Jayhawker Soule

oops - so much for credibility

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

The JS indicate in one of their books there was discussion about whether Jesus actually existed, but early on it was agreed he did exist, it's just a good portion of biblical sayings attributed to him are dubious.
Personally, I believe Jesus existed, but I believe the Koran's view of him is closer to the truth than Christianity's. Note I said closer to, not actual 100% truth.

From the JS findings (which to me make logical sense), I believe Jesus was similar to Ghandi in his day. I think he was a humanist. I think he refused to follow Jewish religious laws, which got him banned from the temple. He associated with non-Jews, treated women as equals (early Christians had women leaders, the church fathers later squelched it), and I believe when he started gathering his own large group of followers, both the Jewish leaders and the Romans started seeing him as a threat, so he was eventually put to death. The Romans were having trouble with the Jews, and the Jewish leaders didn't want their followers leaving to follow someone who had a disdain for organized religion.
One thing I've gotten out of all the books I've read on the search for Jesus in the bible and elsewhere, was the real Jesus did not care for organized religion.

BTW, my Universalist Unitarian summer minister is affiliated with the Jesus Seminar. I was surprised when he first mentioned it, as I had just finished a couple of their books

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Radcliffe,
Why then would a non-Jew (Mark) be the one to write about Jesus, decades after his death? What would have inspired him to do so?
How come no one(apart from the isolated "Jesus of Nazareth" of Paul) knew from whence he came?

Did he have 12 disciples? Did he walk on water?

This "historical construction", what is its basis - reason, the gospels, convenient pericopes or historical evidence?

If he was just an ordinary man (as opposed to the son of God), then doesnt that mean the christ who was supposedly the son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead is a myth?

Radcliffe Emerson

The Jews would not write about a man who ignored their religious rules and was cast out of their temple.

I've said all along the "Son of God" stuff is myth. When Jesus died, he died.
Most of the little bits and pieces of the Jesus myth are taken from other religions and their stories, and modified.
As far as Mark goes, the actual author of the book is unknown.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Emerson,
Are you arguing that there existed a historical Jesus while at the same time arguing that the "son of God" was a myth?

Radcliffe Emerson

Yes. I fully believe there was a human Jesus. I do not believe he was divine.

Ted Hoffman

Radcliffe,
And this Historical Jesus, he arose from where? Nazareth?

Radcliffe Emerson

I tend to agree with the archaelogists and scholars who think Jesus actually was from Nazareth, because historically, Gallilee was such a poor area and Nazareth even poorer, that it had no significance at the time at all.
For someone to say Jesus came from Nazareth then is probably true, because it wouldn't be a town to single out for any recognition unless he really was from there.

Radcliffe Emerson

I'm also reading a book called Excavating Jesus, Dominic Crossan is one of the authors. It details what they've found archaelogically in Galillee, and how it either agrees or disagrees with accounts of Jesus in the gospels.
They talk about the region being extremely poor during that period and what their excavations have found.
They believe Jesus was indeed from Nazareth, and actually born there, not Bethlehem.