Sparrow

Most of the posters here are atheists, thus they have no problem disbelieving in a god and any supposed offspring. Even though these people have no reason to believe there is or was a god, there is none the less a religion called Christianity. This religion may have been founded by an uneducated, itinerant preacher some 2000 years ago, or it may have been founded more recently than that by people who believed in a an otherwise mythical preacher. Or there may be some other explanation. Some seek whatever history can be found. Others may seek to discover the degree of fraud, if any, behind this popular belief. And yes, some may seek in hopes of validating their belief.

You are free to assume there is no history to be had in the Christian bible, based only on your disbelief in the reliability of its oldest wrintings, but then why be in this thread? Or to put it another way, suppose tomorrow archeologists working in Jeruselem found an authentic manuscript almost 2000 years old describing the death of a Jewish preacher named Yeshua; would you somehow begin to believe the rest of the gospels? Would you convert? I wouldn't.

RUmike

*really loud and long sigh* Ok, let me think of one last example to try to burn this into your brain...

I was born in Overlook Hospital in Summit, NJ, USA, on June 22, 1984. Nine months prior, I was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit (Ghost, if you prefer) in my mother's womb. No human father was involved.

The above is the ONLY description you will ever find of the circumstances surrounding my conception (I dare you to find another). Now, by your logic aa5874, I don't exist. Now do you understand why you're wrong in making the historical argument that Jesus never existed? In reality, you are making a theological argument that it is impossible for God to conceive a child. But that doesn't mean the person at the root of the stories (Yeshu bar Yosef of Nazareth) never existed, just like the way I still exist even though a story about my conception is clearly impossible and never happened.

aa5874

That is not your conception. Don't be irrational. There is no person alive today who is the child of a ghost. There has been no birth records showing the parent of a child to be a ghost. No historic person has been known to have documentation showing them to be ghost related.

How in the world, a person who was not conceived be in existence. RuMike, get real, in a hurry!!

Didymus

I'm inclined to agree with you, if you mean that when you strip the theology and derivative and patently non-historical material from Paul and the gospels, you are left with precious little earthly biography, i.e., not enough "real person" upon which to construct such an elaborate myth. I think a lot of historicists come close to being "virtual mythicists," postulating a historical figure who is so sketchy as to be unnecessary except as an armature for the claim of historicity.

Of course, the real test is whether a charismatic individual was the primary inspiration for the biographies that appeared later, or whether he was "cut from the herd" (perhaps after being unjustly crucified) to serve as the focal point of messianic expectations (see Paul) and as the central character in Mark's fictitious biography. I'm inclined toward the latter explanation, and I'm not inclined to think of it as "historicist."

Is that what you mean? Or are you thinking of something else? Can you explain your reasons?

Sure, that may be a motive for many, all the way from devout Christians who want to prove the historical basis of their faith to those who would like to show that Christianity is a fraud. But, as much as possible, motives are put aside when considering historical issues. Or should be, if we are to get anywhere.

Some are, but you won't find many on this forum. This is a very skeptical group. About everything, including their own cherished beliefs.

Most on this board are mainly interested in figuring out how so many people came to think of this "son of a ghost" as a human being who actually walked the earth as a man.

One possibility is that there actually was a charismatic individual whose biography resembled that of the biblical Jesus, and who, over time, came to be revered as the messiah. That's more or less the historicist view. Another possiblity is that no such individual ever existed, and that the Jesus story was a fiction derived from Hebrew scripture and other existing souces. That's more or less the mythicist position. There are many variants of those positions, as you'll see if you spend some time here. As you can see from recent correspondence in this thread, some of us who are basically in agreement can't quite come up with an agreeable mythicist/historicist terminology.

What do you mean? Lots of people who believe in God don't believe in Jesus. And, inconceivable as it may be to you, lots of smart people, some of them atheists, believe that the Jesus story is based on the life of a real human being.

Not so. You need only reject his divinity.

Or, I presume, verify that he didn't.

Regardless, merely ranting on the subject won't get us there, will it?

Didymus

spin

Straight over the top, RUmike. Sorry. We could have had Sargon of Akkad's marvelous birth just as easily as yours.


spin

Ted Hoffman

You seriously believe we need *you* to tell us that?
People who have studied this subject dispensed with this assertion you are repeating, centuries ago. You are like someone in an evolution list lecturing people about the difference between origin of life and origin of species.
You are making a fool of yourself. Please stop this nonsense.
Save your penetrating insights for another forum. Please read and you may learn something.
That is a question only idiots ponder about. We are not interested in the question. Leave alone the answer.

RUmike

Oh well Before I was frustrated, now I'm just amused.

Amaleq13

On the contrary, it is necessary for any rational inquiry to differentiate between what is believed by the faithful and what is possible in reality. Historians accomplish what you consider impossible all the time. Are the books of the Bible the only ancient texts you've read? Are you truly ignorant of the general practices of historians?

Your imagination is misleading you. Rational historians do not pursue the historicity of religious beliefs. They pursue the historicity of what inspired those beliefs.

It is not in question for anyone who values rational thought.

I do but, apparently unlike you, I understand the difference between "the Son of a Ghost" and "the possible existence of a man who inspired others to believe he was the Son of a Ghost".

Are you truly ignorant of the concept of "mythical overlay"? Real people have legends written about them. No rational individual wastes their time trying to verify the legends. Instead, they attempt to sift through what remains to determine what, if anything, can be considered historically reliable.

Your entire argument is against an irrational position that no one here, to my knowledge, has taken. You are wasting your time and IIDB bandwidth arguing against this straw man. You might be able to find the opponent you seek at another discussion forum but not here. :wave:

aa5874

The historicity of Jesus is in question, not belief. Maybe, those people are smart to you, but my views are not based on their intellect. There are billions of smart people in the world.

Those who say it is possible for Jesus to be historic have not put one shred of verifiable evidence forward, just speculation and personal attacks.

It can not be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was historic.

S.C.Carlson

Historicity is not a crime.

Stephen