Johann_Kaspar

Christian re-writers had some 14 centuries to control and edit all the texts when most of them are known only by one version like for Tacitus. And the texts about the most interesting key periods obvioulsy did not "survive".

One pope said that all that story was a fraud. The name itself "Jesus" is a fraud. "Jesus Christ" even more so.

What to say more when people do not know how the jewish writers were working and the place of the texts in their society?

rlogan

This "quote" comes from a play, not from a historical account. It has subsequently been repeated and has taken on "historicity". For example you'll see it quoted in "Forgery in Christianity" by Joseph Wheless:

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" Pope Leo X.

Do a google on John Bale's play "pageant of popes" and you'll be able to find the line.

such a quote undermines more valid questioning of the Jesus myth. Many of the posts here have covered that ground thoroughly.

I noted Peter Kirby seemed to be looking into the apostle's lives and I'm not sure if he compiled something on that. I started a thread on historicity of paul.

The upshot in my view is that it is not only difficult to get hard first hand data on Jesus - but difficult to get hard first-hand data on the disciples. So the OP refers to "heresay" and that is the situation we find ourselves in. Doctored heresay, at that.

Jabu Khan

I think there is a clear demonstrable record of the church and its origins and of people speaking of Jesus. The problem occurs when trying to find evidence of the actual life of Jesus of his actual existence and of works created during his life or siting him during his lifetime. I don't see much being offered when it comes to the ladder.

There are granted some historical figures that are accepted based on the former but usually with more suspicion than what is given to the existence of Jesus in certain circles.

Calzaer

:notworthy
Not only does he do it to the Bible, he does it to HIS OWN WORDS. For instance, first Meta says:

And then in the very next post, he goes on to say:

So which is it, Meta? Does Jesus's existence prove the supernatural, or are you arguing a non-supernatural Jesus?

Meta said, and Vinnie apparently agrees with:
Just go to Confession and save yourself the trouble of pretending to be a Protestant. If you don't believe Sola Scriptura, you may as well go pray to Mary. It seems that every Christian in the world is really just a closeted Catholic with their own personal version of "oral tradition" that they use to interperet the Bible, since the Bible obviously DOES NOT contain everything necessary for it to be understood within the text itself.

Sure, you say "I'm a Protestant, I'm just not interpereting it all LITERALLY!" But that's a huge problem, now isn't it, when you don't have 2000+ years of oral tradition backing up your selection of "metaphorical" passages from "literal" ones. Does the Holy Ghost guide you? Why does it guide other people differently? Just be honest; you're making it up out of whole cloth because you don't like what it SAYS, but at the same time you don't want to have to go to Confession. You just decide, arbitrarily, that any passage you like is literal and any passage you dislike is metaphorical.

You see, Catholics actually have a CONSISTENT CRITERIA for determining those things, and that's why I like them a lot more than I like protestants.

Protestants say "Catholics believe all sorts of heretical stuff that isn't in the Bible!" and then they go on to take their little handy redacting marker to the Bible on their own. "THIS is a metaphor, because the Holy Spirit tells me so.... THIS is a metaphor because I don't want to cut off my hand... THIS is a metaphor because it's obviously contradictory to observed experiences... but THIS is literal, because without believing in the physical bodily ressurrection I can't call myself a Christian and I lose all that nifty fellowship and sense-of-belonging stuff."

NOGO

You sound like a man who must invent absurd arguements such as these simply because you lack good ones.

Stating that Jesus and for that matter any historical figure never existed is not an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary in this context can never just mean "universally accepted".


Where?

You shot dead your whole arguement right here.

First because of the single source.
Second goes something like this.

Why just the canonicals?

Is John a piece of fiction?

Why would anyone write fiction when an historical figure is present?

How do you reconcile the Jesus in GJohn with that of the canonicals?

mike_decock

Methinks your are confusing "canonical" with "synoptic". John is canonical.

-Mike...

Celsus

This thread is split from Evidence for Jesus existence is solid. Please resist the temptation to bump threads that are several months old, and several pages long.

Joel

Johann_Kaspar

Sorry.

Johann_Kaspar

It seems that it is hard to find hard data about the popes too. My reference does not point to Leo X, but to Bonifacio VIII. It is in Histoires des Papes by Maurice La Chatre, 1856 (Vol. 2, p. 179). He is quoting first Giovanni Villani. Some thoughts of Bonifacio: Men have thoughts similiar to those of the beasts; both are mortal. - Religions are created by ambitious to cheat on men. - The gospel teaches more lies than truths, etc. Now the problem is that I could find the cronica by Villani, but not such sentences... So everything is possible.
What is sure is that many popes acted like there was not god, nor "Jesus", nor religion.
If "Jesus" is not an historical character, then of course why would apostles be historical? The same with many other biblical characters to start with Adam and Abraham.