Jeffrey Gibson

But he/she has NOT kept his repetition out of other threads. In fact, it appears as though he/she has increased the number of threads to which he/she beats his dead horse and the frequency with which he/she does it.

No. And from the point of view of the purpose of FRDB, i.e., to promote rational thought as a better means to access truth, there doesn't seem to be any reason to allow this person to post on any thread, does there?

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Storytime,

Actually, we have a noticeable lack of mention by Jews of any Jesus of Nazareth.

We have:

Josephus' TF - There are well known problems with this.

Trypho in Justin Martyr's Dialogue - Here we find a hypothetical dialectical stick figure that Martyr or whoever wrote the dialogue imagined. The character says that he has read "the gospel," and shows no knowledge of Jesus outside the gospel he read:

Trypho: Various other statements by Christians about Jewish reactions to Jesus (for example, that his followers took his body). These can be dismissed as just fantasies that Christians invented about Jews in order to denigrate them. Since they regularly denigrate the Jews and Jewish customs, we should expect them to imagine the Jews as reciprocating in kind.

the Talmud circa 5th Century.
Rabbi Gil Student, after a review of the literature (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html) suggests:

We have no evidence that any ancient Jew ever said anything about Jesus of Nazareth. This is exactly what we would expect to find if Jesus did not exist.

Also, remember that generally nobody questions the existence of fictional characters. Does anyone question the existence of Harry Potter?

After Jesus was historicized (placed in a history book) by Eusebius, circa 325, there would be no reason for any Jew or anyone else to question his historical existence. In the same way, no-one in the Roman empire ever questioned the existence of Aeneas, Virgil's mythical founder of Rome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

gurugeorge

I disagree. S/he/it may be annoying, but the point S/he/it is making is valid: the Jesus entity as we have it from the NT is a fantastic, mythical entity.

That's the basis from which we start: a bunch of texts supposedly showing the historical existence of (what we would call) a mythical being, a superhero-like entity, a fantastic figure.

It is of course a valid exercise to then go on to say, "well, clearly such an entity couldn't exist - or, if he did exist, the NT isn't sufficiently extraordinary proof of such - but perhaps there was a man behind the myth?" That point, aa5874 just doesn't seem to understand.

But his/her/its insistence on the first point is valid.

aa5874

I understand perfectly well the statement that may be there was a man behind the myth, just as I understand that a man found guilty using the evidence presented in a trial MAY BE actually innocent.

The claim there may be a man behind the myth is futile or becomes HIGHLY IRRATIONAL OR SENSELESS, a waste of time, unless historical evidence is presented for the man, just as it is of little use or a waste of time to claim a man found guilty is innocent without ever producing any evidence of his innocence at the trial or even after the trial.

As I have established there is information that described Jesus as a myth in the NT and the Church writings with supposed eyewitnesses. Jesus was believed to be or intended to be believed to be Supernatural with or without human flesh.

My claim that Jesus was a myth is SOLIDLY SUPPORTED.

These are some of the non-historical accounts of Jesus.


NON-HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS

1. The conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.

2. The temptation of Jesus by the Devil for 40 days and nights.

3. The miracles where Jesus healed people BORN blind, deaf, and dumb.

4. The walking on water by Jesus during a storm at sea.

5. The raising of Lazarus by Jesus who had began to stink after 4 days dead.

6. The transfiguration with the once dead Moses and Elijah.

7. The crucifixion of Jesus using false witnesses and exonerated by Pilate.

8. The resurrection of Jesus after the third day of death.

9. The ascension of Jesus through the clouds.

10. The deification of a dead Jew in Judea and asking him to forgive sins.


Now, those who claim repeatedly that there may be a man behind the myth are stuck, like a broken record, that is the only thing they can say, there may be a man behind the myth.....there may be a man behind the myth....but such repetition becomes SENSELESS if no historical evidence is ever provided.

This now appears to be the historical evidence for the man Jesus.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS.

1. There may be a man behind the myth.

2. It is possible there was a man behind the myth.

3. I believe there was a man behind the myth.

4. It is not impossible that there was a man behind the myth.

5. Why could not there be a man behind the myth?

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition when all we hear is that maybe there was a man behind the myth.

May be there was a man behind Achilles or Romulus. On what historical evidence? They were described and accepted as myths, Jesus too.

I very well understand the claim that there may be a man behind the myth but after examining the NT and Church writings, such a claim is baseless.

Iskander

What is senseless? Behind Jesus there is a history of 2000 years of art, music, literature, dreams, and so forth.

A Christian civilization created on the beautiful idea that mankind was born equal, free, and almost as perfect as the ideal entity.

Christianity is a civilization that allows each man/woman to interpret the uplifting mirage of bliss as he/she wishes and has elevated one man to the status of supreme ruler of the living and the imaginary world and one woman to the status of mother of all what is and will be. Man is the measure of everything here on earth as it is in heaven.

What is senseless? The posts are a rare specimen even for the usual exotic fauna of the forums

gurugeorge

The proposition is sense-ful. It may turn out not be true, there may not turn out to be any evidence for a man behind the myth, but it is not senseless to propose that there may be a man behind the (evident, obvious, to us) myth.

Those who propose it do provide what they think of as evidence, so they're not doing it senselessly either.

The real situation is that any evidence hitherto offered for a man behind the myth has a counter, and there's a counter to that, and a counter to that ...

This is because it's obviously inherently difficult to settle what may or may not have happened 2,000 years ago, on the basis of some scribblings and a bit of archaeology. (And after all - even if you think it's myth all the way down, there are still properly historical questions that have to be answered - how did the myth come about? Who were these people? Who actually wrote the texts, and precisely why? Etc., etc.)

That being the case, all this shouting and insistence just gets on some peoples' nerves. You're saying something that's true, but you're not saying something that's very new (except to some people coming across this debate for the first time, which is why I have no problem with your insistance on this one point) - so there's no real need to shout about it all the time. You're a clever person - why not look at some of the other questions to do with the Bible and the NT? Or why not offer something more like a positive construction of how the myth came about?

Toto

That's poetic, but not at all accurate, and has no basis in a historical Jesus in any case.

Christianity is, after all, based on the idea that mankind was born in sin that needs to be washed away by Jesus' blood, although Christians themselves can't agree on the right baptismal rite.

Free and equal are virtually unknown concepts to Christian doctrine, which tolerated slavery and the subjugation of women for most of its history.

kcdad

1.-Pilate Roman Prelate in Palestine

2.-John the Baptizer

3.-Herod King of Galilee

4.-Jesus' execution

5.-James and Peter head of the church in Jerusalem

6.-Paul and Peter die in Rome

7.-Paul's letters

8.-Mark's Gospel

9.-establishment of Christian Church in Rome, and everywhere throughout Greece, Turkey, Palestine, Persia, India, North Africa (many holding different sets of beliefs and doctrines but agreeing on the the person of Jesus.) Sort of like the country now about Tiger Woods...

oh yeah... various accepted and rejected (by The Church)
10.-reports of Jesus' wonders and teachings

kcdad

THAT is not his point. We can all agree the character as portrayed in the NT is mythical... much like Obama during the campaign. His argument is that a real person who may existed that these stories are written about is a MOST SENSELESS PROPOSITION.
Historical does not factual or accurate. History is an interpretation of the past and those who lived in it.

kcdad

You are citing later doctrines, not the ones preached by Jesus. Jesus NEVER claimed anything about sacrifice being necessary or blood or anything like that. He simply told people that their sins WERE forgiven, or that their faith had healed them... He NEVER said "I forgive your sins." He did say "Neither do I condemn you" for the capital crime of adultery... It is futile to attack Christian doctrine and pretend you are attacking the person... Christian doctrines for the most part are ANTI-Jesus.