perfectidius

FathomableFFI--

Well there were hundreds of gospels about Jesus, and not all of them mention the Christ bit. And there are hundreds of so called Christs, only a few of them by the name Jesus. Insofar as "Christ merely means annointed" then we cannot say "Christ lived in 32 AD" because there have been hundreds of anointed fellers.

Christ becamse a theological idea in Paul, and the "Christ" he talks about resembles nothing of the "Jesus" of the gospels.

He simply has no facts on the life of Christ except that he was crucified and a few trivialities. He doesn't, for instance, mention his supposedly virginal mother.

Also, the gnostics talked about "Christs" and sometimes not in reference to Jesus.

Any historical look at Jesus that says "The Christ lived and did this" will be speaking from a Christian perspective. Just as anybody who says "Lord Buddha" will not be speaking from a historical perspective. Anybody who says "the God ceasar was born such and such"--well I can't conceive why anybody would say that.

In the earliest sources on Jesus, such as the Q document, "Christ" is not a term used for him.

So since so many differen communities have used the terms "Christ" and/or "Jesus," it is safer to seperate the terms if you are trying to do history.

Daniel

Doug Shaver

I'm really not sure, except to this extent. I'm sure that in William Lane Craig's judgment, if you're not evangelical, you're not mainstream.

FathomFFI

Sorry, but I've looked at this Jesus Myth stuff and just can't buy into that at all. I totally side with the scholars and historians who are virtually unanimous as to the physical historicity of Jesus.

There's far too much evidence to support he physically existed.

aa5874

Your statement is COMPLETELY false. You KNOW there is no evidence for the Jesus of the NT.

You CANNOT name one single source for the PHYSICAL existence of Jesus of the NT, outside of apologetic sources.

Your statement appears to be deliberately mis-leading.

This how Jesus is described, by WITNESSES, in the NT, in case you don't know:

• Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and a virgin named Mary.

• Jesus was a miracle worker who could heal the blind, deaf, dumb, raised the dead and kill plants by simply talking.

• Jesus transfigured himself and brought back to life dead prophets in view of his disciples.

• Jesus was crucified and was pronounced dead, yet he came back to life as he predicted.

• Jesus was seen eating fish with his disciples and gave them fishing instructions after he was supposed to be dead.

• Jesus was seen floating through the clouds by his disciples after he was supposed to be dead.

I don't think this board (IIDB) was set up for propaganda, you need to state facts and not your imagination on this site.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER for the PHYSICAL existence of the Jesus of the NT, outside of apologetic sources.

Newfie

I think the Jesus Seminar does not simply base its summation that the Gospel of Thomas is an early, primary source solely on its lack of apocalyptic sayings. It also points out that Thomas is just a collection of Jesus’ sayings, similar to Q, without a narrative framework. It has no account of Jesus’ trial, death, resurrection, birth, childhood, and no accounts of his public ministry. Basically, Thomas is regarded as an early source for many of the same reasons that the Q source is. It has none of the pretense of a divine mission that biblical scholarship has come to regard as later trappings added by believers trying to excuse his belated return, including apocalyptic sayings.

robto

To back up even more, you have to start by asking "Is GThomas dependent or independent of the canonical gospels?" The JS answer "independent". Crossan has a discussion of this in The Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk).

It is hard to believe that a late source could have so many sayings that are similar to, but independent of, the canonical gospels.

Solitary Man

Not everyone agrees that they're independent of the gospels. Many see dependence, such as Goodacre and Meier, and some see intertextual relationship, such as DeConick (if I recall correctly) and Thomas Wayment.

FathomFFI

And you find it somewhat difficult to accept that the person of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels was an actual person who's character was embellished and Hellenized to make him more acceptable to the Romans?

How about i state this fact:

Tacitus mentions Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate and he got this information from historical Roman records, and that this can be demonstrated?

What then?

Solitary Man

I don't think you'll be stating a fact. I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that he actually got it from Roman records, although Tacitus did indeed have access to the imperial archive. The topic isn't settled.

aa5874

Again, you have made another FALSE claim.

Tacitus NEVER wrote that CHTISTUS was crucified.

When will you stop making these mis-leading and erroneous statements?

Annals 15.44 IIDB was not intended to promote propaganda.