Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James The Least · 04-26-2012, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

I also think it makes the atheists sound desperate and grasping for straws. Disputing the walking on water incident or the resurrection (extraordinary claims) is an easy way to put a Christian on the defensive. Those are ridiculous and hard to justify claims. But disputing that a man existed (an ordinary claim) strikes most people as unreasonable, I think; a lazy person's way of rejecting Christianity, implying that Christianity would be hard to refute otherwise (which is far from the truth).

He wasn't a man, so the legend goes. He was a man-god. So should we just accept all claims for other men-gods throughout history?

But let's say that he was just a man. Is it unreasonable to dispute the existence of similarly legendary men and women like Ned Ludd, Robin Hood, Coriolanus, Boudica, et al.?

James The Least · 04-26-2012, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

They [Romans] didn't deify a host of would-be messiahs. Why this one?

Because Jesus wasn't an historical would-be Messiah. That allowed the evangelists to use the mythos of the Messiah/Christos to mold their ideal type into whomever they wanted him to be, who does and says whatever they needed him to do to forge a legend. The most important aspect of his life was his death and resurrection. He was killed by Jews and recognized as God by the gentiles, so the story went. So now the gentiles get to inherit the single God concept. The whole mythos started from there and worked backward.

Tigers! · 04-26-2012, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

43 of the last 97 threads are about an historical Jesus. With this post we will go to 50/50, and the only thing preventing us slipping into an overwhelming majority of HJ threads is Stephan Huller.

Why is this issue so important? Why should anyone (non Christians) care?

Does this whole thread answer your question about the issue's importance?
Most of the posters would self-identify as non-Christians (some more upfront than others) and they care enough to partake of this thread.

outhouse · 04-26-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yes

it was held in higher esteem then literature to the poor peasant jews who were the majority of the population.

of the 400,000 there who were talking about this. Everyone at the big show would have known about his. BUT how many were really there and witnessed it??

not many

a common theme in judaism, did or did not paul write 100% mythology about jesus?? I agree he did.

if this didnt happen, jesus would have never been martyred.

people filled in his legend after death, not during his lifetime.

NO

I doubt they ever talking to paul, for all I know paul killed them as competition for his roman version. All kidding aside, i think paul used oral tradition for this. while paul was all mythology, he didnt create it all, and thus the historical core at the center

we dont know anything about these original real apostles, I wouldnt claim that.

what do we know of the real apostles? only what the roman version were left with tells us that was heavily edited for content.

Well thats mythology added to the legend that grew in oral tradition.

missing body? i dont think so. Just the right mythology at the right time.

Ok, so we are back where we started: you're making stuff up.

Now youve said it twice

and not once backed it up

outhouse · 04-26-2012, 10:35 AM

Theres only so much known with certainty about HJ in the scolarly community.

There was a poor traveling teacher/healer of judaism, who was a handworker, who was baptized by John and after his death traveled galilee spreading a message of the coming kingdom of god. After starting a disturbance in the temple he was quickly crucified.

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

It's hard to discuss this when we're not clear on what everyone's claiming. There are two possible mythological theories I can think of:

- A historical Jesus never existed and Paul and others invented him.

- A historical Jesus never existed and the early followers never invented him or claimed that he existed. Instead they believed in a spiritual Jesus. But later subsequent followers invented the historical Jesus.

IF one of the two is true and I must choose between them, I actually find the first one more plausible, merely because the early writings of Paul seem to talk about a historical Jesus.

Your first myth theory is based on the Presumption Paul existed and wrote letters. Such a presumption cannot be accepted. You cannot use Presumptions as history.

Your second myth theory is NOT even based on any evidence whatsoever --apologetic or non-apologetic and on the Presumption that there were early followers. A theory about Past events cannot be developed from imagination. You must have a source from antiquity to support whatever myth theory you support.

The 1st century is a Big Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Paul based on Non-Apologetic sources. ALL the Main characters in the Canon are missing from history.

It is about the mid 2nd century where we have non-apologetic sources arguing about the Jesus story.

The evidence shows that the Jesus movement is 2nd century.

outhouse · 04-26-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

It's hard to discuss this when we're not clear on what everyone's claiming. There are two possible mythological theories I can think of:

- A historical Jesus never existed and Paul and others invented him.

- A historical Jesus never existed and the early followers never invented him or claimed that he existed. Instead they believed in a spiritual Jesus. But later subsequent followers invented the historical Jesus.

IF one of the two is true and I must choose between them, I actually find the first one more plausible, merely because the early writings of Paul seem to talk about a historical Jesus.

keep thinking

A Historical Jesus did exist, and men wrote mythically about him the same way the wrote about other mortal men.

no roman would deify a poor peasant jewish teacher, and all we have is roman versions lefy of what he was. jewish versions have been detroyed for almost 1700 years now

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..A Historical Jesus did exist, and men wrote mythically about him the same way the wrote about other mortal men...

The evidence shows the EXACT opposite.

People wrote about a Myth and the Myth was Believed to have existed.

Please read the Existing Codices.

No story of Jesus depict him as historical-but as the Son of God, God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

You BELIEVE the Myth Fables are history. That is all.

outhouse · 04-26-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

The evidence shows the EXACT opposite.

false

Quote:

People wrote about a Myth and the Myth was Believed to have existed.

danial boone is said to have killed a bear with his hands, is he mythical.

the roman emporer was a son of god, was he only mythical.

Quote:

Please read the Existing Codices.

to late to be useful for anything regarding a HJ.

please learn exegesis

Quote:

No story of Jesus depict him as historical-but as the Son of God, God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

OMG ancient people wrote mythology into everything they penned, your kidding me!!!

LOL LOL

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2012, 10:35 AM	#115
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Theres only so much known with certainty about HJ in the scolarly community. There was a poor traveling teacher/healer of judaism, who was a handworker, who was baptized by John and after his death traveled galilee spreading a message of the coming kingdom of god. After starting a disturbance in the temple he was quickly crucified.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.