when contextualised. The historical method abhores perfect accounts, seeing instead the truth in anachronisms, the divergent gospels etc.

If they represented pure ecclesiastical documents they would have been redacted and edited to accord more with each other, not the other way round. The Gospels give compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus, when one views them with non post-modern eyes.

The only sources cited for the study you mentioned were books that you admit were edited/ falsified to some extent

.

Before the printing press scribes would redact and add passages, for the means of clarification to the audience, this is true of all historical documents of the late classical period.



In general, yes. In terms of Christian theology, no.

In terms of academic Theology, the stated source is representative. NT historicity has undergone millions of man-hours of investigation, by theologians (from literalists, to hyper-liberal interpreters), Classicists, Ancient Historians and academic Biblical scholars, with a more recent emphasis on the historiography of the texts

...

Pythagoras, I know that not all theologians are Christian obviously. What I said was that Christian theologians tend to be Christian more often than not.

I could be mistaken but didn't Paul claim to have seen Jesus after his death, as a vision?

He did indeed see Jesus on the Road to Damascus in his role as Temple Guard )he was to oversee the execution of Christians). Theoretically though, his Apostolic claims could be based on the plausible fact that he attended in the arrest and execution of Jesus.



Daily tablet. :D

I realize obviously that there were no newspapers at the time, but there were quite a lot of non-Roman historians living in and around the area during the time of Christ. It seems unusual to me that he doesn't get a single mention. Romans weren't the only ones capable of maintaining records. The written word existed in many cultures at the time. If many people believed Jesus performed miracles including bringing people back from the dead and walking on water, you would think that would get a mention. Unless that's just all bullshit too along with the immaculate conception and the resurrection

.

Scribing was a rich man's endeavour, with scribes hired by the wealthy to record their lives and histories. Jesus was only recognised as a man of note AFTER his death, and archaeology may yet provide the level of proof you seek, Being a miracle worker was not unusual at the time and place of Jesus' ministry. Look up Simon Magus for an illustration of this. There is also a major Gospel, that of Thomas which is written as a list of contemporaneous notes on Jesus' sayings.

In which case, what's left when you strip away the bullshit from the story of Christ? Almost everything in the story is clearly untrue

.

The Gospels have a tripartite nature as history, midrash, and allegory. As allegory can't really be classed as bullshit. There is a historical thread that runs through the gospels, most importantly from various sources, and reified through acts (an early document written by Luke, and Paul's letters, whose extant copies pre-date the gospels. and by the historical sources quoted above (all of whom wrote histories of people they had never met (eg - Josephus -History of the Jews) - lending credence to their historical mention of Jesus.

If you take all that out, what you're left with is a travelling philosopher. And although the general tone of his message is positive, it is not particularly profound or well articulated. It certainly doesn't warrant the sort of attention that he is given to this day. A lot of it is derivative of the Old Testament and various other unrelated holy texts and ancient philosophies.

If you take all what out? You are confusing two projects here, One, to establish the historicity of Jesus, and another the Theological nature of Jesus, which is profound, evidenced by its continued use today. As for being derivative of the Old Testament I couldn't agree more, as I have stated on many occasions the NT is Midrash of the OT, this does not dislodge the twin instructives of the Gospels - Love of God and love of neighbour remain.

I don't require a high level of proof to believe. Rather, you require very little proof to believe

.

I beg to differ, as a non Christian Theologian it would be unlikely that I would require little evidencew concerning the historicity of any event, in the Bible or other late-classical codices.

The Nag Hammadi is an early edition of the Bible prior to the Books of Thomas etc. being removed by the Church. But like Saul, it is gospel. And I don't consider gospel to be the truth, regardless of whether or not it hasn't been edited since roughly four hundred years after the death of Christ. If the gospels were completely unedited, I still wouldn't assume that they were true in any way.

No its not an early church edition of the Bible. It is a library of codices that include gospels, apocalypses, sayings, but also Plato's Republic.
And no it is not Gospel..neither is Paul's work?? Your 'low level of proof to believe' is straining credulity.

Not all of them. And as I said, most of the scholars who insist that he was a man and who openly criticize the Christian myth theory tend to be Christian. I'm not saying they're all Christian, but a lot of them are. If you remove them from the picture your generalized statement would probably remain true. Even among the non-Christian historians/ theologians there tends to be a lean towards the idea that he was a real person. But it's not certain. Historians are divided to some extent on the issue.

This is a misleading comment, as if belief in the historical Jesus is divided (equally?) when in reality I would say that Academic Theologians, Patristicians, late-classicists overwhekmingly agree on one thing if they agree on anything, and that is the history of Jesus. I have met literally hundreds of Theologians and have yet to find one who expresses the a-historical nature of Jesus..

See, Robert M. Price (a member of the Jesus Seminar MyDoorsAreOpen mentioned earlier).

Re: the existence of Jesus he said "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." And he's right. We don't know. There is not sufficient proof.

This is simply not true. Not all questions have set positive.negative answers, and certainly not in Theology. We have no proof our grandfathers existed, but we still believe they did.

You may believe that he existed based largely on the gospels which we all know are non-literal heavily edited holy texts. I think it's possible he existed based on the limited amount of evidence available (and, it is limited) but I'm certainly not convinced whereas you guys seem to be certain that he was a man - and I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude this as an unquestionable fact

.

Don't fall for strawmanning my argument, which was that the academic consensus in Theology that accepted the historicity of Jesus. I gave you 4 examples which you rejected out of hand as not being eye-witness accounts, this indicates a flimsy understanding of the Historical method, there would hardly be any history if it all had to be predicated on eye-witness accounts.

I pointed to new discoveries that separately identify with Jesus, this too was rejected, and so asked me to show the historicity of Jesus in the Gospels, one of the weakest historical sources - but I accepted your request and have done so.

Do not be so easily lulled by Theologians and non-theologians positing the idea of Jesus as Myth to sell books, and perhaps engage more with the literature of the extant Academic subject, with its rigorous methodology, peer review process. The historicity of Jesus is in little doubt in Academia though I would have to conduct a meta-analysis to prove this statistically.

I strongly recommend you read A.N. Wilson's biographies of Jesus and Paul which will help illuminate the discussion above.
I hope I have answered your questions but don't hesitate if you want specific illumination.

Do not confuse the money making attempts/attention seeking of a minority of writers and theologians against 2000 years of meticulous exegesis, hermeneutics, philology, historiography that is the meticulous work of the Academic Theologian.

 

[TheDeceased]

If you take all that out, what you're left with is a travelling philosopher. And although the general tone of his message is positive, it is not particularly profound or well articulated. It certainly doesn't warrant the sort of attention that he is given to this day. A lot of it is derivative of the Old Testament and various other unrelated holy texts and ancient philosophies.

If you take all what out?

Some aspects of the story are literal, some aren't. What I'm saying is if you remove the non-literal aspects, the allegorical/metaphorical/whatever, then what remains of the true story? It is almost entirely allegorical. It may be, entirely.

I beg to differ

I thought you might.

No its not an early church edition of the Bible. It is a library of codices that include gospels, apocalypses, sayings, but also Plato's Republic. And no it is not Gospel..neither is Paul's work?? Your 'low level of proof to believe' is straining credulity.

It contains gospels. The gospels are what is relevant, not Plato's Republic. How is Paul's work not gospel? http://sigler.org/walter/gospel_according_to_paul.htm http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/sotg.html

This is simply not true. Not all questions have set positive.negative answers, and certainly not in Theology. We have no proof our grandfathers existed, but we still believe they did.

It is true. Your existence is undeniable proof of the existence of your grandfather, assuming that you believe in the basic laws of nature - so I don't think that's a very good example. You have also replaced "know" with "believe". They are two very different things.

Don't fall for strawmanning my argument, which was that the academic consensus in Theology that accepted the historicity of Jesus. I gave you 4 examples which you rejected out of hand as not being eye-witness accounts, this indicates a flimsy understanding of the Historical method, there would hardly be any history if it all had to be predicated on eye-witness accounts.

I didn't mean to just reject them. I have specified throughout the thread that there weren't any historical accounts during the time of Christ. I was already aware of the historians that wrote about Christ based on word of mouth decades after his death.

Can you point me in the direction of other prominent historical figures that were not documented during their time?

I strongly recommend you read A.N. Wilson's biographies of Jesus and Paul which will help illuminate the discussion above.

They have been added to my ever increasing list of books to read.

I pointed to new discoveries that separately identify with Jesus, this too was rejected

You didn't specify when the early versions of the gospels found in the Nag Hammadi were written. They are another "version" of the the various accounts of Christ. But they may well have been falsified/edited prior to 400-500 AD.

Clearly you have read more about the subject, but I find comments like this:

Do not confuse the money making attempts/attention seeking of a minority of writers and theologians against 2000 years of meticulous exegesis, hermeneutics, philology, historiography that is the meticulous work of the Academic Theologian.

and this:

The Jesus-as-myth people always gave me the same 'axe to grind' feeling as garden variety conspiracy theorists, to be honest. Yes, I'm aware that some serious academic historians and biblical scholars are on this bandwagon. But most writers in this genre are just as guilty of having an ulterior motive as Christian fundamentalist writers -- they want Jesus to have never existed. They may be right. But that's not good scholarship.

to be a little, I don't know, narrow-minded and dismissive for lack of better (and or less potentially offensive) terms. (I don't mean any offense.)

Have you read any Robert Price or are you just assuming he's in it for the money/ a conspiracy nut?

As I said, he belongs to the Jesus Sermon, but he is also close friends with many prominent Christian figures, and was once a bishop. He has since renounced Christianity to some extent, and now refers to himself as a "Christian atheist".

The single quote that you said is untrue is not. You agreed that it's true more or less in your "degree" comment, didn't you?

 

[Pythagoras]

multi quote not working for me, Final Answer

Some aspects of the story are literal, some aren't. What I'm saying is if you remove the non-literal aspects, the allegorical/metaphorical/whatever, then what remains of the true story? It is almost entirely allegorical. It may be, entirely.



I thought you might.



It contains gospels. The gospels are what is relevant, not Plato's Republic. How is Paul's work not gospel? http://sigler.org/walter/gospel_according_to_paul.htm http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/sotg.html


Throughout I have not sought to offend in any way but to offer a counterpoint to Prince's writings, and the new wave a pop-theology writing (that has understandably attracted the public imagination.

There is a strict nomenclature within Theology and Biblical studies, the canon composed of four Gospels ( you will not find the Gospel of Paul, as his writings are in the form of epistles to various proto-churches at Colossus, at Phillipai, at Rome. This is 101 theology).

There may be Gnostic gospels of Paul, but I'm not aware of any.

It is true. Your existence is undeniable proof of the existence of your grandfather, assuming that you believe in the basic laws of nature - so I don't think that's a very good example. You have also replaced "know" with "believe". They are two very different things.

The example rests (via Humean inductive argument - that your assumed grandfather (so titled) might have you believe he is your grandfather, but you still do not know he is your grandfather, or a step grandfather, secrets and lies...we live in a deceitful universe.. To simplify do you believe in the existence of a kindly uncle (unrelated) now dead. Do you know he existed?.

The distinction between knowledge and believe is deliberate, especially in Theology.

I didn't mean to just reject them. I have specified throughout the thread that there weren't any historical accounts during the time of Christ. I was already aware of the historians that wrote about Christ based on word of mouth decades after his death.

Such is the process of History, proximate sources are built upon to create histories. The Trojan war is a fine example, Cited by Herodotus (the father of History)thought to be mere myth for centuries, troy was discovered in the 19th Century as a real place, lost to history for lack of emirical evidence when Herodotus had taught us if it for years previously. My 4 quoted sources cannot be rejected out of hand for lack of eye witness accounts. Direct eye witness accounts in the classical period is a high standard of proof indeed. Remember that Jesus' fame came through his death - we cannot exclude the fact that the Gospel writers had access to eyewitness accounts, verbal accounts, and the Gospel of Thomas which if you read the colophon (here edited to the front of the codex) you might find this first hand evidence you seek.

Can you point me in the direction of other prominent historical figures that were not documented during their time?

Thales, Pythagoras, Thales, Archimedes, John the Baptist, Muhamed, most of the cast of the OT, particularly the Pentateuch. Mani, Cleopatra etc. Your insistence on eye witness accounts is a post-modern obsession that did not apply to Ancient History



They have been added to my ever increasing list of books to read.



You didn't specify when the early versions of the gospels found in the Nag Hammadi were written. They are another "version" of the the various accounts of Christ. But they may well have been falsified/edited prior to 400-500 AD

I didn't think I had to, research them for yourself, I can't impart my learning in a few lines

For what reason, and why omit the Dead Sea Scrolls from this analysis? As I thought you were seeking eyewitness history to prove Jesus' history they are irrelevant. And as religious in tone as the Gospels.

Clearly you have read more about the subject, but I find comments like this:

Originally Posted by you
Do not confuse the money making attempts/attention seeking of a minority of writers and theologians against 2000 years of meticulous exegesis, hermeneutics, philology, historiography that is the meticulous work of the Academic Theologian.

and this? I'll let MDAO reply to this, I am in no position to defend what he writes.



to be a little, I don't know, narrow-minded and dismissive for lack of better (and or less potentially offensive) terms. (I don't mean any offense.)

I can assure you I am not narrow minded on the issue, quite the opposite in fact. But I can distinguish fine academic content from revisionist Theologians who lie outside the mainstream.

Have you read any Robert Price or are you just assuming he's in it for the money/ a conspiracy nut?

As I said, he belongs to the Jesus Sermon, but he is also close friends with many prominent Christian figures, and was once a bishop. He has since renounced Christianity to some extent, and now refers to himself as a "Christian atheist".

The single quote that you said is untrue is not. You agreed that it's true more or less in your "degree" comment, didn't you?

I'm not aware of what you are reffering to or what quote?? Or to whom you are replying. You clearly lack a grounding in Patristics, heresiology, NT scholarship (and its ever-evolving biography). The Nag Hammadi Codices may have been penned in 410 CE but are universally accepted to be copies of various greek texts extant in the third century (unrelated evidence backs this up - Berlin Codex, Oxyrynchus papyri). Philology brings the date down to about 130CE, and there are strong arguments for the Gospel of Thomas being first century.

I hope this clarifies my post, it's hard when you post replying to various people in the same sentence. I'm explicating my position, not theirs.

Enjoy reading the NHC, if you thought the Bible was abstruse, then you're in for a unique experience.
I hope you can learn from this that the Historiography of the Gospels and early Christian literature does not require proof of the level of immediate experience, understand proximate sources and the verbal tradition of the place and period. You might find the challenge of debating peer reviewed content, and critiquing it amonst you peers and supervisors stimulating. You never know, you might enjoy the Acadenic study of Patristics, and NT History

 

[FreakinHUGEGuy]

Rock N Roll is the only religion that'll never let you down."
-Lemmy


I strongly urge you to accept your own mortality. Do not let fear of your inevitable death make you waste your life pursuing phantasms and religious delusions. Look at yourself in the mirror. For billions upon billions of years those particles, which are currently looking back at you, have circulated in the universe and yet, for the briefest of moments, they have coalesced . . . in you.
Rejoice in this impressive instant until they dissipate whence they came; delight that you are a spark of life in The Universe. Life is so much more vibrant and vivid without Bronze-Age, paranoid superstitions that cloud the mind with some empty and undesirable promise that sparks can live forever.

Humans and animals are one in the same, yet we are unique among our fellow terrestrial life-forms. As singularly sentient beings, we are fully capable of inspirationally beautiful caring for our own as well as "others", sometimes, and the most horrific, meaningless cruelty imaginable.

Perpetually expanding our collective comprehension and truly deepening our appreciation for all other life and The Universe -- yet at the same time waging the most corrosive weapon of man against man, inexcusable yet always justified war, built on inherited hatred often based on fears of, usually literally insignificant, differences.

Do the clerics of the world help, aside from building greater walls of division between our far-flung brothers? Aside from assuring their particular portion of humanity that their version of the tale is the one about the real fairy, most do what most people do, nothing. It is much easier and less expensive and more comfortable by far to sit in their thrones and "Pray", but for all the good that's done the human race so far we might as well have just been talking to ourselves, or maybe our imaginary friends which I suppose is fractionally better, less worrisome neurologically. A small % of all clerics do excellent works which is undeniable and highly admirable, laudable and so forth, for every child fed by a missionary how many people have died of AIDS? Or suffer the daily threat of explosive death, or the threat of being abused by a trusted authority figure simply because they were born in the wrong place/diocese, or born with the wrong stories about incorrect fantasy characters, the wrong parents, the wrong skin or some other small difference that these beliefs amplify and magnify in the malleable minds of the true believers?
Sure and confident pride in deep, unwavering belief based on nothing more than personal feelings, i.e. in faith and in "the reality of stories", from a book, without 1 scrap of plausible or possible evidence or even potentially good reason, is at best a misguided, but in many cases an ultimately understandable, emotional vanity at being able to suppress one's own basic instinct screaming to look closer, to know why we do the things we do and to then abandon the useless or silly. In the name of social acceptance I can see how the voice is suppressed there . . . yet at worst, if present in the right context, it becomes a fairly reliable indicator of a person capable of committing crimes against humanity, in the name of a book . . . a processed part of a tree, with some ink. These items have some of the most human blood flowing by their responsibility throughout history, if not the most total . . . possibly by a lot.


Among our greatest assets as a species, are our capability and desire to experience both sides of the real love possibly found here on Earth, in it's many forms and guises, along with Sagan's "great, soaring, passionate intelligence. These are the clear tools for our continued survival." I think we ignore them at our own peril. The more intelligent, well reasoned arguments from love that are made, (for anything, or everything if possible) I think is for the better.

Don't carelessly and ignorantly throw away your precious time on Earth preparing for some hypothetical life "after" your time here on the real world -- the one that we know exists -- is up.

Our privilege of time as members of such a -- complicated, dangerously unpredictable and fascinatingly complex -- form of life is finite; this gives our lives, here and now, meaning, purpose and urgency, live life today. Savor your individually precious and unique gift of time on Earth.
Confidently and humanely take advantage of our common assets, of your own assets, and many more generations may know how powerful and incredible it can be to be a member of this group of semi-highly evolved, fur-less half monkeys.

 

[roadkill barbie]

Have you guys looked at which Gospels were categorically edited out of the Bible by a guy called Arameus and since found at a site at Nag Hamadi and authenticated to be more credible than that that was left in? The Gnostics were an opposing Christian sect that were discredited and virtually erased from early christian history because of social control and opposing takes on what it meant to be Christian..
It's just funny that many christians I know refuse to even acknowledge their message despite it's logicality, the views of such texts being age verrified simply out of some misguided fear instilled in them by those in power who instill fear into those who question the historical legitimacy of the bible.. Even if that book was put together using God's words - the amount that was edited out by humans hell bent on using it as a tool of control should not be underestimated.
Check out Youtubes 'The lost Gospels' , the Nag Hamadi texts or the opposing christian message of the early Gnostic christians if you doubt any of this.. I'm not a christian as there's simply too much mankind has done to distort what truth may or may not have been in the Bible and the teachings of Christ.

 

[roadkill barbie]

PS props to Freakin huge guy - in my humble opinion he's right in that so many religions have inbuilt into them a promise of the afterlife - and this is itself why so many religions let us down. They prey on the average humans fear of death being the end.. Ernest Becker is a key expert on this theory that most religions are in fact primarily cults of death denial, and theres loads of his work and theory into this alongside the related topic of why religions differing views have been used countless times to justify the death of those with opposing religious views . Anyways -
Ask yourself why is it so many who believe in God automatically believe in reincarnation (and yes I know this is an ambiguous metaphor - it's why the Theological Noncognetivist argument should never be overlooked) and yet if they believe in an afterlife -whether it's heaven, reincarnation etc etc. why is it not possible there may be a divine creator of sorts but no afterlife - and more importantly if that were the case,, could you forgive 'God' that that was just the way it is? I believe this to be a key question that should be raised when debating those who stick with organised religion... And I'm sorry but anyone who'se argument is based around what the Bible and others have told them,, as well as the underlying fear of mortality,, I personally have to disregard as not holding a logical view on the subject.. I've heard that it's a matter of faith numerous times,, but underneath this I do believe there to be an element of fear. Of course I don't know for sure there isnt an afterlife beyond biological degradation - feeding other lifeforms via our carcas etc -but if this were all there is,, would the idea be so bad? Surely whats worse is religion being taught to kids through fearmongering till they're normally too scared and irrational to be able to realise they were being manipulated in the first place - if thats what 'God' really wanted humans to do to there kids there's a great number of us that would want to dissavow God anyway -yet of course this wouldn't be the case - I imagine this 'God' you envision would be pretty pissed off itself at the way it had been used to instill fear into the population.. It's a fuckin crazy world full of ignorant fearmongering humans

 

[villian]

vedanta