NOGO

When someone talks about the historical Jesus what about is he really talking about?

There are more than two options.

Is he talking about Jesus the incarnated Son of God etc...

Is he talking about Jesus the man who started something which others blew up into something increadible?

Is he talking about Jesus the man who's story was picked up by an already present Christian Son of God sect?

etc...etc...

Why does this make a difference?

Basically if the third option is correct I would still call Jesus a myth because there would be very little correlation between the Jesus people talk about today and that Jesus.

Were the gospels completely made up, ie fictional? I have trouble believing that.

wdog

I am not sure if polycarp is returning, but I certainly am not aligned with him in our point of view. it would be more interesting if he did return.


That option sounds reasonable. Both of you (InteSity and NOGO) are far more knowledgeable in this area than I. When i get the time I probably will dig deeper, but for myself personally I have more than enough evidence to not believe the son-of-god story without having to go as far as you did

Ted Hoffman

NO GO,
Is he talking about Jesus the incarnated Son of God etc...
By definition,
Anything concerning God, cannot be history: if it is about God, then that is the domain of religion.

Is he talking about Jesus the man who started something which others blew up into something increadible?
There is no evidence of such a man having existed.

Is he talking about Jesus the man who's story was picked up by an already present Christian Son of God sect?
Like, if someone decides to pick Robin Hoods story and decides a religion based on it?
Possible, but even in that case, the man in the story remains a myth.

Why does this make a difference?
Because so many believe it was true.

Were the gospels completely made up, ie fictional? I have trouble believing that.
Argument from personal incredulity is basically an emotional appeal. All you need to do is to broaden your horizons of belief.

Optics Guy
That option sounds reasonable. Both of you (InteSity and NOGO) are far more knowledgeable in this area than I.
Actually, I am very Green. Most Guys in this field throw in Some Greek, some Aramaic, some Jewish tongue here and there when debating I hadrly know enough French. I hardly know a damn thing but I believe engaging everyone inculcates an environment where knowledge flows freely, ignorance vanishes and the discussion becomes edifying.

NOGO

You are missing several elements here. If a man, circa 30 CE claimed or others claimed him to be the anointed one of God (Christ) we are not talking myth here like Robin Hood. David was one of the anointed ones of God in Jewish history. David was a man and noone ever claimed differently.

This man who claimed to be the anointed one of God got himself crucified. This is very plausible since anyone claiming to be King of Israel would not exactly be welcome by the Romans.

Why would this story be picked up by a religious sect. Remember that everything in those days revolved around religion. The anointed one of God was supposed to free the Jews from foreign domination and establish "the Kingdom of God". What this means is simply a Kingdom ruled by God's representative ie the anointed one of God.
Remember the Our father.

Matthew 6
Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.

Now imagine that after this man's death his desciples become part of a sect who promises that the Son of God shall come and establish God's Kingdom on earth. You put two and two and come up with this. Our dead saviour is the Son of God. He resurrected and will return.

Based on the Gospel stories are they are today it is very unlikely that someone wrote this from a blank piece of paper. Others have already pointed out some of the problems.

If the Gospels are completely fictional then why were they not around right from the start. The fact for example that Paul seems unaware of their existance and content seems to suggest that Christianity did not start with the Gospel stories.

I assure you that they are as broad as yours.

Ted Hoffman

NOGO
If a man, circa 30 CE claimed or others claimed him to be the anointed one of God (Christ) we are not talking myth here like Robin Hood. David was one of the anointed ones of God in Jewish history. David was a man and noone ever claimed differently.
David claimed to be the anointed one? After "snatching" Bathseba or B4 snatching her? Is this an intentional false analogy? Does Davids' story bear any extraordinary claims like resurrecting, healing the sick, converting water into wine, 40 days without food etc?
Pick a better analogy please.

This man who claimed to be the anointed one of God got himself crucified

Which evangelists account are you using?
And what were his last words as he was dying? Who went to his tomb and what did they find? What kind of tomb was it? Was the stone that covered the tombs entrance round or square? Is there evidence that he died?

This is very plausible since anyone claiming to be King of Israel would not exactly be welcome by the Romans.
Its plausible thus far (ie .motive established)
But why then would the Romans allow his body to be taken down and not remain on the Cross? Was that how crucified criminals were treated? No broken legs, no night spent on the cross?

Based on the Gospel stories are they are today it is very unlikely that someone wrote this from a blank piece of paper.

What do you mean by "this" - The Gospel According to Mark? The synoptics? Fallacy of missing arguments. Be clear.

I believe we have the Jewish writing "style" called midrash where a story is rewritten based on previous stories. Based on that, and the amount of text copied from the OT, plagiarised from the NT, and interpolated, I don't think its difficult to understand how the NT could have come about. Prophecy fulfilment on text.

If the Gospels are completely fictional then why were they not around right from the start.
The people were using the old scriptures (the OT) and oral traditions. The Gospels came later to counter skeptic responses.
Maybe a radical wing of the sect decided to construct a Jesus. Those who rejected them are the Judaists we have today. When the Romans embraced Xstianity, due to its Polytheistic nature (Father son and Holy spirit) and the concoted historical basis and gentile appeal (thanks to paul) they institutioanlised it and the spread started.

The fact for example that Paul seems unaware of their existance and content seems to suggest that Christianity did not start with the Gospel stories.
True. But you could be mistaking the logical fallacy of assuming a cause created an effect. For example, was there a real father christmas behind "father christmas" we have today? Humans have a habit of picking things and letting them stick. When someone in power then views an opportunity, they can take the "myths" and force them as facts. If Hitler won the 2nd WW, I bet a number of people today would beilieve in Nazism.
And then again, humans have a short memory and the people then were quite gullible and even looney eg. Proculus, the Roman senator, who affirmed that Romulus had appeared to him after his death. The people believing that Paul and Barnabas were gods because they had survived a snake bite etc. If Eusebius could make a public claim that he wrote to Jesus and got a response, and he remained a respected church father, then you know the kind of people we are talking about.

All you need to do is to broaden your horizons of belief.
I assure you that they are as broad as yours.

Then the more you need to broaden them

Radcliffe Emerson

[QUOTE] If the Gospels are completely fictional then why were they not around right from the start.

The very fact they weren't around from the start makes me believe they're fictional. That's how myths usually evolve. Myths normally don't immediately spring up after an event or person, they evolve over periods of time, which is what the gospel accounts of Jesus did.