I think I see the confusion here - I'm not a mythicist. Someone claiming to be Jesus could have and probably did exist (Yeshua was a very common name). He could have claimed to be the Messiah (those guys were a dime a dozen too - though if they wanted to make their boy the Messiah why did they never let him say it? Also, why didn't he follow all the messianic prophecies instead of the ones the  writers liked?). He may have done some "miracles" as well (the woods at that time were crawling with faith healers)

The fantasy came when they built this guy into the son of Yahweh. The son of Yahweh is the myth not necessarily the human Jesus (though there isn't a lot backing him either).

 

Jesus as the messiah, as the son of God are statements of meaning, history does not validate or invalidate such claims, it is beyond the scope of history to do so, no different than it is beyond the scope of history to determine if my mother is the greatest person that ever lived. 

Historical and literary analysis of the Gospels can help us to understand what led to such beliefs, why early followers of Yeshua perceived him as the Messiah, as the Son of God, and God incarnate, one may be even led to accept these beliefs, by what founded these beliefs for them.

To accept the meaning of Christ is faith. And the question of the meaning of Christ is not a matter of history, but what is beyond history, and that is the meaning of things. 

 

You are correct with this. Though history can show why people of the time concluded that your mother was the greatest person of all time it does so from the surviving biased accounts.  The people who lived across the street from your mother might have had a completely different view witnessing events you and others did not know and they never bothered to document it.

I don't see how you can tell the motivations and basis of the people who formed these beliefs from clearly biased writing of the early followers. If these people were Jews they knew what the messiah or Moshiach was prophesied to do for them, yet Jesus didn't meet those requirements. In order to understand their acceptance of him as the one somehow the Jewish prophesies had to be reinterpreted. Even Jesus' followers don't seem to be aware of this in their discussions in the Gospels. The Gospels portray the disciples as lacking understanding of what Jesus says. Jews continue to this day to lack understanding of the morphed religion of Christianity.

Your are welcome to your faith but not the assertion that Christ is the meaning of things. It is your interpretation that Christ is the meaning of things based on your faith and acceptance. It is not based on material evidence and such is an assertion.

I have followed your exchanges here and with Rook in the other thread being an observer not a contributor. Rook and others are very clear in their position and you in yours. I on the other hand take the position of I have no clue. 2000 years of time has muddled the waters to the point it is unclear if Jesus was real or not. Well meaning believers destroyed much conflicting and unknown writing over the centuries. There is no way to separate facts from legend accurately. As in the OP, scholars debate and positions are taken making claims that have probabilities that cannot be known. It does not matter to me if Jesus was real or not as he is but a cog in the Yahweh saga. It is not even clear if the surviving Christian beliefs even resemble those of the Jesus believers such as are described in Acts in regards to James. Many sects were begun in the mid to late 1st century and many were exterminated or turned into heresy by the survivor. If Jesus the rabbi is based on a real person it is interesting it is so hard to prove, though the Romans didn't really bother to keep records of all the rebellious Jews they executed. The messiah question is an entirely different matter and Jesus is quite contrary to Jewish understanding and expectations. That is however a different matter.

 

 

 

Jesus may fit the persona of the suffering servant if that was the intent of Isaiah though many Jews don't see it that way. I don't agree that he met the expectations of the Jews and go with their view that Isaiah 53 is about Israel as a whole not the messiah. There are different takes on Isaiah 53 in Jewish belief though even the NT seems to indicate that Jesus' own disciples didn't see him that way. See this link. And this link. There are others on other Jewish websites as well. I take that position. Jesus also does not meet the other requirements to be the messiah in:

Isaiah 11:11-12, Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5, Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1, Jeremiah 33:18, Jeremiah 33:15, Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6-11:9, Isaiah 11:11-12, Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5, Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9, Zephaniah 3:13.

Since Jesus did not meet the requirements as believed for centuries by the Jews they either missed when schizophrenic Yahweh changed his mind as he was prone to do or Christians are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Either one is good enough for me to toss the concept of Jesus as the messiah of the Jews out in my trash.

I agree that the Jesus in the Gospels is a character in a play whether based on a real person or myth I don't care as there are too many problems elsewhere. I do not see the Gospels as a biography rather as a means to propagate a belief that hatched from misunderstanding. As to how this started it's like trying to find out where a fire originated and determine the cause but do it 2000 years later. Again, I see the argument the Jews make that Jesus does not fit their expectations and agree that he does not. It was their religion and their prophecy so the morphed version where he dies to save man from his sins is tossed away at the beginning. If a Christian wishes to prove the Jews misinterpreted they need to do so and no quotes from the NT will do that. They need to show why the accepted expectations of the messiah were wrong and not change the game plan. Where in the Hebrew Bible were these prophecies changed or missed and why didn't even the disciples seem to know? Rook, these aren't questions for you as I know you are aware.

 

 

I think you are making a crucial mistake here in assuming that all Jews had a similar idea of the messiah.  Not all Jews thought alike, and Judaism in antiquity was as diverse (if not more so) than Christianity was in antiquity.  There are on record over 30 sects of Judaism - it is wrong to assume an orthodoxy or standard dogmatic perspective.  Jews thought differently and expressed things differently, often through writing, which is why the Dead Sea Scrolls represent such a diverse group of thoughts and expressions instead of the old perspective now being more and more dismissed by scholars who take the collection of scrolls to be from a general library rather than a specific sect. 

To many Jews, the suffering servant (David) IS the messiah.  To others, the messiah would be something else.  The messiah was only as good as the sect which accepted it. 

I agree to some extent - Jesus is a representation of Israel as well, however.  This is why he will knock down the walls of the temple and rebuild them in three days.  He is Israel, who will be destroyed, which has been ruined.  But like the old covenant, he will rise up again.  Israel will be reborn as it has been previously.

Jesus' disciples were purposefully written to be ignorant, hard-headed, clueless and downright incompetent.  It's a literary device to make Jesus seem more wise.  The trope of the incompetent disciple is an old one indeed.  It goes back to before the composition of the books that make up the Torah in the Ancient Near East, although the trope is relevant to the Hebrew Bible as well.

You're looking at this the wrong way.  Jesus isn't that messiah.  That is the whole point of Mark.

Once more, you're making the mistake of lumping all jewish throught into one category.  This is a naive perspective of ancient Judaism.  Jewish culture was not whole nor united, not even in Palestine.  Barclay has a great book on Jewish thought and lifestyle in the Mediterrainean. 

I understand your willingness to dismiss the premise of this discussion.  But let us not get lost in the falsities of the claims in the Gospel narratives.  Would you be so crude with The Catcher in the Rye?  Probably not, because you would recognize it as fiction, and read it as such, and not be so hostile to the text.  It is easy to get lost in people like theidiot, who have no understanding of classical literature, particularly methods of composition, and it is easy to get steered away from the fact that what we are reading is just a story - it becomes a battle for whose Christ is more real.  Forget that discussion - it is a distraction.  Come back up here to the real discussion - the question of "why".  You bring up some very interesting points.  For example, why would Mark paint his Jesus as the Messiah if clearly he didn't fit the bill?  You can't claim Mark was ignorant of the scriptures - he wasn't.  He was well educated and learned philosophy and Greek at a Greek gymnasium.  He was well schooled in rhetoric and literature.  He knew how to speak and write in multiple languages.  He was a ancient renaissance man.  He had a purpose to write.  Consider these things carefully.  And again..."because it happened" is not a valid (nor logical) reason.

Where do you think the misunderstanding came from?  Surely you wouldn't consider Tobit a book written based on misunderstanding?  What about The Infancy Gospel of Thomas?  We're talking about literature here - not some fanatic theist writing down things from memory or second hand accounts.  These are narratives.  Everything has purpose. 

You're using modern Jews as a means to make a case for something that was written 2000 years ago.  That is bad form.

Incorrect.  Once more you're making the flawed claim that all Jews have a same dogmatic belief - this is untrue.  Not just for today but in antiquity.  (Don't forget Jews for Jesus.)  See above add: You're not accounting for Hellenism, Romanizing, and Egyptianizing that was taking place in antiquity.   There is also the Second Sophistic, the period where people were grossly engaged in writing fictions and works of fiction, including letters and epistles in the name of other people, some fictitious.  Jews were doing this for centuries.  There are many pseudepigrapha in both Jewish and Christian camps.  Clearly perspectives about the Messiah, Jewish law, and Jewish tradition, were more flimsy than you're giving credit too.  Again, this is due to asking the wrong questions.

Although Mark did make various mistakes about Jewish culture and law, which Matthew corrected. With that said, do you think the purpose of Matthew's gospel was to replace Mark's? After all, if you are a Jew and you write a gospel within which you correct the mistakes of your source then surely you would not want that source material to continue to propagate incorrect information about your religion/culture. Could that have been why Matthew even wrote to begin with?

Just a thought....

 

 

I haven't given a substantial answer to claims you've made? 

I have thread over here, that was quite a lengthy and comprehensive response to claims that you've made, that is going on close to four weeks now without you responding. Let's see if individuals here will claim I didn't provide any substantial answers to any claims you've made. 

Just two examples from the post would prove this wrong. You claimed that greco-roman biographies are not written pseudonymously, in that post I proved that false. You claimed that "Jesus is Odysseus", claimed that MacDonalds theory in support of this, is accepted by "every critical historian" (which you still have not validated this claim). In my post I revealed a number of the claims MacDonald makes in the Odysseus and Jesus comparison, as a clearly deluded joke. Here's one clear delusion, let's see if you or anyone else here will come to MacDonald's defense:

I went over a few more of these supposed similarities in this thread, that you have yet to respond to:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14997

After reading my post I challenge you or anyone else to defend MacDonald, or to take up his claims again. 

In an unfinished post that I started writing on, but I didn't post yet, I was doing a pshychological comparison of mythicisist and bible code believers, MacDonalds comparison are clear examples of this, so is your "Jesus and Romulus" comparison:

 

 

Please, don't accuse me of not responding substantially to any of your claims, you and I both know that's not true, even just these two minor examples above show that I have, and this lengthy post right here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14997, shows that I have as well.

But I'm not going to continue debating you in this thread, I might use what you say to address the questions raised by others, but that's about it. I responded to you in length already, and addressed a number of the concerns you raised here in it, and I expect a response, because I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I already said there, or devoting the time that I did in writing that post to person who pleads the fifth. 

Here's the link again, to that thread, when you have time respond to that, rather than attempting to waste my time repeating the same things again here to you: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14997

 

 

 

Actually I said many not all, I am aware there were many sects with different beliefs. The mistake I made was thinking the majority saw it the way I described. Since there were no poll takers such as Harris 2000 years ago asking their views and documenting it we really don't know what views dominated. Thanks to multiple wars with the Romans and Christian persecution much of the literature was also destroyed.  Then of course a lot was oral as well until 2nd and third centuries. So just because literature and writing isn't in our hands today doesn't mean it wasn't a belief of a Jewish sect. It's likely views differed from village to village as well as the influences you point out from Egypt, Rome and Hellenism. Thanks for pointing out my errors, I was getting sloppy.

Again, I knew this but was as you say using the views of the Jews of today to argue.

OK, though in some ways the disciples also show ignorance of the message being propagated as well as the messiah's actions. They seem to support the idea he will be the leader king on Earth as described in the prophecies and are very surprised over his predictions of being killed.

I agree, I generalized too much.

I completely agree the Gospels are fiction for many reasons including their inaccuracy such as with the obvious as in Luke with the census and Matthew with the baby killing ordered by Herod. The attack on the moneychangers by Jesus in Mark and Matthew are also indication of fiction. That would be unlikely due to all of the Temple guards including Roman right before the Passover. There are many places that show the writing is fiction though believers accept it as real.

Tobit and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas clearly are literature. I say misunderstanding because I don't see where this view of the messiah originated. I agree the Gospels are fiction but don't see what was the point. If Jesus was represented as the nation Israel then I see how it is a narrative and a play. What you are saying is it is like other literature of the time such as  Roman-Hellenistic literature where the gods were part of the story? That makes more sense than any other explanation.

 

 

Thanks pauljohn and Rook. Years ago I read most of the recently found gnostic "books" and it was Thomas who jumped out at me. Basically he wrote that to know , to understand, the meaning of jesus message was to be as jesus yourself, to be equal, to understand all is ONE, and this is the "good word", to pass on. So very atheistic, no master, no superstition, no idol worship.

Are there any more such scroll verses that you guys can recall? My mom, when I was a kid presented jesus as atheistic, and scorned the organized dogmatic church, as Khalil Gibran did, whom she adored. 

Like shit, I google "Jesus Is You", and all I get is crap religion. ( Oh, and my dad was a Carl Sagan , Bertrand Russell , Jacques Cousteau, Carl Jung, Nietzsche etc preacher, lucky dumb me.

  For me, Jesus is simply a "lable" of ancient philosophy views, regarding what a perfect christ/man would be or is, written my many, wise and dumb.

So far the only "proof" I've seen is can be boiled down to:

The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. Biographies can only be written about people that existed. so, Jesus must have existed because biographies were written about him.

I'm an actor - I write "biographies" like this when I'm preparing for a role. I just call them character sketches. It doesn't mean that that person actually existed or isn't an amalgam of other characters. It's simply a backstory I create to aid in my portrayal of the character on stage.

That, in a nutshell, is why I can see the reasonableness of the Gospels being extended character sketches - I write them myself.

As I said, I'm not a mythicist though I can see possibilities for the position.

Now...

Love the way you completely glossed my point about the character sketch, a biography of a fictional character. As I said, I write them frequently so I know it's possible to do so.

What makes the Gospels biographies and not a character sketch for Jesus the son of Yahweh?

Historical settings? Comics have those.

Real events? Which miracles were recorded in other sources so we can have corroboration?

Your whole position comes down to "the Gospels are biographies because they claim to be". John 20:31 stands against you in it's stated purpose. Or is John excepted as a biography?

 

Your view seems to be tht Jesus is real because the Gospels were written in the Greco-Roman biographical style and no biographical writer of that time would write about a person unless he existed.

I believe that the gospel writers may have had a human model. He may have been named Yeshua and may have been a rabbi claiming to be the Messiah.

Personally I subsribe to a view that the model may have been an amalgamation of several characters that the authors knew or knew of. The writers knew the hero myths of that time as well as the Hebrew scripture.

I see this amalgamation being named Jesus Christ as they needed a miracle working "anointed deliverer" (what the name means) as the main character for the story they were writing.

The person or people they built the pattern from may have been real (some of them anyway). The end product that made it into the Gospels is too embellished to be anything more than a myth.

Or are you saying that there was really a Rabbi who was born of a virgin and working miracles out at that time? I'm not asking you if you believe that there might have been someone who claimed it - do you believe that such a person literally existed? The gospel writers seemed to. They didn't say Jesus claimed to be the son of God - they said he was and is.

Claim whatever you like but as you told Rook in the other thread you insistently reference you cannot with 100% certainty make a case Jesus was a real historical person. You remember was Alexander a man? Was Julius Caesar?  In fact your probabilities are unmeasurable regardless using the NT as basis when combined with the complete lack of outside substantiation. Are the Gospels a biography as you say with fiction and Sci-Fi added to jazz up the real Jesus or is it just a fictional story based or legends? How can there be basis in reality when much of the prophecies of this supposed messiah are based on fiction such as Daniel. Daniel is full of errors and misconceptions especially regarding history that indicates he had no clue who was king of Babylon and what king conquered it. Why then would your Jesus character have basis in reality if he subscribed to such Sci-Fi? I suppose he could have been misled, but that blows him out of the water as the Son of God wouldn't it.

Accepting the Gospels as a biography of a real historical Jesus would mean the Sci-Fi BS in these Gospels have basis in reality. If not then the stories in the NT are added fiction to make Jesus look like he is more than a simple desert prophet militant. The following fantastic adventures in fantasy land that contradict reality need explanation:

Virgins giving birth; Property destruction of 2,000 pigs; the 5,000 person picnic and the very similar 4,000 person low budget rerun; the fishing miracle told different ways; the centurion's servant healing told 2 different ways; resurrecting dead people; healing lepers without anti-biotics; angels appearing; healing cut-off ears; instant wine; mind-freak tricks like Criss Angel walking on water; teleportation from the desert after he is tempted by Satan; teleportation of an entire ship after the 5,000 person picnic; walking masses of resurrected dead persons upon his death on the cross; and various other Sci-Fi adventures.

Unrealistic behavior as follows:

Destroying property and living afterwords - killing the pigs; differing accounts of Jesus' actions after the 5000 person picnic; advocating unsanitary behavior; cursing inanimate objects such as a fig tree - and not knowing when figs were in season; attacking moneychangers in the Temple where 100s of guards were present including Roman right before the Passover; bringing in unclean persons to the Temple and getting away with it in front of the previously mentioned temple guards; changing his claim of when the Kingdom of God would occur; offers from Satan to give Jesus who is alleged to be God anything he wanted; Jesus' attitude about parents; parables that contradict one another - building sheds is pointless but investing money is wise; advocating warfare before diplomacy; make friends of the rich so they will help you when you fail; misrepresenting what is meant by cursed is he that hangs on a tree; Jesus says the kingdom of God is within you; Jesus advocates deception to get the hidden treasure on a piece of land; Pilate caring whether he kills low-life scrum Jewish rebels; racism and bigotry are advocated unless you are a persistent bitch; day workers should not show up until later in the day as they will get paid the same as those that get there at sunrise; don't go to weddings without the proper dress; and others.

Strange claims that don't agree with other accounts of history:

The death of John the Baptist; misrepresenting the Sanhedrin Council; misrepresenting what Jews could claim about being the messiah;  Nazareth even existing at the time - maybe or not; same for Capernaum; Luke's census at the birth of Jesus; Matthew's baby killing by Herod;and more.

All of the above and far more including countless contradictory stories and multiple choice accounts of events suggest to me the Gospels are either fiction or they are legends from multiple sources. I can't tell which and I don't see where it matters from my understanding. Robin Hood stories originally had similar diverse accounts until they were written down years after they originated as well, ministrels embellished them at will.

A far better case can be made that Robin Hood and Arthur were real historic figures than Jesus though we can't know that for sure either. As I said earlier I have no clue if Jesus was real or not and that which is in the Gospels does little to convince me he was. There is far too much added fluff in these accounts to build him up as the savior and the Son of God to conclude he was as I just pointed out. There is of course the possibility he was real and all of the fluff was from oral legends and stories, but it matters little to me as either way the story of Jesus is not true per se because of 100s of issues and reasons. I studied theology and religion at a Jesuit university 25 years ago when I got my graduate degree and that which I learned led me to where I am now.  I see where you say you are agnostic, fine with me. I have no argument with that. Believe what you will that Jesus lived or not, I care not. I don't see what your trying to accomplish here at all other than argue biography versus fiction and you say  in other posts you see fiction in the accounts such as the virgin birth. You even say in a later post that if they were shown not to be of a real person than they are not a Greco-Roman biography. So either you can tell this or you can't, though again how can you be certain at all is something I don't get. You seem to make this as a claim of certainty though you have left the door open for the possibility Jesus wasn't real.

 

Well, i have not made claims of 100%, and there is always a door open for the possibility that Jesus wasn't real. I make arguments of more probable, not 100% certainty. So my argument can be rendered "It is more probable that Jesus existed than not existed."

Even our imagination has a basis in reality, in that reality is the palette in which we paint our imagination from. Your statement above is formed on the basis of reality, such as that some of messianic prophecies are based on a book in reality (the book of daniel). We can take a work of complete fiction, like a Dostoevsky novel, and reconstruct from there what probable events, persons, themes, experiences in the reality of the author led to character paintings. In fact literary critics do so all the time, like discovering the character of Elder Zosima in the Brothers of Karamazov is modeled on the character of St. Ambrosia of Optina. 

Psychologist and Psychoanalyst and many scientist even reconstruct the source of our behaviors, and thought patterns, for humanity, and even for individuals. 

We can take any part of the Gospels and do the same thing, like we would of the narrative about the fleeing from Herod, and murdering of innocent, and what in reality lead to this component of the narrative? An actual historical event? not likely. Paralleling the life of Jesus with narrative found in a real Jewish text about the life of Moses, to portray Jesus as liberator from oppression as Moses was? most likely. 

Or the virgin birth: is this part of the narrative derived from the two Gospel writers interviewing Mary on Jesus' conception? not likely. A god revealing this to them in confidence? not likely? An erroneous reading of a messianic prophecy? likely. A conveying symbolically of Jesus extraordinariness? likely.

You've made a number of "measurable" probabilities using the NT and it's surrounding history as a basis, it may not be measurable in a sense that we actually have a quantifiable number like ,we're "87.65584% sure this event happened, but measurable in a sense of it being more likely or not. This alone proves your above sentence false.

Here's one such example: "Pilate caring whether he kills low-life scrum Jewish rebels"

This sentence can be written from what you implied as "it is unlikely that Pilate would have cared about low-life scrum Jewish rebels".

But there is historical case that Pilate did care (though care is perhaps not the correct word, but cauticious might be) about non-violent Jewish rebels. Josephus writes of such an event in Antiquities of the Jews, of number of Jewish rebels who protested the image of the governor, and the eagle of Jupiter being placed in Jerusalem. When Pilate and his soldiers surrounded them and threatened them with death, the protestors replied that they where "willing to die rather than see the laws of the torah violated".  And Josephus writes that Pilate was deeply affected by the non-violent protestors resolution, and ordered his men to carry the images back to Cesarea. 

We see this pattern of psychology revealed numerous times in history when dealing with figures of non-violent resistance, in governments who understood such figures as nuisances and threats to their dominion, such as Rev. King, and Gandhi.  If such figures were proponents of violent resistance they could have easily been killed by government sanction, but being that they were not, made such actions much more difficult to do and justify. 

Is it historically probable that Pilate would have been reluctant to kill Jesus? The psychology of Pilate revealed in the Josephus account reveals that there's a good chance that he may just have been. Does Pilates reluctance to kill Jesus have a basis in reality? Yes it does. 

But the heart of the Gospels that lead to the conclusion of a historical person more so than anything else, is the parables, and the teachings themselves. What is the most probable source in reality of them? Who is the imaginer of them? Who told them, particularly those that are multiply attested to? Who is the one that said that Jews should resist the Roman Angaria law, by walking another mile? Who told them, to resist the suing of the poor for almost their last possession--their tunic, by going naked by giving up their cloak as well? Who is extending the love of one's neighbor to include ones enemy as well? Who is putting the spin on Hillel's not doing bad, into doing good? etc...etc....? Who tolds those subversive parables? Perhaps you'd like to give us the most probable explanation of this? 

I doubt a better case can be made that Robin Hood was a historical person than Jesus, in fact a better case can't be made for an Gautama Buddha who is considered an actual historical person, but has far less evidence going for him than Jesus. 

Well, there is a decent amount of outside substantiation that lends a great deal to the probability that Jesus was a historical person, I just don't tend to use it much, since I enjoy making the case with the Gospels more. Here are two examples:

Tacitus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius  14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Mara Bar-Serapion writing around 73 A.D: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? [...]Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Though Bar-Serapion doesn't say the name of this wise king is Jesus, I don't know of any other individual who would fit the description of a wise Jewish king who was executed and known for his teaching, other than Jesus, do you? Apparently Mara Bar-Serapion thought the reference would be known well enough that he felt that he didn't need to explicitly provide the name. 

The individuals who argue that since the name "Jesus" is not explicitly given here, Bar-Serapion cannot be considered as an outside substantiation of Jesus existence are silly. You tell me what's more explicit, if I say president George Bush, or the 43rd US president? A wise supposed jewish king known for his teachings executed by the jews, or Jesus a common name? 

Unless someone wants to present an individual that would better fit the description than Jesus, there is no argument. Probability favors that Bar-Serapion was speaking of Jesus than not.  

Though not really related to the rest of the thread, but since you choose to misrepresent some of the parables, I've decided to correct some of your assumptions about them:

When did Jesus advocate investing money?

I'm guessing you're referring to the parable in Luke 19 (that also appears in Matthew), and claiming that the King is representative of Jesus himself? When in fact Jesus is quite clear, particularly in Luke that he is not referring to himself, as he starts the parable off with a clear reference to a historical event, about a delegation of Jews who traveled to Rome to oppose Herod Archaleus receiving the title of king. 

When did Jesus say that one should make friends of those with money? Surely not the parables of Shrewd Manager? Where he accuses the steward of being a child of the world, rather than a child of the light? 

And why would the king who gave a wedding feast and kicked out the man who was improperly dressed be Jesus? When in the Matthew narrative that mentions this part, has Jesus being proclaimed as "an individual who does not regard a person's status", right after he tells this parable? 

Most of your other interpretation are twisted, and I doubt with any real reflection you would agree with the meaning of some of them as: "jesus advocated warfare before diplomacy", "day workers should not show up until later in the day " or "deception"? If this is the meaning you derive from these parables I suggest you go back to high school, and take a reading comprehension class. If anyone is misrepresenting what these parables mean, it's you. 

The kingdom of God is a realized and yet to be realized eschatology, the word used for "within" is also the word used for "among". It's a double meaning term, that the Gospel of Thomas clarifies in the "kingdom of God is within you and it is among you." And the word "kingdom" (basileia) is not as you take it to mean as territory, but the word means dominion, or reign, or sovereignty. The verse means that God reign is within our hearts, and present among us. And as Paul correctly interprets the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteous, peace, and joy. That God's liberation is not material liberation, but a spiritual one, a theme that gospels continually go over. 

 

(duplicate post)

 

 

To Rook, 

I dug myself into a hole?

Perhaps you'd like to reveal where that hole is? Unlike you I don't take issue with being wrong. I can openly admit it when I am. So maybe you'd like to show me where on this thread that I dug myself into a hole?

Or is this, as well as the avatar a cheap way of attempting to discredit me, when you have no argument? 

I don't think anyone other than a minute few fanboys will get why you gave me a "asshat" avatar, but to me it makes more a mockery out of you and this site than me. It's childish rook, and reveals a level of immaturity, when I expected better from you. 

But oh well, do what you will, I'm going to say my piece regardless. If someone puts me in a hole, meaning that they show that I'm wrong somewhere, I'd be pretty grateful for it, not ashamed of it. But you surely haven't said anything in this thread that's done so, but I'm sure some delusion of grandeur makes you think otherwise. 

 

Theist say the buybull was historical when it supports their argument, and when the buybull contradicts itself theist say "don't take it literally".
Theist, stop believing your own lies... if that's possible.

What? Why do you say that? Let's leave this clear:

Mohammad existed. Arab chieftain, OK? If we study him historically, does it mean we have to fully disregard the Koran, instead of investigating it (plus every other available source)?  Does it mean that if we accept Mohammad as an historical figure, we forcefully have to admit he kicked the Moon?

Other myths: book, The Iliad. Everyone believes it's a myth until a guy called Schliemann digs a bit and finds the ruins of Troy. Of  a dozen Troys. The city is there, physically, buried under the ground. The epic tale is an epic tale. Does it mean that if we try to find a broken door or a painted horse, we are accepting that Apollo, Zeus and Aphrodite were scampering around the battlefiend?

Please.

 

Depends of the Christian. I am an agnostic, and I have Christian friends who would not agree with you. Then again, my Christian friends aren't exactly the average fundie.

Pardón, but again, I know a few Christians who wouldn't agree with you. In fact, I find it funny for an atheist to tell Christians what they should try to prove or disprove. Some people (specially the learned ones) follow a belief because they agree with its overall philosophy. And some Christians are smart enough as to NOT take the gospels literally. But then again, as I said before, my few Christian friends aren't average.

In any case, my two cents:

What about Josephus' second mention of Jesus? The one where he mentions "Jacob, brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ?" I am not trying to provoke or anything, I am just asking. I know Origen mentioned this paragraph (unlike the first one). I wonder what we would find if we ever got hold of a copy of the Antiquitates Judaicae before it was translated.

 

Second. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four gospels differ (more or less) from one another, except in two points: Jesus fires the merchants from the temple and gets killed.

 

Maybe Jesus didn't exist, I don't know. But I find the "revolutionary who got killed" explanation as the most reliable of the explanations available out there. I am not saying it is completely proven or foolproof. I am just saying that, according to Öccam's Razor, I haven't been given a better explanation.

 

Up to which point was the historical Jesus similar to the Jesus of the Gospels? Now that's a totally different topic. I don't believe in ressurrection, for starters. But I think the root of the mythical Jesus was a human being. Just as I know that combustion of organic matter is the root for the myth of the Will-O-the-Wisp. That doesn't mean I believe in Will-O-the-Wisps, it's just that I'm investigating where the myth comes from, and whether its root is based (albeit loosely) in real life, or a fraud.

 

For example. those "fairy photographs" taken in England were a myth whose root was fraud. The Will-O'the-Wisp was a myth whose root was not a fraud, but a mix of human mistakes, fear and ignorance.

 

On the point of the "Jesus Christ" myth, I think that so far, with the information we have now available, the most probable root was a Jewish preacher. I don't say there can't be another explanation. I just say that, so far, I haven't found anyone better.

 

I had a look at Acharya's book "The greatest history ever sold". She lost me when she used Helena Blavatsky's works and books like "The lost continent of Mu" as reliable sources.

 

Now, as a curious person, I really, really wish we found an original of Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae. I really, really am intrigued to know about what he really wrote. And considering most of the world counts the years based on a possibly mistaken date of birth of Jesus, I think it'd be interesting to try to search for such information. Just to know a bit more about human History and that

 

 

 

Well, I'm one of those mainstream theist who does not believe in Biblical inerrancy, but yet believe Jesus was (is) the son of God, and was literally resurrected. Yet I can understand the distinction between the Jesus history can validate, and the Jesus of the faith tradition, which history can not. 

 

The dilemma topher, is that it is not in the means of history to prove Jesus is the Son of God, performed miracles, or did any such supernatural things. History can claim that Jesus was a historical man, but it cannot make claims that he was more than a man as well. 

 

To put it into perspective, let's take the resurrection: How would the historical method validate a supernatural resurrection? if every person in ancient antiquity saw the event, or everyone the world over, and then went ahead and wrote about it, providing us millions of eye witness accounts, can history than claim that a supernatural resurrection happened? 

 

The answer, for those who have even a passing familiarity with the historical method, is that no it can't. 

 

Even if I were to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus myself, I still would not be able to validate it as historical event. I could have been one like Thomas, and felt Jesus' wounded hands, and etc., and I may in fact believe whole heartedly that I was witness to the resurrected christ, but it is not within the capability and means of history to validate this event. If you can figure out a means for which history can do so you tell me?

 

At best, the historical method can validate (by validate i mean make more probable) the perception of an event, it can make claims such as that I probably did perceive a resurrected Jesus, but this might just have been a delusion, like a ghost sighting. 

 

 

Well my friend, history like other sciences, doesn't "prove" anything,  all the scientific method can do is make cases for what is most likely. 

 

 

Uhm we don't know? in what sense do we not know? It's more probable that Jesus existed than not existed, or in other words it's more likely that there was a historical Jesus, a jewish rabbi for whom the gospels are based on, than not. Is it a open-and-shut case? Uhm probably not, is there enough juice in the ahistorical position for it to be taken seriously? No not at all, in fact its taken as seriously by historians, as creationism is taken by scientist. Of course, when a person so in grained by what's said among his peers, he might not so readily see this. 

 

Over time, you see pattern emerge among forums like this. Jesus mythicist begin to die down, vocal mythicist disappear all together, for lack of any decent argument, and what's left is a few stragglers. You'd be hard pressed to find a decent mythicist these days. And eventually they'll be just as miniscule as flat-earthers. 

Babbling about subjective notions of probability isn't particularly impressive or even sensible. So, you believe, so it's probable. Yawn.

How historically acceptable is it to you that the existence of a personage is based on unprovenanced texts, from unknown times, written for purposes not indicative of historically sound sources? The gospel sources are by their nature secondary sources. We know that Paul, who believed in some way that Jesus existed, didn't need a real live Jesus for his belief. He trusted his revelation, Gal 1:11-12, and his proselytes trusted him. You see people in ancient times believed what trusted people said. (For instance, they believed that Eve was created from Adam's rib -- it says so in the scripture. Lucian of Samosata's antagonist, Peregrinus, was believed by his christians because they trusted him. Such beliefs are not material for history.)

Neither Paul nor his proselytes needed a real live historical Jesus. But that is where christianity started. The gospels didn't come along for several generations. The first gospel, Mark, was apparently written in Rome, due to its use of Latin terms and idioms as well as a Roman predisposition, explanations for Romans. That doesn't augur for a first hand source, but a source of collected traditions.

Trying to apply probabilities to unfathomed traditions is a species of necromancy. Traditions may be based on actual figures, but there is no necessity and it is exceptionally hard to separate what may be real from the plausible but not real. When Tertullian argues against Ebion, he assumes that Ebion existed, as does Hippolytus and Epiphanius, but we know better. Ebion the eponymous founder of the Ebionite christian movement is a figure who was whisped into existence through error: it was assumed that the name "Ebionite" followed the pattern of group based on founder, but "Ebionite" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "poor". You can see how Pilate's wife gets reified and named and eventually turned into a saint. Tradition works that way. You simply have little hope of extracting history from it. Yet here you are rabbiting on about probability.

We live in a society which is still strongly biased towards christian assumptions. Many historians are christians. And those that aren't are liable to the influence of a strongly christian society. It is not strange that historians, when they dabble in religious studies, will withhold their usual critical methodologies.

This is ultimately self-defeating logic. The onus is always on those who present a substantive position to demonstrate it. It doesn't matter if no opposing case exists. Such cases are means for disregarding one's scholarly responsibilities and merely attacking the opposing thesis. This sublimates the actual necessity of making the substantive case. In other words it is just a cheap trick to avoid one's responsibilities.

spin

Well, I for one believe the Jesus of history to be the Jesus of my religion, but the question here is what exactly does that mean for the Jesus of history to be the Jesus of my religion? First we would have to have an understanding of what the meaning of that religion is, and then we have decided if Jesus is representative of that meaning. 

Is the meaning of the Gospels a belief that Jesus literally walked on water, and can be historically validated? Is the meaning of the tale of three little pigs, that wolves talk? What are the question the gospel attempts to answer? What is the worldview it is trying to convey? 

The dilemma for many but not all unbelievers is they fail to see this point, there's obsession with the age of science, and there's life of abundance and privilege, leave them foreign to the dilemma of the human condition, where the questions are rarely about history or science, but a way of making sense of a troubling world. Tragedy deals with it questions, that are not scientific inquiry but meaning inquiries, a way to inquire about life to give it some sort of poetic resonance, to give meaning to the meaningless for a shred of hope. 

The cross has a context in history. how many unbelievers know what that context is? Why would those in the first century  cling to a belief in Christ's overcoming of it? And why has this become an emblem for suffering people the world over? 

For me, the real and troubling questions of my life, are the ones the writers and the community of the gospels face, the cross is not just a symbol of misery at one point in history two thousand years ago, but ever present. And the Christ who overcame it, is that ever present hope for lives were no hope is present. 

I doubt many readers here will get this point, because there is something about this that our average atheist just doesn't see. An atheist arguing to me about history doesn't get too far, but an atheist who argues in opposition to the meaning does a lot more, but sadly very few get it.

In fact theist reflections on their religion have created far more doubts for me, than anything I've ever heard from a disbeliever. Dostoevsky has placed me on the edge of disbelief; Richard Dawkins is a joke. 

Claiming an event happened is not in itself a historical claim. I myself can be a witness to something, that has no preserved evidence or not enough afterwords for historical validation. Think of it like being accused of a crime, for which you have an alibi for, that you were somewhere else at the time of the crime, but yet have no means to verify this with evidence, for others. Just because you don't have evidence or sufficient enough evidence to prove this, doesn't mean that you weren't somewhere else. 

But let's look into this claim of their being copious amounts of historical information if Jesus did all things he said he done? Is this necessarily true? Would we expect much more than what we have now if this was true? Was Jesus surrounding himself with people that would create these copious amount of evidence? Perhaps you'd like to make a case for what you think we would have if all the gospels claims actually did happened (even though I don't even believe all the gospels claims happened), and how this would compare to what we actually have?

 

Well in a strict use of the word historical, the word cannot be applied to the resurrection, regardless of it happened or not. And secondly nor the historical or scientific method can tell us if a supernatural resurrection happened 2000 years ago, anymore so than algebra can tell us if I've made grammar mistakes. And reason is a tricky word, we all might have reason to believe something happened, even if we lack a historical of scientific means to verify it.

My mother might tell me about an event that happened to her at work, and I might have reason to believe what she said is true based of what I perceive as her character, without seeking to verify that it happened with historical data.  And thirdly, history nor science "prove" anything. They are setup only to provide us with what is "most likely" but never proofs. 

Well, we can all cross our fingers and hope that the Jesus mythicist can produce some "good" scholarship, and perhaps there is some out there in some obscure place on the planet that I have yet to hear of. But the Rook Hawkins claims of Jesus is really Odysseus in disguise, that Mark is plagiarizing Homer, get as far with me as the man who claims that dinosaurs bones are just reorganized chicken bones. 

Perhaps there is some good scholarship out there, but I have yet to see it, all I've seen is comical "scholarship", like the above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jesus of Christianity is a god-man who existed, performed certain miraculous acts, and then rose from the dead. Unless the historical Jesus mirrors this gospel Jesus then you cannot call historical Jesus the Jesus of Christianity.

We can ignore for now the issue of whether he was supernatural and just deal with something that history CAN tell us about (if, of course, there is evidence): whether the events of the gospels themselves are historical, e.g. a man called Jesus (or some variant) preaches a new message, draws large crowds, is noticed and then publicly murdered by the Roman authorities.

 

This sounds a lot of you trying to retrofit Jesus and the Christian religion to each other, e.g., the fact we do not have the expected historical information about this Jesus (it's expected given the nature of the claims) means we must start altering and retrofitting the meaning of Jesus, the religion, or both, in order to make them fit.

Now of course I have no problem turning the meaning of Christianity and Jesus in to something more spiritual/non-historical (thus explaining the lack of a historical record) but it is a problem for a Christian to do this, because such a process completely changes the religion; it makes it incompatible with the orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

False analogy. Christianity is not intended to be, nor is it propagated as a mere fairy tale. The gospels are very specific in the things it says. Now, we can allow for some or a lot of embellishment, but even taking that into consideration still leaves us with all sorts of problems. For example, if Jesus is to be rendered into a mere unnoticeable wandering preacher with only a dozen followers (thus explaining the lack of historical information about him) then surely this undermines the entire purpose of Jesus and his message? Why would an omnipotent god send himself/his son down to earth to inform us of this important message only for no one to notice!

 

We can still employ scientific methods and values in such a pursuit, indeed, I would argue that we MUST tun to these methods and values for issues regarding meaning. We can still apply poetry, meaning and beauty without having to accept things on insufficient evidence.

Here's a talk by Richard Carrier on the issues of applying scientific values to morality.  

Why science is better than religion and always has been:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNMUz1iediU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkQrDsGy2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Zbm9NNRas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GkE1TxMRzU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y96MFsuT9u8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNFIHrp-giw

 

I get it... the cross represents both suffering and Christ who overcame his suffering. This in turn provides hope that you too can overcome troubles in your life should they arise. I understand this, however this does not change the fact that this is still historical, factual claims about reality.

 

What?! Of course it is! To claim something actually happened in history IS a historical claim. The fact there is no evidence of it do not mean claims about it are not historical claims, they are, they are just unjustified historical claims.

 

Yes, we would expect more information. If Jesus was anywhere near the way he is portrayed in the gospels (even sans his divinity), then we would expect more information about him that we currently have. If, for instance, Jesus drew crowds of thousands then we would expect people to have noticed and documented this. We would expect this even if the crowds numbers were much lower. The fact we do not have this leaves us with a few explanations:

1. No one wrote about these events, because they did not happen, because Jesus did not exist.

2. They were highly embellished; Jesus was just some insignificant preacher.

3. They did happen and people did write about it, but we no longer have these documents.

- Number one is a legitimate possibility.

- I already explained above the problem with rendering Jesus to be nothing more than a wandering preacher.

- The idea that people did write about it but we no longer have these writings possible, but the weakest of the three, because even if the original documents were lost, people would likely have cited or mentioned them elsewhere, especially early Christian who were in need of extra-biblical sources, but we do not even have references to such documents.

You say you do not believe all the gospels events actually happened. Can you elaborate. We have no confirmation at all, so how do you decide which gospel events happened, and this did not?

 

Yes, it can. If 2000 years ago someone did rise from the dead then it would, by definition, be a historical event.

Can you define the word historical. You seems to be using a rather bizarre meaning.

 

No, but it can tell us if there is any good reason to consider it. We can apply the law of parsimony and see which is more likely - that the law of physics were suspended or that someone wrote a myth/the work was embellished/mis  understood/etc. Based on what we do know, the latter is far more likely.

You cannot appeal to the inability of science or history to deal with proposed a supernatural event as a reason why it cannot be criticised, investigated, nor is it a reason to believe it.

 

Sure, but is the reason valid; sound. Is it justified?

 

This is a false analogy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The something your mother may tell is not comparable to a supernatural claim.

 

Never said it does.