Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 12-28-2004, 11:40 AM

I voted for the third option - "insufficient data" - but I won't withhold at least some opinion.

I can't say for sure that Jesus was wholly mythical, though the arguments for mythical Jesus carry some weight. I can't really agree with the second option either, particularly because it says "there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus." If the legend of Jesus was based on any truth, I don't think it's necessarily based on a single figure, or that that single preacher was a "great preacher/teacher".

If I have an opinion, it's that there was perhaps a character or characters on which "Jesus" as we know and love him was based. The Gospel accounts, however, are likely almost entirely mythical, or legendary, take your pick. In any case, it's not necessarily true that there was indeed a historical figure or figures on which the Jesus stories were based.

Is that ambivalent enough? Perhaps my opinion reflects what others have indicated, that the truth is so shrouded in the legend that it's impossible to know one way or the other for sure.

Mageth · 12-28-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

According to their own claims, the writers of the Gospels in the New Testament, men who walked and talked with Jesus, wrote within 20-80 years of his life, less than the time it takes for myth to form.

What exactly is this "time it takes for myth to form"? Myths can form basically overnight.

Rick Sumner · 12-28-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsumner

Ha ha ha.when will Bible thimpers give up on poor old Josphus? It has been proved, repeat PROVED

This is false. Not only has it not been "proved, repeat PROVED" that it's a forgery, it's not even a majority opinion. Those who think the TF is an interpolation (myself among them), are the minorirty. We're, in essence, the marginal not the mainstream. That doesn't mean that it's authentic, as I've just noted, I don't think it is. It means that you're as wrong as they are. One doesn't correct someone claiming 2+2=5 by suggesting that it's actually 6.

Quote:

that the single..yes SINGLE note concerning Jesus

Single?

Quote:

(written in the margins for chrissakes)

Which copy of Josephus has either mention of Jesus in the margins? Again, 2+2 isn't six either.

Quote:

is a forgery. Repeat FORGERY. It is fake.

At last, a correct--or at least defensible--piece of information.

Quote:

Apart from this fake there are no..repeat NO mentions of anyonbe named jesus outside the Bible.

False again. There are lots of them. In my opinion (and, I'd suggest, in the opinion of most here), all of them dependent on the Bible.

Quote:

I spent 7 years in seminary reading Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew scrolls, codexes, and books looking for just such "proof." I would show the fools who doubted. I was the fool..... it don't exist.

Somehow I doubt the veracity of this.

Quote:

Now..this is hardly proof of a Jesus..at the same time, it is not proof of non-existence.. so..depite a life time of research (I realize that means nothing to a born again believer) I have yet to find conclusive evidence either way. I just don't know.

Historically impossible and theologically illegitimate, as Bultmann would have said.

Incidentally, and on a note more related to the topic of the thread, I presumed, incorrectly apparently, that the middle button was the "not sure" position. Alas, I clicked the wrong one. Were I forced to choose, I'd tend toward historicity (a pink bead, so to speak), so it can stand if one wishes, but my intended vote was "insufficient evidence." I'm increasingly persuaded that the entire quest (for mythicist and historicist alike) is ultimately a rhetorical equivalent to Rorschach's inkblots--what you see in the image is ultimately a reflection of self.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chili · 12-28-2004, 12:29 PM

. . . but with a core of truth attached to it.

It is found in John 6:55 where Jesus said "my body is real food and my blood is real drink." Clearly folks, that is pantheism at best.

show_no_mercy · 12-28-2004, 12:48 PM

I'm leaning towards a phenomenon called hypostasization

GermanHeretic · 12-28-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

If I have an opinion, it's that there was perhaps a character or characters on which "Jesus" as we know and love him was based. The Gospel accounts, however, are likely almost entirely mythical, or legendary, take your pick. In any case, it's not necessarily true that there was indeed a historical figure or figures on which the Jesus stories were based.

Exactly what I think.

jonesg · 12-28-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

As a 14-year-old boy, reading the Bible for the first time, I was struck by the disagreements among the Gospels, .

I've read there are contradictory accounts of hannibal crossing the alps, irreconcileable contradictions that cannot both be true, historically this can be acomodated. Philosophically it is cause for complete rejection.
It all depends how you want to look at things.

Same with the crucifiction / burial story, differing accounts but the CORE of it remains.

Jobar · 12-28-2004, 03:18 PM

I see you didn't vote, jonesg- may we presume you are a Biblical literalist, and believe that all the NT is historical (with allowances made for differing points of view?) Tell me, have you heard of the Easter Challenge?

The results are running about like I thought they would, percentage-wise; perhaps a few more supporters of HJ than I expected here.

I may go back and review Wells' Jesus of the Early Christians and Did Jesus Exist? and flesh out some of the pro-myth arguments he made. I understand that some of Wells' arguments are now considered invalid; might some of the resident experts tell me why this is?

Toto · 12-28-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

. . . I understand that some of Wells' arguments are now considered invalid; might some of the resident experts tell me why this is?

Christians like to repeat to each other that Wells has changed his mind and now believes there was a historical Jesus behind the gospels. But I don't think that this is entirely accurate.

Wells in the SecWeb Library.

In Wells' reply to JPHolding he says

Quote:

Some elements in the ministry of the gospel Jesus are arguably traceable to the activities of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, whose career (embellished and somewhat distorted) is documented in what is known as Q (an abbreviation for 'Quelle', German for 'source').

and if you are desparate enough for a HJ you can interpret that as the historical Jesus. However, Wells goes on to say

Quote:

This Galilean Jesus was not crucified, and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin.

Llyricist · 12-28-2004, 03:58 PM

I had a problem with the wording of the question and choices for answer. I chose no because I don't think the gospels were based on a single historical person, however, I do believe they were based on several - some historical, some themselves of questionable historocity - people. Of course I believe nearly all fictional characters have their bases in one or more real people.

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

12-28-2004, 12:29 PM	#24
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	All myth . . . . . . but with a core of truth attached to it. It is found in John 6:55 where Jesus said "my body is real food and my blood is real drink." Clearly folks, that is pantheism at best.

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

12-28-2004, 11:40 AM	#21
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I voted for the third option - "insufficient data" - but I won't withhold at least some opinion. I can't say for sure that Jesus was wholly mythical, though the arguments for mythical Jesus carry some weight. I can't really agree with the second option either, particularly because it says "there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus." If the legend of Jesus was based on any truth, I don't think it's necessarily based on a single figure, or that that single preacher was a "great preacher/teacher". If I have an opinion, it's that there was perhaps a character or characters on which "Jesus" as we know and love him was based. The Gospel accounts, however, are likely almost entirely mythical, or legendary, take your pick. In any case, it's not necessarily true that there was indeed a historical figure or figures on which the Jesus stories were based. Is that ambivalent enough? Perhaps my opinion reflects what others have indicated, that the truth is so shrouded in the legend that it's impossible to know one way or the other for sure.

12-28-2004, 12:48 PM	#25
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	I'm leaning towards a phenomenon called hypostasization

12-28-2004, 03:18 PM	#28
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I see you didn't vote, jonesg- may we presume you are a Biblical literalist, and believe that all the NT is historical (with allowances made for differing points of view?) Tell me, have you heard of the Easter Challenge? The results are running about like I thought they would, percentage-wise; perhaps a few more supporters of HJ than I expected here. I may go back and review Wells' Jesus of the Early Christians and Did Jesus Exist? and flesh out some of the pro-myth arguments he made. I understand that some of Wells' arguments are now considered invalid; might some of the resident experts tell me why this is?

12-28-2004, 03:58 PM	#30
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	I had a problem with the wording of the question and choices for answer. I chose no because I don't think the gospels were based on a single historical person, however, I do believe they were based on several - some historical, some themselves of questionable historocity - people. Of course I believe nearly all fictional characters have their bases in one or more real people.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.