Did Jesus Exist? Part XI: Conclusion
Q: Was there an historical Jesus?
A: Of course there was.
Did Jesus Exist? Part XI
Moderator: Moderators
Did Jesus Exist? Part XI
Post #1And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #2
"Understand that Christianity was born as an attempt to "re-judify" Judea."
Jesus mission was one among many attempts to reform Judaism. It was neither the first nor the last, or even the biggest one.
"There simply was no uniform Judahist faith in the world of Yeshua and Saul" - Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, pg. 49
Like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus taught repentance. In his view, the Israelites had turned away from God and were being punished (by the Romans, this time) for it. Repentance was the means by which the covenant with God could be restored. Within this message was the concept of apocalypticism, and with that the notion of divine justice; because YHWH was just and would not allow evil to prevail indefinitely, he would, at the eschaton, address all previous injustices. The meek would inherit the earth.
Not only did Jesus preach repentance, but he spelled out the method and result of its practice, which were inseparable.
"The focus of Jesus gospel was God taking the lead in peoples lives, God remaking the world through people who listen to him. Jesus favorite idiom for God in action was the "kingdom of God." A better translation might be the "reign of God" or "God reigning." This was not a common idiom of his day, to judge by the Jewish texts of his time that have survived, for the idiom is surprisingly rare. Apparently it was Jesus who first made it the central idiom for his message." - James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus, pg. vii
Jesus message was not for everyone, especially those who were content with the status quo, or had an investment in their own particular form of Judaism, but it did gain some adherents, and many more when it spread throughout the Jewish diaspora.
"the early Jesus movement is properly understood as a Jewish sect when it began as a separatist revitalization movement within the established culture of homeland Judaism. As such, its followers shared a basic set of values, beliefs, and worldview with other Jews, even though they might have argued over key issues. On the other hand, when it moved into predominantly non-Jewish or "pagan" culture, then the Jesus movement appeared to be more of an alien phenomenon, or a cult. In this sense, the new cult will tend to synthesize itself to the basically foreign worldview of its host culture, while at the same time attempting to convince its new neighbors that the new message it brings is ultimately meaningful and beneficial." L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, pg. 132
Just as there were many opinions regarding Judaism, after Jesus death there quickly developed a diversity of beliefs regarding his ministry. Some were sapiential and focused on an earthly kingdom of God, while others were eschatological and focused on a future kingdom. Paul, for example believed that the end of the world was imminent, and placed great importance on that belief. The mythicist argument does a poor job of accounting for this diversity. Presumably an invented message would be more consistent. Some forms of early Christianity found a ready audience among gentile God-fearers who frequented diaspora synagogues. These gentiles were attracted to the notion of the just God who cared for all in contrast to the capricious pagan Gods, but were not willing to become circumcised and follow Levitical purity laws. These gentile Christians developed their own interpretations of the meaning of Jesus life and ministry, in terms that were familiar to them.
"Christianity began as a sect with missionary ambitions within an already Hellenized Jewish religion, but it did not simply emerge out of the preaching of the Jewish prophet Jesus. Rather, Christianity, probably more than any other religion of its time adapted itself to a variety of cultural and religious currents and appropriated numerous foreign elements until it was ready to succeed as a world religion thoroughly syncretistic in every way." - Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 1, pp. 158-159
This is the biggest problem with the Jesus-myth theory. There is no big mystery for it to solve. Jesus message never gained widespread acceptance among the Jews.
"But the reason this negativity is directed toward Jews is that it was to the Galilean Jews and to the Jerusalemites that Jesus and his followers had appealed in their intra-Jewish mission. As a result, it was by such Jewish audiences that they had been largely rejected. Jesus is constantly portrayed as debating with Jewish authorities, which is only additional documentation that he operated within Judaism, even while being its most severe critic." - James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus, pg. 82
A new and improved version of that message did later become popular outside of Judea, among Gentiles who were disenfranchised by society (slaves and women) largely due its message of egalitarianism and divine justice. Later rulers saw the political expediency of aligning themselves with this Jewish god, and the rest is history. Jesus should be seen then, not as the creator of Christianity, but as its inspiration. Mythicists create a strawman whenever they use the same arguments against an historical Jesus as they do against the Gospel Jesus. The scholarly view doesnt take Jesus at face value, so theres no point in arguing against that.
"As these scholars further hone their theories, certain issues dominate the emerging picture of the historical Jesus:
Jesus preached the kingdom of God, not himself.
In some way God would act in history (or was now acting) to effect a change in society as they knew it. Whether this would be at some future time (Sanders) or already present in his ministry (Borg, Crossan, Mack) or as a dynamic drama in its first stage, so both present and future (Meier) Jesus preached God's power to effect a reversal of values and the emergence of a just society.
This kingdom is about God, not Jesus himself, and is on earth. It addresses two main concerns of peasants: bread and death. "They have too much of the second and too little of the first," quips Crossan.
Jesus is a Jew, and the early kingdom movement'-the expectation of God's earthly rule and Israel's liberation from foreign oppression-is not the founding of a religion called Christianity but a thoroughly Jewish phenomenon. Unfortunately, we know relatively little of the Judaism of the first century, and much of what we do know derives from the New Testament.
The historical Jesus and the Jesus of the early church bear little resemblance to one another. Even more tenuous is the connection between the historical Jesus and later Christianity. Contemporary Jesus scholars seem to agree one can be a good Christian without knowing a bit about this Jesus of history. The flesh-and-blood Jesus in the late '20s of the first century gave way to the reconstructed and interpreted Jesus of the gospels in the 70s and '80s and was superseded by the "Christ of faith" of the later church. When believers speak of their faith in Jesus, it is this last figure to which they refer.
The emphasis on Jesus' divinity has often eclipsed his humanity. Many church controversies focused on creedal issues, such as Jesus' relation to the Father. From the nineteenth century on, much scholarly debate has swirled around such supernatural elements of the Jesus story as the virgin birth and the resurrection. Sanders notes the recent surge of interest in "Mary's hymen and Jesus' corpse. "Yet the human Jesus leaves hints of having been very human indeed: a colorful sort, more given to feasting than fasting and hanging around with disreputable types of which his family probably disapproved.
John the Baptist exerted tremendous influence over Jesus and his message. While contemporary scholars would acknowledge that the relation with the Baptist is one of the most likely authentic pieces of the gospel traditions (since the evangelists seem a trifle embarrassed by it, they probably didn't invent it), Meier develops the idea that Jesus was probably part of the Baptist's early circle and his fiery apocalyptic theology was a constant in Jesus' own ministry. When Jesus left the circle of the Baptist to start his own ministry, he seems to have taken some of the Baptist's followers with him.
Jesus' view of himself differed widely from the early church's. Whether he saw himself as the Messiah is debatable, but he almost certainly did not see himself as divine. As Bork puts it, "If one of Jesus' disciples had spoken of him with the words of the Nicene Creed, one can only imagine him saying, 'What?' Sanders poignantly remarks that Jesus may have died a disappointed man. The earliest gospel reports his final cry from the cross to be one of utter despair: "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" Whether historical or not, we cannot be sure, but it points to the element of tragedy in his death.
His followers, and even a non-believer like the Jewish historian Josephus, recall Jesus as a healer, exorcist, and miracle worker. Interestingly, his detractors neither call him a fraud, nor say the miracles were faked, but attribute his powers to Satan or demons.
Except for a few of the women, the bulk of Jesus' followers abandoned him at the time of his death. Nor did his family seem to support him during his ministry. At one point (Mark 3:20-2 1), they think he is possessed.
Remarkably, Jesus' death did not mark the end of his movement. His followers continued to believe in his message of God's Kingdom. "The juice was not turned off," remarks Crossan." frpm here.
Im sure that there is more that could have been added to these posts, but hopefully there is enough to show that an historical Jesus is the most probable solution to the question of the origin of Christianity. I will likely be unable to respond to any objections or comments, at least not in any great depth, as Ive decided to take my debating hat off. My third child was born six weeks ago and Im on the verge of beginning a new career. I have too little free time and its taken forever just to produce these last few posts. On top of that, I have to admit that I find these kind of open debates a little distasteful, particularly my recent exchanges with the Duke of Vandals.
Hopefully Ill be able to drop in on occasion, but in the meantime the real world requires my attention. Id like to thank Oliver for his kind efforts, and to send my best wishes for the future to the friends (and adversaries) that I have found here. I hope that eventually, somehow, you will actually resolve something.
Sincerely,
Lotan
bacolangcogeco.ca
Jesus mission was one among many attempts to reform Judaism. It was neither the first nor the last, or even the biggest one.
"There simply was no uniform Judahist faith in the world of Yeshua and Saul" - Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, pg. 49
Like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus taught repentance. In his view, the Israelites had turned away from God and were being punished (by the Romans, this time) for it. Repentance was the means by which the covenant with God could be restored. Within this message was the concept of apocalypticism, and with that the notion of divine justice; because YHWH was just and would not allow evil to prevail indefinitely, he would, at the eschaton, address all previous injustices. The meek would inherit the earth.
Not only did Jesus preach repentance, but he spelled out the method and result of its practice, which were inseparable.
"The focus of Jesus gospel was God taking the lead in peoples lives, God remaking the world through people who listen to him. Jesus favorite idiom for God in action was the "kingdom of God." A better translation might be the "reign of God" or "God reigning." This was not a common idiom of his day, to judge by the Jewish texts of his time that have survived, for the idiom is surprisingly rare. Apparently it was Jesus who first made it the central idiom for his message." - James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus, pg. vii
Jesus message was not for everyone, especially those who were content with the status quo, or had an investment in their own particular form of Judaism, but it did gain some adherents, and many more when it spread throughout the Jewish diaspora.
"the early Jesus movement is properly understood as a Jewish sect when it began as a separatist revitalization movement within the established culture of homeland Judaism. As such, its followers shared a basic set of values, beliefs, and worldview with other Jews, even though they might have argued over key issues. On the other hand, when it moved into predominantly non-Jewish or "pagan" culture, then the Jesus movement appeared to be more of an alien phenomenon, or a cult. In this sense, the new cult will tend to synthesize itself to the basically foreign worldview of its host culture, while at the same time attempting to convince its new neighbors that the new message it brings is ultimately meaningful and beneficial." L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, pg. 132
Just as there were many opinions regarding Judaism, after Jesus death there quickly developed a diversity of beliefs regarding his ministry. Some were sapiential and focused on an earthly kingdom of God, while others were eschatological and focused on a future kingdom. Paul, for example believed that the end of the world was imminent, and placed great importance on that belief. The mythicist argument does a poor job of accounting for this diversity. Presumably an invented message would be more consistent. Some forms of early Christianity found a ready audience among gentile God-fearers who frequented diaspora synagogues. These gentiles were attracted to the notion of the just God who cared for all in contrast to the capricious pagan Gods, but were not willing to become circumcised and follow Levitical purity laws. These gentile Christians developed their own interpretations of the meaning of Jesus life and ministry, in terms that were familiar to them.
"Christianity began as a sect with missionary ambitions within an already Hellenized Jewish religion, but it did not simply emerge out of the preaching of the Jewish prophet Jesus. Rather, Christianity, probably more than any other religion of its time adapted itself to a variety of cultural and religious currents and appropriated numerous foreign elements until it was ready to succeed as a world religion thoroughly syncretistic in every way." - Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 1, pp. 158-159
This is the biggest problem with the Jesus-myth theory. There is no big mystery for it to solve. Jesus message never gained widespread acceptance among the Jews.
"But the reason this negativity is directed toward Jews is that it was to the Galilean Jews and to the Jerusalemites that Jesus and his followers had appealed in their intra-Jewish mission. As a result, it was by such Jewish audiences that they had been largely rejected. Jesus is constantly portrayed as debating with Jewish authorities, which is only additional documentation that he operated within Judaism, even while being its most severe critic." - James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus, pg. 82
A new and improved version of that message did later become popular outside of Judea, among Gentiles who were disenfranchised by society (slaves and women) largely due its message of egalitarianism and divine justice. Later rulers saw the political expediency of aligning themselves with this Jewish god, and the rest is history. Jesus should be seen then, not as the creator of Christianity, but as its inspiration. Mythicists create a strawman whenever they use the same arguments against an historical Jesus as they do against the Gospel Jesus. The scholarly view doesnt take Jesus at face value, so theres no point in arguing against that.
"As these scholars further hone their theories, certain issues dominate the emerging picture of the historical Jesus:
Jesus preached the kingdom of God, not himself.
In some way God would act in history (or was now acting) to effect a change in society as they knew it. Whether this would be at some future time (Sanders) or already present in his ministry (Borg, Crossan, Mack) or as a dynamic drama in its first stage, so both present and future (Meier) Jesus preached God's power to effect a reversal of values and the emergence of a just society.
This kingdom is about God, not Jesus himself, and is on earth. It addresses two main concerns of peasants: bread and death. "They have too much of the second and too little of the first," quips Crossan.
Jesus is a Jew, and the early kingdom movement'-the expectation of God's earthly rule and Israel's liberation from foreign oppression-is not the founding of a religion called Christianity but a thoroughly Jewish phenomenon. Unfortunately, we know relatively little of the Judaism of the first century, and much of what we do know derives from the New Testament.
The historical Jesus and the Jesus of the early church bear little resemblance to one another. Even more tenuous is the connection between the historical Jesus and later Christianity. Contemporary Jesus scholars seem to agree one can be a good Christian without knowing a bit about this Jesus of history. The flesh-and-blood Jesus in the late '20s of the first century gave way to the reconstructed and interpreted Jesus of the gospels in the 70s and '80s and was superseded by the "Christ of faith" of the later church. When believers speak of their faith in Jesus, it is this last figure to which they refer.
The emphasis on Jesus' divinity has often eclipsed his humanity. Many church controversies focused on creedal issues, such as Jesus' relation to the Father. From the nineteenth century on, much scholarly debate has swirled around such supernatural elements of the Jesus story as the virgin birth and the resurrection. Sanders notes the recent surge of interest in "Mary's hymen and Jesus' corpse. "Yet the human Jesus leaves hints of having been very human indeed: a colorful sort, more given to feasting than fasting and hanging around with disreputable types of which his family probably disapproved.
John the Baptist exerted tremendous influence over Jesus and his message. While contemporary scholars would acknowledge that the relation with the Baptist is one of the most likely authentic pieces of the gospel traditions (since the evangelists seem a trifle embarrassed by it, they probably didn't invent it), Meier develops the idea that Jesus was probably part of the Baptist's early circle and his fiery apocalyptic theology was a constant in Jesus' own ministry. When Jesus left the circle of the Baptist to start his own ministry, he seems to have taken some of the Baptist's followers with him.
Jesus' view of himself differed widely from the early church's. Whether he saw himself as the Messiah is debatable, but he almost certainly did not see himself as divine. As Bork puts it, "If one of Jesus' disciples had spoken of him with the words of the Nicene Creed, one can only imagine him saying, 'What?' Sanders poignantly remarks that Jesus may have died a disappointed man. The earliest gospel reports his final cry from the cross to be one of utter despair: "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" Whether historical or not, we cannot be sure, but it points to the element of tragedy in his death.
His followers, and even a non-believer like the Jewish historian Josephus, recall Jesus as a healer, exorcist, and miracle worker. Interestingly, his detractors neither call him a fraud, nor say the miracles were faked, but attribute his powers to Satan or demons.
Except for a few of the women, the bulk of Jesus' followers abandoned him at the time of his death. Nor did his family seem to support him during his ministry. At one point (Mark 3:20-2 1), they think he is possessed.
Remarkably, Jesus' death did not mark the end of his movement. His followers continued to believe in his message of God's Kingdom. "The juice was not turned off," remarks Crossan." frpm here.
Im sure that there is more that could have been added to these posts, but hopefully there is enough to show that an historical Jesus is the most probable solution to the question of the origin of Christianity. I will likely be unable to respond to any objections or comments, at least not in any great depth, as Ive decided to take my debating hat off. My third child was born six weeks ago and Im on the verge of beginning a new career. I have too little free time and its taken forever just to produce these last few posts. On top of that, I have to admit that I find these kind of open debates a little distasteful, particularly my recent exchanges with the Duke of Vandals.
Hopefully Ill be able to drop in on occasion, but in the meantime the real world requires my attention. Id like to thank Oliver for his kind efforts, and to send my best wishes for the future to the friends (and adversaries) that I have found here. I hope that eventually, somehow, you will actually resolve something.
Sincerely,
Lotan
bacolangcogeco.ca
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #3
Was it really necessary to post al this - its all freely available.
However, I still do not believe the evidence for THE real Jesus is there. Because, if this isn't THE Jesus, it could be any Jesus. Obviously.
However, I still do not believe the evidence for THE real Jesus is there. Because, if this isn't THE Jesus, it could be any Jesus. Obviously.
Post #5
I will wish Lotan good luck in his new endeavors, and congratulations on the new child.
Certainly the forum will be poorer in your absence. While we obviously come from different viewpoints, you are certainly one of the most 'evidence based' and skillful debaters that we have.
I doff my cap, however temporary or extended your absence might be.
Certainly the forum will be poorer in your absence. While we obviously come from different viewpoints, you are certainly one of the most 'evidence based' and skillful debaters that we have.
I doff my cap, however temporary or extended your absence might be.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #6
Aren't you the guy who asked in Part I...SimonH wrote:Was it really necessary to post al this - its all freely available.
Can't make up your mind?SimonH wrote:Where is your overwhelming evidence Jesus was a real man.
Thank you for such a clear demonstration of the futility of these debates, and the affirmation of my decision to move on. I'm not quite done yet though. Let's look at the rest of that post...
Opinion.SimonH wrote:I don't personally accept the Bible as a history book.
Argument from incredulity.
Strawman. (No one, besides Christian apologists, is claiming that the Bible is a history book).
We know it's a religious book. The "mythical figure" bit is question begging.SimonH wrote:It is a religious book promoting a mythical figure...
Opinion. Jesus was a posthumously deified human being, not a God, and not a myth either. You might think that's "neither here nor there" but others might consider it important information.SimonH wrote:...whether that figure was based on a real person or not is neither here nor there.
Red Herring.SimonH wrote:Is the film Citizen Kane a historical documentary depicting a real person?
Who cares? Citizen Kane is an orange; the NT is a bushel of apples.
Strawman. (Which historical Jesus scholar, do you suppose, takes the Bible "literally"?SimonH wrote:I'm afraid the Bible is just too 'creative' for us to take it literally in any way.
)
I'm sure there's no amount of evidence that you couldn't dismiss. Maybe eventually you'll learn to do so on the basis of argument and evidence. Opinions are subjective and rather boring.SimonH wrote:And outside sources are very very few. Almost nothing, in fact. You're left with Josephus etc and even then a few mentions of dubious authenticity.
King Orange?SimonH wrote:Did King Arthur exist?
We can count ourselves fortunate then, that the situation is much better in regard to the case of Jesus.SimonH wrote:Well, certainly not the Arthur of popular folklore. But, hey, there may have been an actual historical king or military leader who the story was built around - we will never know.
Oh? Was Arthur a Galilean peasant holy man from 1st century Judea?SimonH wrote:Same with Jesus.
Analogy is a poor form of argument because it is seldom apt. That's why it's so popular with apologists; it's a useful way to mislead.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #7
Lothan, you will be missed, for no other reason than ones like above. Part of me wishes all non-believers were as intelligent and thoughtful as you; we can disagree yet still maintain civility and intelligence in the discussions.Lotan wrote:Aren't you the guy who asked in Part I...SimonH wrote:Was it really necessary to post al this - its all freely available.Can't make up your mind?SimonH wrote:Where is your overwhelming evidence Jesus was a real man.
Thank you for such a clear demonstration of the futility of these debates, and the affirmation of my decision to move on. I'm not quite done yet though. Let's look at the rest of that post...Opinion.SimonH wrote:I don't personally accept the Bible as a history book.
Argument from incredulity.
Strawman. (No one, besides Christian apologists, is claiming that the Bible is a history book).We know it's a religious book. The "mythical figure" bit is question begging.SimonH wrote:It is a religious book promoting a mythical figure...Opinion. Jesus was a posthumously deified human being, not a God, and not a myth either. You might think that's "neither here nor there" but others might consider it important information.SimonH wrote:...whether that figure was based on a real person or not is neither here nor there.Red Herring.SimonH wrote:Is the film Citizen Kane a historical documentary depicting a real person?
Who cares? Citizen Kane is an orange; the NT is a bushel of apples.Strawman. (Which historical Jesus scholar, do you suppose, takes the Bible "literally"?SimonH wrote:I'm afraid the Bible is just too 'creative' for us to take it literally in any way.I'm sure there's no amount of evidence that you couldn't dismiss. Maybe eventually you'll learn to do so on the basis of argument and evidence. Opinions are subjective and rather boring.SimonH wrote:And outside sources are very very few. Almost nothing, in fact. You're left with Josephus etc and even then a few mentions of dubious authenticity.King Orange?SimonH wrote:Did King Arthur exist?We can count ourselves fortunate then, that the situation is much better in regard to the case of Jesus.SimonH wrote:Well, certainly not the Arthur of popular folklore. But, hey, there may have been an actual historical king or military leader who the story was built around - we will never know.Oh? Was Arthur a Galilean peasant holy man from 1st century Judea?SimonH wrote:Same with Jesus.
Analogy is a poor form of argument because it is seldom apt. That's why it's so popular with apologists; it's a useful way to mislead.
Good luck with the child and the career.
One last note - do you have these in .pdf or word format? I'd like to compile them for no other reason than a very good reference at least proving Jesus was a real, existent person.
"He that but looketh on a plate of ham and eggs to lust after it hath
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
Post #8
Yeah, but links would do is what I meant.Lotan wrote:Aren't you the guy who asked in Part I...
Erm... well... unless you believe Jesus actually was born of a virgin, had a star point him out to some kings, was the son of a god, cured blind people, produced food from nowhere, walked on water, raised dead people, came back from the dead himself, etc etc etc... I think that is pretty mythical, don't you?Lotan wrote:We know it's a religious book. The "mythical figure" bit is question begging.
Opinion.Lotan wrote:Jesus was a posthumously deified human being, not a God, and not a myth either.
Ok, take away the Bible, now write me a biog of this Jesus guy and show me the non-myth-believer sources for this biog.
The point I am making, dude, is that a fictional character is not real just because it may or may not be based on a real person, as you are attempting to demonstrate. ie: Jesus may not have been this miracle-working son of god bloke, but he was this religious leader who really existed and was crucified, just like the character in the Bible.Lotan wrote:Red Herring.
Who cares? Citizen Kane is an orange; the NT is a bushel of apples.
The point is, like Citizen Kane, there is very little evidence that this Jesus as depicted in the Bible really existed.
If I told you about this guy I know who grew feathers and flew to the moon, would you accept my story as reliable?
Get you - How are your sure? Is this tone helpful?Lotan wrote:I'm sure there's no amount of evidence that you couldn't dismiss. Maybe eventually you'll learn to do so on the basis of argument and evidence. Opinions are subjective and rather boring.
So, this Jewish guy called Josephus writes a bit about Jesus beng the Christ who rose from the dead proving he must be the son of god - yeah, that likely. It's about as likely as me writing it. Perhaps he was being sarcastic.
edit: Professor C. Stephen Evans writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".
Last edited by SimonH on Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post #9
Your opinion is widely discarded by any scholar or historian. (that's fact)SimonH wrote:
The point is, like Citizen Kane, there is very little evidence that this Jesus as depicted in the Bible really existed.
Have you read the 10+ posts by Lotan? Perhaps debating some actual facts and evidence other than spouting opinions would be more constructive.
"He that but looketh on a plate of ham and eggs to lust after it hath
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
Post #10
No they wouldn't.SimonH wrote:Yeah, but links would do is what I meant.
You yourself haven't even read what I've posted so why would I expect you to search out the information on every linked page? I might as well point to a forest and say "See? There's a bunny!" (That's how you use an analogy).
I've simply taken information relevant to the points that I am making at the time, AND included links so that an interested reader can see the quotes in context. Futhermore, many of the works that I've cited aren't available on the net, and it's a little tricky to link to a book. Perhaps when you get around to posting some evidence I'll critique you method of doing so.
So does everyone else who isn't an apologist. Historical Jesus scholars know it, too.SimonH wrote:Erm... well... unless you believe Jesus actually was born of a virgin, had a star point him out to some kings, was the son of a god, cured blind people, produced food from nowhere, walked on water, raised dead people, came back from the dead himself, etc etc etc... I think that is pretty mythical, don't you?
"John the Baptist was resurrected, Eleazar cast out demons, Vespasian cured the blind, Honi made it rain, Hanina was a clairvoyant, Simon Magus flew, Alexander was sired by Zeus, Plato was sired by Apollo, etc. etc." - from Part VII
I'm pretty sure that at least some of these guys existed.
No, that would be a conclusion. I've already presented the evidence. In any case, my statement was in response to your assertion that Jesus' status whether mythical, historical, or whatever, is neither "here nor there". You're changing the subject.SimonH wrote:Opinion.
First you would have to provide a rationale for excluding the Bible. We already know that it's an apologetic work.SimonH wrote:Ok, take away the Bible, now write me a biog of this Jesus guy and show me the non-myth-believer sources for this biog.
"Dude" yourself. A fictional character is by definition not real.SimonH wrote:The point I am making, dude, is that a fictional character is not real...
"a real person"SimonH wrote:...just because it may or may not be based on a real person...
Wrong. I'm most definitely NOT trying to show that the Gospel Jesus is real. I made that quite clear in Part I.SimonH wrote:...as you are attempting to demonstrate...
Right. "just like"SimonH wrote:...Jesus may not have been this miracle-working son of god bloke, but he was this religious leader who really existed and was crucified, just like the character in the Bible.
No one is claiming that "Jesus as depicted in the Bible really existed". Could you put that strawman away now please?SimonH wrote:The point is, like Citizen Kane, there is very little evidence that this Jesus as depicted in the Bible really existed.
More analogy.SimonH wrote:If I told you about this guy I know who grew feathers and flew to the moon, would you accept my story as reliable?
There's not much to go on but, I might accept that you know "this guy" if that claim met certain historical criteria (multiple attestation, embarrassment, etc.). I might also accept that you had an apologetic basis for your claim that he "grew feathers and flew to the moon". These are two separate claims; that you knew a guy and that he could fly. One is possible, one is not.
I have no illusions that any tone would be "helpful". Until you actually produce some sort of evidence all I can see is your opinion. Lots of it.SimonH wrote:Get you - How are your sure? Is this tone helpful?
#41SimonH wrote:So, this Jewish guy called Josephus writes a bit about Jesus beng the Christ who rose from the dead proving he must be the son of god - yeah, that likely.
Who is making that claim?
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
