Hello Mithrae,
Nice to "see" you again.
Mithrae wrote:
catalyst wrote:A lot of atheists making the assertion that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth never existed, are former Ministers, Pastors, Priests etc. Dan Barker is one such example and I mention him only because he is probably better known than other examples I could give. Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity? Whether people like to believe it or not, removing ones-self from a religion that has consumed a good part of your life, is NOT easy peasy, in fact it is one of the most difficult things psychologically, one can do. Sometimes, even when looking into information to cement ones "faith", it can cause ones faith to come crashing down around them. At that point, one can choose to keep the blinkers on, or acknowledge the new information for exactly what it is....and that what it is.. is not necessarily what you wanted. If one is honest with themselves though, the blinkers come off.
I agree that loss of life-long committed faith is an extremely difficult and ultimately emotional thing. I don't agree that this is a credential in favour of the validity of those people's subsequent views - some would say it suggests quite the opposite, of semi-emotional reactionary views rather than minimal-bias study and analysis.
I suppose that is what you aren't understanding. When I refer to the blinkers being off, one is capable of seeing the information for what it is, rather than what you WANT it to be. The emotional attachment to the data is gone, where as a christian apologist for example, clings to anything, no matter if it makes sense or not, to "prove" they are still right and "just" in having their faith. Craig Blomberg is one such example. He is an alleged "expert" on such matters. "Expert" of course based on Historia's definition: Experts typically posess a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree) in that specific (or closley related) field of study. They have published articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals, and have likely written several books. They are highly cited by other scholars, and widely regarded as influencial within their field. He is a christian apologist and historian. His doctorate is the NT; he was a senior research fellow at Cambridge U....the list goes on. I think currently he is working at the Denver Seminary. Mr Blomberg has made claims (through his "open-minded" and unbiased research into the matter - [sarcasm]), that Matthew, Mark and Luke's gospels were physically penned by be-sandalled personal friends/followers OF a man named Jesus of Nazareth. He also concludes through his study and "expertise" in such matters, that this Jesus of Nazareth fellow DID do ALL the things the NT claims he did... He states he "knows" this and cites Papias as being the reason (and Papias through Eusebuis, btw). Now, from out prior interactions, I know you have at least read up on Papias as I recall you bringing him into the equation in our discussion. As such, you will know that Papias NEVER refers to any bloke with the name "JESUS OF NAZARETH", for starters. This is just a peek into this "noted expert's" drivel, where it is apparent that honest investigation has been LOST and replaced with emotional bias related directly to his "faith".
I wrote:
catalyst wrote:I don't believe the jesus of nazareth character existed, not only due to the "supernatural" elements as mentioned by Flail, but also from some long hard research into the matter; 15+ years of it, so it wasn't fleeting for me not to believe in "jesus" or his actual existence any more. The most difficult aspect of it all was to take the blinkers off. It was far easier to "choose" to believe, until my own conscience got the better of me and at that point, I could not continue living with what was, a "comfy" lie. A little ironic don't you think that the words in John 8:32 ...were KEY to my personal exodus from christianity. "seek ye the truth and it shall set you free"... too funny...lol... it was good to know that those sentences are in the DSS 4Q163 too.... - dated to circa 150BCE.
It's obvious that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth's purported life, there were MANY a messianic style figure running around the traps. Much of the NT - the claimed words of wisdom of the character were done PRIOR and a lot better. The "Sermon on the Mount" is one such example. A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.
You wrote:
It looks like you're saying that even the gospel of John has various elements which would have been very much at home in 1st century Palestine.
What I am saying is there is extant evidence to support that what the "gospel" writers attributed to this Jesus of Nazareth character, purported to have lived IN 1st century Palestine, as being unique and a "proof" of Jesus of Nazareth actually being "GOD" - on earth, existed at least 100 years PRIOR to his claimed birth, and were not written to determine what would happen IN the future (the future being 1st century), but rather a commentary of what was happening at the time: that 100 odd years PRIOR. I am not saying this real person though, was born of a virgin, nor was resurrected, nor did he or she walk on water. There are elements OF people prior that I see in the "gospels", yes.
What is interesting is, the prototype of what would become the "sermon on the mount" (the post resurrection hoo-ha), was originaly related to a SHE, as being wise, SHE as being the bringer of peace. These particular DSS writings actually coincide with the life and time of a QUEEN - that queen being Salome - a Jewish queen and her reign between 78BCE- 69BCE. (she was also born 139BCE... so you do the math there too). In her reign, SHE actually brought peace and stability into the equation due to her "ways", her reign. There WAS PEACE in the region for that 9 years. A tiny block admittedly but it was a peaceful time.
The thing is, there is an abundance of information relating to this woman and her own "religious" advisors. Obviously the religious advisors information is purely contained in the DSS, but there is also MUCH contemporary information about her as well. Again, it seems to me that the lack of desire in some to really and truly get to the bottom of things rears its ugly head again.
Odd how few if any of these "noted experts" even bring this stuff into the equation. I know for a fact from our previous interactions Mithrae, you have no clue about this woman and you admitted as much. Not that I reckon you call yourself an "expert in any way, but it's clear that you DO reply on what some "experts" say and take their opinions on board as FACT....and don't bother to look any further yourself. That doesn't apply just to you Mithrae but to all those quite obviously not understanding MY position. I looked past my own comfort zone. I did not want to find what I did, but when it came down to honest appraisal of the information, I had no choice but TO acknowledge it. I don't like dishonesty and lies and frankly, I refuse to be a part of it. It is that simple. It is apparent though that many on this thread, whether christian or not, still like or even want to cling for their own reasons, the "idea" that there was some SINGLE, SOLE bloke...with these "disciples" running around for a couple of years in 1st century Palestine, on which to base the christian perceived "messianic" star on. It is evident by even this thread being titled and refering to THE "historical jesus". Now if they want to go that way, then perhaps they should study up on Appalonius of Tyana. (again, probably like Salome a vast majority of you have never heard of). At least reading up on this "proven" (MUCH evidence to support) historical figure, can at least guage where some of the writings of Paul perhaps could have derived and would also explain where Marcion got HIS info, which from my research, shows that Marcion wrote tha majority of the Pauline Epistles in the 2nd century (circa 140ish CE) rather than the "assumed" dates of the works of "PAUL" around circa 50CE. Cool thing is Appalonius DID leave writings of his own in his lifetime, which spanned around 100 years and he WAS born circa 4BCE and his life spanned through to close to 100CE. Interestingly in his personal writings, there is not a mention, pip or squeak about some "Jesus of Nazareth" nor his claimed cohorts or even any subsequent (to the alleged miraculous events) and this dude DID live throughout ALL their (alleged) lifetimes. From these personal memoirs of Apollonius, Flavius Philostratus wrote a biography and both the original writings of Apollonius exist as well as the biography done by Flavius, from the autobiographic information.Flavius also incorporated resounding contemporary evidence to support Apollonius' autobiography.
Again, from the interactions I have read on this forum, when people cite these alleged "expert" opinions, does ANY of this ACTUAL historical information, enter the equation.
It also looks like you're disagreeing with the most common mythicist views, that Jesus was fundamentally a syncretic pagan figure.
I stated clearly that I have never read their offerings, Mithrae. In fact the only thing I know about these people's writings is stuff that people such as yourself, Historia, etc cite on here. I cannot comment on things that "Student"(a name brought up in dialogue on this thread) has brought forth, as I have not read their comments obviously taken from their own thoughts on the matter. TGA..well, I realise she has said much and has commented on much, but her take on this particular issue, I have not read. I suppose if she wants to give me her personal educated take on it, then I am happy to look at it. Until that time. I cannot comment on what she actually DOES or does not "know".
I disagree with what I have seen referred to on here, whether that is the authors ACTUAL take or not, or merely the posters interpretation of what was written though, is another thing. The fact is, it seems that NONE of you tend to go the extra mile to even see for yourself if what these "experts" ARE claiming is actually viable or not. It seems you either agree with their face value hypotheses or you don't. Case closed. That has ZERO to do with ALL the facts out there, but moreso to do with what you "want" to believe.
Let me clarify something so it is patently clear to all and sundry who care to read this.
I DO NOT believe that a bloke by the name of Jesus of Nazareth ACTUALLY lived, during the period 4BCE - 30CE. It is not because I don't want to believe it, but the evidence to support such a character's existence is JUST NOT THERE. I do not consider religious propaganda to be historical "proof" of anything other than certain people throughout time HAVE believed UNSUPPORTED by ACTUAL EVIDENCE hooplah.
I do believe that the Jesus of Nazareth character is nothing more than a melding of MANY different people who did exist, and only in regard to his less than "miraculous" supposed achievements. I do not believe that at any point in ACTUAL history that any human being was born from "immaculate conception" nor did anyone defy death and in said defiance OF death, cause others to rise from their graves in a "zombie frenzie". I do not believe that even as a child (from reading the non-biblical writings) that this "jesus of nazareth", picked up clay, formed them into balls and they miraculously became birds and flew away.
So in that regard, I suppose that it can be established that there are certain elements of this "jesus of nazareth" FICTICIOUS character, gleaned from a multitude of people who actually lived at one point or MANY historical points. Some of the elements as to Jesus of Nazareth though, ARE mythical.
Unfortunately, it IS basically the mythical stuff that is CORE to the christian belief system. Virgin birth, resurrection. It is THESE things that many a christian claim is "proof" that their "jesus" IS THE MESSIAH. It IS these things about the character that are celebrated and exploited. WOW, "Christmas"...".Easter". So even IF (which I doubt) it is based on one guy and one guy alone, that guy did NOT do, nor was part of these KEY THINGS the "faith" rests on. Without that guff... there is NO "christ".
That is why I decided to post on this thread as the writer of the OP has a predisposition (tautological no doubt) to TRY to show that there was "ONE GUY" all the guff was based on.
If however anyone on this thread has information to counter my position, bring it! I am always open to new information...no matter where it will take me.
Unless we assume (as I agree, some Christians seem to) that an historical Jesus must have been completely uninfluenced by prior Jewish culture, what you're saying seems to almost be claims that the gospels give a pretty good portrayal of a genuine 1st century Jewish teacher.
See, again you reckon it comes down to one, sole human being as being THE.....AN... "historical jesus" and you can't or don't want to get past that. This thread is not about psych analysis so I won't even read "into", but perhaps that is something if you choose to, should contemplate why.
That said, of course in the melding of the Jesus of Nazareth character at least, had/has elements that related to Jewish culture of the time come into the equation at some point or on some level, as the Judaic G-d is the CRUX TO the christian belief too, - he IS the "creator god of which this god/man hybrid was sporn, but what many a christian fail to understand is, the messianic view in judaism has ZERO to do with a sole, "beamed down from god's supernatural loins into a waiting virgin vessel" bloke running around doing supernatural stuff. When Jews say that their book is a DIFFERENT book to the Christian OT, they say it with good reason.
Even more evidence to support that NO sole guy...an individual...an "historical jesus" "fit" ANY actual "expectation".
Thank you for your comments and if you wish to reply, I look forward to it.
For others whose posts I have seen this morning, I will not be replying further today as there are family issues I have to deal with.
Catalyst.