So many people here have beat on me (hard) in these threads, frequently citing Bart Erhmann

Well, here he is, emphatically saying what I have said.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lyi15_npTj8

If the link won't show, just search "Bart Erhmann no historical Jesus."

The first video result on Google is him saying "There is no first (or even second) person account of him.

Bart Erhmann is useless to apologists for a historical Jesus.

You obviously dont get historical methodology and the fact that there are no 1st hand referencces to many people from ancient times. That is the way it is.It was an oral society. Jesus and his followers were peasants and likely illiterate or semiliterate and most ancient records and books, even those by famous authors, are lost. BTW, Bart Ehrman is a peer reviewed scholar. What are your qualifications?

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You obviously dont get historical methodology and
> the fact that there are no 1st hand referencces to
> many people from ancient times.

You obviously missed his point, and tossed in a straw-man to boot.

There are indeed first-hand references to many people from ancient times. And there are those for whom there aren't any first-hand references.

It's a fact that there are no first (or second, or probably even third) hand references for an historical "jesus." There is also no evidence from "historical" sources of his time that should have mentioned him. There is also no "hard" evidence (physical artifacts, etc.). The simple fact is there is not evidence enough (of any kind) to support the conclusion that an historical "jesus" existed. It's *POSSIBLE* one did, but the evidence doesn't allow us to conclude one did. Doing so is a BELIEF, not a conclusion from evidence.

That isn't the case with "many people from ancient times." And where it is, their actual existence remains uncertain as well...however, in most such cases, their actual existence is more likely than an actual existence for "jesus," since those others usually didn't have outrageous tales of supernatural powers ascribed to them (incredibly unlikely to be true), didn't have "believers" down the road making up stories about them (which we know for a fact happened with "jesus"), and aren't the subject of fervent religious belief.

Bart Ehrman *believes* there was an historical jesus. He can't show evidence there was one. He tries to make a case for others to "believe" it as well -- but he doesn't do a very good job.

Note: there not being enough evidence to conclude there WAS an historical "jesus" does not mean "jesus" was entirely a myth. WE don't know THAT from evidence, either. Whether there was an historical "jesus" or not is unknown. Those who tell you there WAS one are going on "belief" and not evidence, those who tell you there WASN'T one are going on "belief" and not evidence. Although there IS evidence that MUCH of what was written about "jesus" is "mythical" and not factual.

You are the one who missed the point. I didnt say there were no first hand references for anyone. What I said is that not having first hand references is not uncommon. There arent any for Alexander for instance. They were all lost. Jesus was a peasant who died as a criminal, not an emperor,king, philosopher etc. Surprise, nobody wrote a lot about him during his lifetime or if they did, the writings are lost as are most ancient manuscripts. These are facts.I am not going to continue this conversation with you, so get in the last word if it makes you happy. I have asked you numerous times to leave me alone and I have very little use for your idea of scholarship or your opinion of Ehrman and other mainstream scholars who disagree with you. Therefore, there is no point in talking to you. Been there, done that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 04:44PM by bona dea.

Yes, I know you think it's fine to criticize other people, but not if anyone criticizes what you say. I find the hypocrisy fascinating, though a bit silly.

Religion is not based on fact, but belief. People believe Jesus was real.

I am talking about the man behind the myth. I agree that much of the gospels is mythical, but ancient authors routinely added mythological elements to famous people. If they did it to Alexander and Caesar, why not Jesus?

My guess is there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth as legends usually have a grain of truth in them.

Still doesn't make the supernatural actual, though.

Monty Python made a great documentary about the life of Brian of Nazareth.

My qualifications are Bartles and James.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> legends usually have a grain of truth in them.


Every time I think of that sentiment, I think about Hindu myths. You have a guy with blue skin, a guy with multiple limbs and a guy with an elephant trunk for a nose, to name a few. Hinduism is much older than Christianity, but I just don't see these deities as having real people behind them. I see them only as myths.

My problem with Jesus has always been in trying to justify why Jesus is any different than any other deity or myth.

Jesus' story started in historic times and there are accounts of him within 30 years. That is evidence of his existence. The Hindu gods originated much earlier and there is no way of knowing if there is some truth behind them. There could be, but the origins are lost. That is not true for Jesus.

I do not initiate conversations with you. Period.This was meant for Kolob. Wrong place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 05:06PM by bona dea.

There was no Jesus the son of god. Jesus is a made up cartoon character much like Thor, Zeus and Donald Duck.

The Christian religion is made up just like Mormonism is made up. There is no God, there is no Jesus, no Thor and no Donald Duck.

themaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was no Jesus the son of god. Jesus is a made
> up cartoon character much like Thor, Zeus and
> Donald Duck.
>
> The Christian religion is made up just like
> Mormonism is made up. There is no God, there is no
> Jesus, no Thor and no Donald Duck.

I don't know about the rest of them, but Donald Duck is real. I've seen him at Disney World and Disneyland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 12:00AM by scmd.

Historians would agree that Jesus wasnt divine but would disagree with you on everything else. The belief that Jesus never existed is not accepted by the vast majority of scholars-including non believers.It is considered crap history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 08:21PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Historians would agree that Jesus wasnt divine but
> would disagree with you on everything else. The
> belief that Jesus never existed is not accepted by
> the vast majority of scholars-including non
> believers.It is considered crap history.

You turned the issue around backwards, as I pointed out above.

Accepting the *fact* that the existence of an actual jesus can't be established by evidence is not a "belief that Jesus never existed." It's simply pointing out that the existence of an historical "jesus" can't be established.

And for about the thousandth time, please -- by all means -- list this "vast majority of scholars" you keep referring to. I've asked you to do so many times, and you've never provided any list.

Ihave listed many numerous times and am not doing so again and I am certainly not going to to list the thousands of scholars over the years.Suffice it to say that the three main mythicist scholars today are Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert Price and they themselves freely say that they have almost no support. Most of the mythicists are not scholars in any relevant fields.

The problem here is that you have jumped to the extreme, again. One need not be a "mythicist" to recognize the obvious appropriation of certain myths by the builders of the Jesus story.

I'm not big on the conspiratorial aspects that the "mythicist" movement requires but broadly speaking. Jesus is not the first myth to have a god father, human mother, inhuman suffering, ignoble death, and glorious return from death. Simply put, under a microscope things are going to look very different than from a 10,000 foot view. Please tell me that from a 10,000 foot view the Jesus story isn't similar to half a dozen other stories about such and such god/demi god.

Again none of this precludes Jesus being a real life person nor is any of it proof. But if I'm going to be asked to accept that Jesus really lived off of what amounts to common sense than it is fair to apply that common sense to the stories that surround Jesus. Jesus could have both been real and been made up. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that happened.

Puli said it below. The Joseph Smith that the Mormons present never existed. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a real person.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ihave listed many numerous times and am not doing
> so again and I am certainly not going to to list
> the thousands of scholars over the years.Suffice
> it to say that the three main mythicist scholars
> today are Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert
> Price and they themselves freely say that they
> have almost no support. Most of the mythicists are
> not scholars in any relevant fields.

Not only did you just repeat the *exact* same mistake I pointed out above (bringing up "mythicists"), you didn't offer anything for the question/challenge.
You have most certainly NOT "listed many numerous times."
You've put up a few names a couple of times.
You do realize there's a search function here, don't you?

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ihave listed many numerous times and am not doing
> so again and I am certainly not going to to list
> the thousands of scholars over the years.Suffice
> it to say that the three main mythicist scholars
> today are Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert
> Price and they themselves freely say that they
> have almost no support. Most of the mythicists are
> not scholars in any relevant fields.

Without intending to fan any flames here (although that may happen), would you agree that a number of biblical scholars are influenced by their own traditional beliefs in who and what Jesus was claimed to be and who many faithful Christians believe him to be? Many Divinity Schools are or would have been sponsored by believing Christians or Christian organizations, and Divinity students would tend to have a greater interest in traditional beliefs in Jesus based on their faithful Christian upbringing. This is certainly true of Bart Ehrman who only after becoming highly educated on the Bible and his Christian studies did he begin to question his upbringing and his faith (actually, I believe a different issue challenged his faith).

As ex-Mormons, some of us deal with certain BYU educated "scholars" who will gladly tell us their testimony of Joseph Smith being a prophet, that the Church is true, etc. The question I am not able to answer - based on the evidence I have read - is why should we believe the Christian scholars with regard to Jesus but disbelieve Mormon scholars who are highly educated concerning Joseph Smith and the Mormon version of Jesus? Shouldn't plenty of these biblical scholars be questioned as to how their own faith colors their view of biblical history and their understanding of Jesus as a historical individual?

Those scholars include atheists,agnostics, Jews, Muslims etc and many remakes ciated with well known universities raped her than divinity schools.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...ciated with well
> known universities raped her than divinity
> schools.

Talking dirty won't help. :)

Where is Nightengale?

My bait didn't work!

I confess.

Jesus existed, probably, or something. And did some amazing healings, resurrections, or turned coffee into Vodka?

Fed 3,000 people with a can of tuna? Kippers and saltines!

But... and this is key... the important thing is... it's true.

BartE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fed 3,000 people with a can of tuna? Kippers and
> saltines!

Hey!!

That is MATZOS, if you please!

;)

If you've ever been to a Jewish kiddush, you would know this to be true.

They can turn a can of tuna into a feast with a little imagination. And often times do.

They also have some great caterers who help out.

Just saying, Jesus may have started with a little. By the time everyone shows up (think potluck,) it's a smorgasbord!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 08:05AM by Amyjo.

I guess you missed the part where I said myths were added to a historical human being.The historical Jesus was not the divine Son of God, born of a virgin and so on. He was an apocalyptic preacher and a hukan being.

Actually, there is 'evidence' for the existence of the 'human' who became the Jesus myth of the Bible.

Most people won't accept the 'evidence' but mediums have talked with this spirit, channelers have channeled him and remote viewers have viewed him.

There is no evidence from these sources that I have seen or read about that suggest Jesus was 'God' or a 'total myth'.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, there is 'evidence' for the existence of
> the 'human' who became the Jesus myth of the
> Bible.
>
> Most people won't accept the 'evidence' but
> mediums have talked with this spirit, channelers
> have channeled him and remote viewers have viewed
> him.
>
> There is no evidence from these sources that I
> have seen or read about that suggest Jesus was
> 'God' or a 'total myth'.

What does the spirit of Jesus who communicates through mediums and channelers say about his life on earth in Galilee? Ehrman and others say that they believe it is likely that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypic prophet who was executed by the Romans for his claims about being the king of the Jews. Does the spirit of Jesus agree with this? What is the "self understanding" of the spirit of Jesus regarding his earthly life?

What does the spirit of Jesus who communicates through mediums and channelers say about his life on earth in Galilee? Ehrman and others say that they believe it is likely that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypic prophet who was executed by the Romans for his claims about being the king of the Jews. Does the spirit of Jesus agree with this? What is the "self understanding" of the spirit of Jesus regarding his earthly life?
______________________________________________________

He was 'enlightened' as he remembered some of the things from the 'between life' like some remember past lives, etc.. So, because of this 'enlightenment', he taught peace and love type things to 'prepare the people' to return to the between life ---- meaning we reincarnate. He was able to do some healings but not raise the dead. He never indicated he was the 'king of the Jews'. He did claim to be a 'son of God' like we all are.

He was very upset with the Biblical account. He claims he never tried to start a religion! Never died on the cross! Never taught resurrection of the body but reincarnation into new bodies.

RVers indicated some tried to 'trick the people' by getting some person very drunk and 'he' was the one who was crucified versus Jesus then fake the 'resurrection'. Whether this Jesus went along with that ---- don't know. The other groups don't mention this but just say he was never crucified period but went to another country to live out his days.

Hope that helps.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most people won't accept the 'evidence' but
> mediums have talked with this spirit, channelers
> have channeled him and remote viewers have viewed
> him.

"Most people won't accept" it because that's not "evidence."

It's on exactly the same level as mormons who claim the holy ghost revealed the truth of the mormon church to them -- unverifiable anecdotes. Not evidence.

"A Course in Miracles" is a channeled work that has been popular in certain quarters for some time. It is said that Jesus himself dictated it to the woman who channeled it. Having looked through it, I would say that to me it doesn't sound much like what a first-century Jew would say, or how he would express himself.

It raises the question how one could even go about establishing an identity between this alleged spirit of Jesus and the Jewish preacher said to be the source of Christianity. I guess someone who really thinks that Jesus "dictated" "A Course in Miracles" would have to believe something along the lines that Jesus, living in the spirit world, changed and evolved over the centuries since his life on earth, and in the process even learned English!

Not to argue because it is 'no big deal', but this book was 'not channeled' from Jesus. But hey if it sells more books ----- what the heck!

The author stated: 'Schucman believed that the "inner dictation" came from Jesus'. This is definitely 'not' what a channel would write.

I have a number of 'channeled' books and the part(s) that are 'channeled' are clearly marked. No 'belief' involved in who is 'dictating' or when.

However, in the after life, you get your full memory and powers back. They could definitely channel in whatever language or 'style' they wanted. Hopefully, they would to better communicate with us.

I was only interested in whether Jesus was the 'Savior/God'. So I got that information on my own. When I went to research what channels, mediums and RV people had to say my baseline was what I had obtained from my experiences.

Truthfully, I don't believe in every psychic person on the internet. I wanted to drop the 1st medium I researched that claimed communication with Jesus because I really didn't like her 'professional style' however, I could not dismiss her or any of the channels or RV people I researched, because they were not clearly 'wrong' about the information they provided based on my previous personal experiences.

no evidence for the existence of the fake jesus character.

Forget Joseph Smith, praise to the man Kevin Smith for creating Buddy Christ. Your divine pal for all occasions.

While there are absolutely no trustworthy sources about Jesus Christ, there are tons and tons of (neutral) sources about many different "Jesuses", that is, Jewish guys who claimed to be the Messiah, started a revolt, and were crucified. At one point somewhere between 0 and 50 CE, it happened every week in Jerusalem, with the high season always being around Passover.

Some of those impostors had better credentials than others. There were quite a few who weren't even from Bethlehem, but from other places, usually the Galilee, a renegade province. One was called "Jesus of Nazareth" because of his unlikely hometown. His followers conjectured a farfetched story about a census to claim he was somehow born in Bethlehem lol.

The story of Jesus being executed together with two criminals? More likely, that were three Messiahs, each with their own weeping following. And though we always portray our guy in the middle, he may have been the one on the right or left!

That is not true.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is not true.

A mild response to an imaginative creation. I kinda like the "Messiah-of-the-Month Club" explanation. Hadn't heard that one before. Where are the aliens, though?

I don't have the patience for these "anything but what historians actually say" versions like I used to. Carry on, if you do!

I am a little tired of the anti intellectualism. Trust some conspiracy theorist with a website and no credentials and ignore peer reviwed experts. Great critical thinking there.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a little tired of the anti intellectualism.

Me too. People who say that you can't apply Bayes' Theorum to questions of history are so anti-intellectual. Theorums are true by definition! Just because you prefer languages to math, it doesn't mean that you can break the laws of mathematics whenever you feel like it.

> Trust some conspiracy theorist with a website and
> no credentials and ignore peer reviwed experts.

I don't trust people who consistently attack the credentials of critics instead of addressing the criticisms. If you have to specialize in the study of Jesus in a professional capacity before you could possibly understand the strength of the evidence for a historical Jesus, then something is wrong. There should be an executive summary that anyone could read to be persuaded of Jesus the man's existence. Many of us have read entire books on the topic, only to be disappointed by the flawed logic that historicist authors use. This isn't a school debate, this is an honest enquiry that deserves unbiased, sound logic. Historicists need to lift their game if they want to be taken seriously outside their safe little circle of friends.

You need to lift your game too. You have been called out on your logical fallacies many times, but you continue to use them. If you honestly believe you are right then demonstrate it with sound logic instead of debate tricks. If you can do that, you might get through to some of us.

Yes, I have been called out by people with no.background in history or logic.I take it for what it is worth.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I have been called out by people with
> no.background in history or logic.I take it for
> what it is worth.

The Invisible Green Potato wrote in response to you:
"I don't trust people who consistently attack the credentials of critics instead of addressing the criticisms."

Your response? attack the credentials (and falsely at that) of critics.

Well done. You sure showed him.
Not.

... Very christlike indeed ;)

I am not a Christian. I am a history major. Sigh

I have seen the pictures of Jesus of Norway. He looks kind and inoffensive. He gets plenty to eat and has good dental care. It's obvious that he shampoos every day, his hair is that silky. His beard is trimmed and his robes are as white as a summer cloud. So laundry service is not a problem. As he has no money, I imagine his living and travel expenses are covered. Nice sandals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 01:40AM by donbagley.

or the Buddha or Dekanawida.

Seriously, it's not worth arguing over. There is no way to prove it one way or the other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 02:41AM by anybody.

Well duh nobody can walk on water, go try it it ain't happening

There's enough historical proof to satisfy me Jesus' existed.

That he still exists is subjective to some, objective to others.

I'm satisfied he is real.

More real than you or me.

"He lives." (My deceased cousin's quote, as shared by her brother at her funeral last week.)

I am sure that people do care about Buddha and Zarathusa

Shakespeare is the only other personage that I can think of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question


Most people only know of Hiawatha from Longfellow's poem but it would be really cool if Dekanawida, the Great Peacemaker, was real. The Iroquois certainly believe so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peacemaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y9p9iwvlpQ

Shakespeare lived during historical times and there are records which make debate possible. But Jesus of Nazareth was a nobody. There are no records of him. The only person in the Gospel connected to Jesus whose name has been validated by archaeological evidence is Pontius Pilate. The earliest written mention of "Christians" is from Pliny's letter from A.D. 112:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

There just isn't enough evidence to argue the matter one way or the other so it's not worth gnashing teeth over.

Uhm, so, you know, like, I guess, like, wow.

I get why this is a big deal. I get why Jesus matters. What I don't get is the whole evidence by extrapolation that is used.

There are certain facts that belong in this conversation. I wouldn't want to rank their relevance but I would say that chief among them is the fact that tangible evidence is lacking.

To Bona

I think you do yourself a disservice when you bring up Alexander and Julius Cesar. While the written accounts of their exploits are not fist hand and certainly exaggerated. There is ample physical evidence of their existence and their accomplishments. I think that you believe that, by your admission that the written record is mostly embellishment, you have given enough to stand hard on every other issue.

My Opinion

Bible Jesus is a myth and I think most, who don't believe in Jesus the god, believe that he is a myth. The mythical real Jesus is equally myth by nature of the utter lack of evidence of real Jesus. There is more evidence for Bible Jesus than there is for the mythical real Jesus. Unless of course you allow for extrapolated evidence, which I'm not sure is a thing.

As for the extrapolated evidence, I find it compelling.

Regarding Alexander and Caesar, you are missing the point. To start, I have never said there are no contemporary references to Caesar. Thereof are plenty including his own 'Commentaries on The GalLic Wars'. I did say that myths were added to his story and Alexander's as also happened to Jesus. That was common in ancient times and the point was this.JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE MYTHICAL ELEMENTS IN THENSTORIES OF ANCIENT PEOPLE IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY WERE NOT REAL. THIS MYTHOLOGIZING WAS EXTREMELY COMMON.

As far as Alexander, I am well aware that he is better documented than Jesus. Duh. He was a highly educated king of a powerful nation and he conquered the world. Jesus was a peasant, likely illiterate, in a backwater. Shocking that his every move wasnt written in triplicate. My point is that saying Jesus didnt exist because there are no contemporary references is a red herring because that is also true of many people who had a much larger claim to fame. That also is the norm. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT OTHER EVIDENCE. THE POINT IS THAT IF ALL THE WRITTEN RECORDS OF A GREAT KING SUCH AS ALEXANDER COULD BE LOST,WHY IS IT SHOCKING THAT THERE ARE NO WRITTEN RECORDS OF A JEWISH PEASANT WHOSE FOLLOWERS COULDNT READ OR WRITE? Got it yet? I hope so.

Ok, I think I got it.

I think a more apt comparison would be Perseus. Certainly there had to have been someone named Perseus. There is zero evidence of such that isn't tainted by the abundance of legend surrounding him. But someone must have founded the Perseid Dynasty and the Mycenae Kingdom.

The point is that when you, or in this case I think Bart E because it is one of his major points, bring up fully established historical figures and then compare them to Jesus you ask for all sorts of nitpicking. As you point out the circumstances are so dramatically different that the comparisons are impossible. So why bring them up in the first place?

I am only comparing one issue which is the lack of contemporary references. I never said anything about any other evidence. Neither did Ehrman to my knowledge. You and others made an unwarranted assumption.Dont put it on me.

I think this subject gets misunderstood an awful lot. Perhaps I can liken my viewpoint using another figure or two.

Is King Arthur of English legend really exist? As I understand it, historians have found evidence of a leader in very early England named Arthur who in fact did live and die. Did he become king because he pulled a sword out of a stone? Not likely. Was he married to Guinevere who had an affair with a French knight? It's possible. So is King Arthur historical? The actual answer is Yes, and No. A real person likely lived and died but the legendary King Arthur did not. Aspects of his life are embellished to make him appear even more fantastic than he actually was during his life.

How about Joseph Smith? We have plenty of evidence that Smith is an actual person who lived and died and we have lots of evidence of his life and who he was. Smith also has had a legend of sorts built up around him to make him a fantastic personality unlike the records of history many of us have come to know about him - but try telling that to a TBM (you won't get far). We know Smith was a real person and we also know how myth surrounds his character even as he lived much less after he died. Is Joseph Smith a real person? Well, Yes, and No. A real person did live and lie, but the nature and the character of the man as believed by many Mormons did not exist - not ever.

Now Jesus. Finding the facts as to weather an actual man lived and died who was the basis for a historical Jesus is nearly impossible to say because independent records are non-existent or highly disputed because of their differences with the Bible's depiction of him. We are also aware of apparent forgeries mentioning Jesus believed to be added long after a manuscript was originally penned. No doubt the Bible is the most noted source discussing Jesus as an individual, but even Bible accounts vary between them (and then there are differences in the manuscripts we have). My answer to the question as to a historical Jesus is that same as for King Arthur and Joseph Smith - Did he exist? Yes(possible), and No. Personally, I'm inclined to accept that a real person serves as the basis for a character of Jesus - it makes more sense to me, although I could be persuaded otherwise. But I have no confidence that any biblical description of Jesus is any more real than Arthur pulling a sword from a stone or that Smith was any kind of prophet. I have no confidence and only reason to doubt that the character of Jesus as presented in the Bible is at best embellishments of a man who existed and just as likely they are complete fabrications transforming the actual man into the man early Christians needed him to become for their own purposes.

I love this topic for a variety of reasons. It's an interesting debate...

I think a factual answer to the question of the historical Jesus is "we don't know".

Because, there is no actual evidence for the seed person for the myth person. We can be pretty confident that the myth person, who walked on water, turned water into wine and feed thousands with a couple fish and a couple loaves of bread didn't exist.

As for the "seed person", he may exist, he may not. We don't know is a valid response. People may believe he existed, there may be a lot of people writing books saying he existed based on the Bible and hearsay, but there is nothing concrete to base that seed of truth on.

Right now, there is as much evidence for a historical Zeus as there is for a historical Jesus. The evidence so far as I've heard is that there is usually a seed of truth to every myth. If you're going to say that because the myth of Jesus is so big, there must be a person behind it, then the same must be true for Zeus. Yet, no one is clamoring to defend the historical Zeus when people call him a myth or point out that he probably didn't exist.

The most that people can say is that there may have existed a teacher or set of teachers that formed the loose basis for the Jesus myth. The life he lived was most likely very different than the one described in the Bible, he wasn't born as described, probably didn't have the following as described (otherwise he would have warranted a contemporary note somewhere, proving he existed)... So, what does "he" matter?

You might as well say that the locations in the Book of Mormon are "real" because Joseph Smith used real locations from a map and changed the names a bit to fit his narrative. But, I hardly think that anyone would agree to that.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a factual answer to the question of the
> historical Jesus is "we don't know".
>
> As for the "seed person", he may exist, he may
> not. We don't know is a valid response.


Yep, that's exactly how I see it. And just because I don't have a belief that he existed doesn't mean he didn't. I have no idea. But I haven't seen anything which has convinced me that he did. The answer no longer has any relevance to my life.

I look at the existence of historical Jesus this way. With what I've read and researched on the topic, and how I understand how movements work in the human condition; what way would I bet? My guess is a dude existed, and over the years the stories changed. Humans are moths to the flame when it comes to personality cults.

Thinking,

Do you think that if there was a historical Jesus, he could be considered a cult leader? I think most theologically orthodox Christians today would think that people like Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, and Ellen G. White are cult leaders. But that Jesus in no way would be in that category since he is the only begotten Son of God, sent by Heavenly Father for our salvation.

It's really hard to say, plus "cult" is a loaded term as we understand it today. He went against the orthodoxy of his day so being labeled a heretic seems likely. Who really knows exactly what message was at this point in history, and how it was perceived. What ever the original philosophy was it must have been powerful enough to change a lot of people's thinking in a short amount of time.

The only difference between a cult and a church is it's size.

To me the most persuasive evidence is that through the accounts of his life, he comes off as being entirely human. And I mean that in a good way. Through his sayings, his teachings, and his actions, he has a distinct point of view. He has his foibles. Once you strip away the mythology, what is left is an entirely human being. By contrast, the Greek and Roman gods are larger than life. They have distinctive personalities, but they are in no way human.

The Jesus of the gospels has a discernable "voice" in the literary sense of the word. You an read a novel or a work by Capote, Hemingway, Updike, or any number of other authors and recognize their distinct style of communicating. The Jesus of the gospels also has a recognizable way of communicating his truths.

How many of you have solid documentation for your family trees going back 2,000 years? The longer the timeline, the more fuzzy the documentation. How much more so for an itinerant Jewish preacher traveling around Galilee so long ago? Why do we insist for a higher standard for Jesus than we can reliably produce for our own families?

He made an impression on select groups of people because he was teaching things that they had not heard before. The GOOD Samaritan? How could such a thing possibly exist? Everyone knows that Samaritans are the lowest of the low. It would be like Thomas Monson standing before General Conference and telling the story about how the bishop refused to help the poor unfortunate man lying by the side of the road, the Stake President refused to help, the missionaries refused to help. But the apostate helped! Chew on that, faithful members! Wouldn't you find such a conference talk memorable? Might it not be remembered even years later by the people with whom it connected profoundly?

No one will remember me 2,000 years from now. But people remember Jesus because he had something profound and universal to say.

You know that is ironic. One the more vocal and logical arguments that was had during the Council of Nicea is the idea that god wasn't anthropomorphic. The Greeks assigned far to many emotions and human tendencies to their gods and the early Christian fathers couldn't conceive of a god that was so human.

You see if god/Jesus was really a man than their god was no better than all of the other gods out there.

I don't know if the Yeshua of the bible is based on an historical person. Neither does anyone else. That is the only tenable position. Those who say its myth have a burden of proof. Those who are historicists have a burden of proof. I have read both sides enough to know that THEY DON'T KNOW. I strongly suspect the mythicists are correct, but I DON'T know. Neither does anyone else.

Further... I doubt it matters... even a little.

=)

Then how do you explain the empty tomb? ;)

By looking up. Instead of down. :)

Looking in instead of out. :)

Part of the myth....or some guys stole it to perpetuate the myth.

Jesus is my buddy.

Best friend. Advocate. Intercessor.

Works for me.

I've had a personal witness of him as a young adult that's carried me through most of my adulthood.

Like the poem, "Footprints," when I've wondered about some of the trials in my life as I reflect back upon them, I can see a pattern where I didn't go through them alone. There were times I may have even been carried.

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 09:55PM by Amyjo.