Flagg

The original post should also include the argument from personal experience; although it might seem like a straw man to us nowadays, Craig and others still stick to it.

patcleaver

If you mean this pole. As of now, only 45 or 209 respondents say that Jesus was an actual human being - and that includes the theist responders.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235290

The Jesus myth position is basically that Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels of the New Testament never existed. There obviously never was anyone who did what Jesus is described as doing and said what Jesus is described as saying. Even the early Christians, who were Gnostics, did not believe it. I think its unlikely that the writers of the gospel fictions believed it. Even some of those who said in the pole that jesus was an actual human being are Jesus Mythers.

Do you really think that Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels of the New Testament actually existed? How likely do you think that is when almost everything he did is from the OT and almost everything he said is from the OT, or the sayings of Hillel and Shammai, or from Greek philosophers, or other preexisting sources?

spin

It's interesting that you missed the big picture. Only 74 people out of 209 said Jesus was never an actual human being. Now while 74 said "no" and only 45 said "yes", which is only to be expected in an infidel site, the most important information is that 80 people said that Jesus may have existed. The agnostic view, following the evidence which says that there's insufficient data, is the most sizable figure.

No shit! We actually have listened to people droning on and on -- regardless of the evidence -- on both sides of this issue.

I appreciate that that is your belief.

Were the gnostics the earliest christians? If so, how do you know?

Another of your beliefs. How would you know this unlikeliness? Yes, you can guess like the christians.



If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to do with a place called Nazareth, let alone do all the stuff that the gospel writers or their sources weren't able to be privy to.

Do you think Robin Hood did all those things that you've seen attributed to him on TV? There are a lot fewer vested interests in the deeds of Robin Hood. I can't even tell you if Robin Hood existed... but that's part of the point.

You simply don't have the machinery -- at least as things stand now -- to demonstrate that a human Jesus behind the hype didn't exist. But you can take solace in the fact that the HJers are in the same boat, just as unable to do what they wish might to.

In a more scientific world view, things that cannot be demonstrated are of no value until they can.


spin

schilling.klaus

yes, they were, as denied by deceivers like Holding only.
Anyways Patcleaver said early, not earliest.

it follows from reading between the lines of Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and similar deceivers, and from comparative philosophy of religions


That's what right-wing fundamentalists like Ehrman and Crossan try to force you to believe.
People who understand the metaphysical dimensions of Christian mythology and know what Jesus is, those know that Jesus can't be any such biological material thing as a human being, but has to be metaphysical reality.

Klaus Schilling

spin

I'm willing to consider your evidence for the claim.

When one talks of "the early Christians", one excludes others from being earlier.

Or so you say.

(This is the second use of "deceivers" within a few sentences. At this rate everyone who has a position they will argue could be classified as a deceiver.)

I don't read them. You seem to be imagining villains.

I'm sorry, I'm not in the in crowd. I don't have your special knowledge. I can only work from the evidence. The evidence says you cannot know what underlies a tradition if you can't catch the tradition early enough.


spin

patcleaver

The book of Enoch is Jewish Gnostic. It was written in the 3rd century BCE.

Pagan Gnostics were followers of Pythagoras (6th century BCE) and Plato (423 – 347 BCE).

Gnostic literature was suppressed so we do not know when the Gnostics started using the title Jesus Christ for their mythical Logos.

Early Church Fathers argued that Simon Magnus was a Christian Gnostic. He lived around the time of Christ.

What is a Christian? If it is someone who can say the second Nicean Creed from 381 CE, then there probably weren't any until around 330 CE. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, then there weren't any Christians until Mark invented him, which could be anytime between 100 BCE and 381 CE.

spin

Utter crap. (And Enoch was a collection of texts written over a few centuries. The last part, commonly called the "parables" was written in the 2nd c. CE -- hence not found at Qumran.)

So you have no reason to believe what you are saying.

And how does this secondary information help you?

For unsubstantiable ifs there are usually several buts. Speculation needs to be seen as speculation.


spin

Ben C Smith

You may have meant the word last in a chronological sense, but let me clarify that, of the five parts of 1 Enoch (in the common way of dividing the text), the parables are the second.

What leads you to century II in particular for the parables? I have seen several centuries bandied about as a range of possible dates.

Thanks.

Ben.

patcleaver

Spin, you asked the question and I was just trying to present a few relevant facts. Why are you being so hostile?

The fact that part of the book of Enoch was written after the 3rd century BCE is utterly irrelevant to the question that you asked. Only the earliest date of parts of Enoch matters regarding the earliest date for Gnostics in Judea.

The Dream Visions refer to the Maccabean revolt so they are dated 140-137 BCE, but I do not know of any evidence that the "parables" were written after the 3rd century BCE, except that some scholars say they were written in the 1st century BCE. The fact that the "parables" were not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but other parts of Enoch were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is not evidence that the "parables" were written any later than the other parts of Enoch. There are a few Christian apologists arguing 2nd century CE, because of parallels with the gospels, but its just wishful thinking that the gospels were written before the "parables". If you have some evidence for a later date for the "parables" then please present it, otherwise I think your statements are both irrelevant and as you say "Utter crap".

aa5874

Maybe doesn't always mean "maybe yes" it can mean "maybe not".

If I said, "Maybe I won't vote next time," will I or won't I vote?

Or if I said, "Maybe Jesus was an actual human being," was he or wasn't he? Maybe?

Maybe doesn't mean much, or does it?