Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

And, after much wrangling that was the sum total of our disagreement - which now seems amusing in retrospect, even though it was great fun at the time.  I don't think we need to envision any such actual person in order for the story to have grown.... any more than those morons in Dallas who insist that JFK, Jr. is coming back from the dead to run as Trump's VP!

People have demonstrated an amazing ability for self delusion.  Lacking any other information other than what is in those pitiful gospel accounts, why should this jesus guy be different?

[Cavebear]

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

And, after much wrangling that was the sum total of our disagreement - which now seems amusing in retrospect, even though it was great fun at the time.  I don't think we need to envision any such actual person in order for the story to have grown.... any more than those morons in Dallas who insist that JFK, Jr. is coming back from the dead to run as Trump's VP!

People have demonstrated an amazing ability for self delusion.  Lacking any other information other than what is in those pitiful gospel accounts, why should this jesus guy be different?

When you quote someone, it is a good idea to mention who you are quoting. Readers shouldn't have to go searching for who you meant. Just a thought...

[Aractus]

The literary dependency of the Canonical gospels looks like this, basically:



The LXX is influenced by the works of Homer as well, but not necessarily to the same extent (it is after all a collection of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures).

[Inkubus]

[quote="Minimalist" pid='406216' dateline='1693629855']
Free, in "Jesus Before the Gospels," Ehrman wrote the following:
This book came out in 2016 and I had already dismissed jesus as pure fiction by then but Ehrman put a new spin on my thinking with his work in this book.  These were not carefully constructed tales they were the last link in a dubious line of oral transmission before someone was paid to write them down....in Greek.

I agree.

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

But we really don't know anything about this guy other than what I said. All we can do is reason some of what he might of said as per the gospel records, but by no means does anything even reasonable amount to anything historical.

And yet you claim this...

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

To be Historically accurate. So which is it?

[Free]

[quote="Minimalist" pid='406216' dateline='1693629855']
Free, in "Jesus Before the Gospels," Ehrman wrote the following:
This book came out in 2016 and I had already dismissed jesus as pure fiction by then but Ehrman put a new spin on my thinking with his work in this book.  These were not carefully constructed tales they were the last link in a dubious line of oral transmission before someone was paid to write them down....in Greek.

I agree.

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

But we really don't know anything about this guy other than what I said. All we can do is reason some of what he might of said as per the gospel records, but by no means does anything even reasonable amount to anything historical.

And yet you claim this...

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

To be Historically accurate. So which is it?

What part of "But we really don't know anything about this guy other than what I said"  failed to register in your tortured mind?

[Free]

Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

And, after much wrangling that was the sum total of our disagreement - which now seems amusing in retrospect, even though it was great fun at the time.  I don't think we need to envision any such actual person in order for the story to have grown.... any more than those morons in Dallas who insist that JFK, Jr. is coming back from the dead to run as Trump's VP!

People have demonstrated an amazing ability for self delusion.  Lacking any other information other than what is in those pitiful gospel accounts, why should this jesus guy be different?

Because the name "Jesus" who was crucified as a Messiah pretender was identified as an actual person in so many non-Gospel records that I feel it to be intellectually dishonest to ignore the far higher probability that the Gospel records are loosely based upon a factual single historical person.

The argument for complete and total myth just doesn't work in any reasonable sense for me. Not that it makes much difference as we can all agree that nobody walked on the water, stuck ears back onto anyone's heads, or rose from the dead like zombies.

[Inkubus]

How do you know he exists If you don't know anything about him? Or is there a Roman historian and politician who lived at that time you could refer to?

[Free]

How do you know he exists If you don't know anything about him? Or is there a Roman historian and politician who lived at that time you could refer to?

"Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

But we really don't know anything about this guy other than what I said." (see the line above?)

Now go be stupid somewhere else.

[Inkubus]

Because the name "Jesus" who was crucified as a Messiah pretender was identified as an actual person in so many non-Gospel records...

Oow goody. We haven't had a full reset for ages.

[Inkubus]

How do you know he exists If you don't know anything about him? Or is there a Roman historian and politician who lived at that time you could refer to?

"Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

Begging the question!

[Free]

"Like I keep saying, it's all built upon some historical person named Jesus, who many Jews considered to be some kind of a messiah, and who Pilate crucified.

Begging the question!

Are you going to troll this convo in some effort to derail it?

I don't like stupid people, and dude... you're pretty fucking stupid.

You're getting blocked just to bring peace to the thread.

[Minimalist]

And, after much wrangling that was the sum total of our disagreement - which now seems amusing in retrospect, even though it was great fun at the time.  I don't think we need to envision any such actual person in order for the story to have grown.... any more than those morons in Dallas who insist that JFK, Jr. is coming back from the dead to run as Trump's VP!

People have demonstrated an amazing ability for self delusion.  Lacking any other information other than what is in those pitiful gospel accounts, why should this jesus guy be different?

When you quote someone, it is a good idea to mention who you are quoting.  Readers shouldn't have to go searching for who you meant.  Just a thought...

It was the prior post.  Free and I go way back on this... I give him credit to hold on to a thought for more than a nanosecond!

[Free]

When you quote someone, it is a good idea to mention who you are quoting.  Readers shouldn't have to go searching for who you meant.  Just a thought...

It was the prior post.  Free and I go way back on this... I give him credit to hold on to a thought for more than a nanosecond!

I got used to you a longggg time ago. lol

The context of your posts informs me who you are responding to.

[Cavebear]

It was the prior post.  Free and I go way back on this... I give him credit to hold on to a thought for more than a nanosecond!

I got used to you a longggg time ago. lol

The context of your posts informs me who you are responding to.

I don't follow specific threads daily, as some apparently do. I read "todays posts" and "alerts" and respond to those. But regardless of that, it is always a good idea to mention the source of a quote. It automatically is in what one is responding to, so why deliberately not include it?

[Free]

I got used to you a longggg time ago. lol

The context of your posts informs me who you are responding to.

I don't follow specific threads daily, as some apparently do.  I read "todays posts" and "alerts" and respond to those. But regardless of that, it is always a good idea to mention the source of a quote.  It automatically is in what one is responding to, so why deliberately not include it?

It's probably just a habit. Or he could be on an apple device which kind of sucks for this, or at least it did years ago.

[Minimalist]

No, it's really just that I can't be bothered.  Normally I am looking at one specific line to reply to or comment on and quoting the whole thing requires going in and sorting through all the nested quotes and I usually fuck it up anyway.

So, no.  I usually select the line I want, copy it, paste it and reply.

Sorry it bothers you but I'm not going to promise to change my ways.

[pattylt]

No, it's really just that I can't be bothered.  Normally I am looking at one specific line to reply to or comment on and quoting the whole thing requires going in and sorting through all the nested quotes and I usually fuck it up anyway.

So, no.  I usually select the line I want, copy it, paste it and reply.

Sorry it bothers you but I'm not going to promise to change my ways.

I gotta say, I agree.  For whatever reason, this site doesn’t make quoting easy…and I’m often lazy.

[Rhythmcs]

Because the name "Jesus" who was crucified as a Messiah pretender was identified as an actual person in so many non-Gospel records that I feel it to be intellectually dishonest to ignore the far higher probability that the Gospel records are loosely based upon a factual single historical person.

The argument for complete and total myth just doesn't work in any reasonable sense for me. Not that it makes much difference as we can all agree that nobody walked on the water, stuck ears back onto anyone's heads, or rose from the dead like zombies.

I feel like we should see the math on that probability - especially since we agree that magic book says alot of shit that can't possibly be about any one person (or even any group of people).  

Additionally, I think we've previously discussed how "the argument for complete and total myth" is perfectly fine with the authors engaging in a little composite character creation - having one -or- many historical people being the basis for some attribute or aspect of christ in the story makes no difference to that categorization.  At very least, we both agree that jesus is a composite character.  You think there was one actual guy that accounts for the character, I think there were more - but either way that person or those people are added to the character that performs miracles, to the character that the authors cram their own words into, to the different christs the gospels present.  

The idea that christ is a myth is not equivalent to the idea that no one, anywhere, said any of this shit or did any of this shit.  That all of the authors took literally no factual inspiration from anything or anyone to flesh out their story.   Mythicists say this quite often, so it's unclear how people came to think this is a sticking point.  The mythicist position is that whatever the breakdown happens to be between wholly made up things and occurences and snippets of what someone real somewhere said or did or was like......the character itself started out as a theological vehicle.  That any details of real people or real events are addons - and not the other way around.

[Minimalist]

Because the name "Jesus" who was crucified as a Messiah pretender was identified as an actual person in so many non-Gospel records

Except it wasn't.  The earliest Greco-Roman writers knew of Christus... or more probably Chrestus but not "Jesus." "Jesus" is the add-on to the story probably for purposes of marketing!

[pattylt]

I never grew up with Jesus stories. I have no problem thinking Jesus was either mythical or a composite. I remember reading a while ago where a theory was put out that there were two characters later merged into one. One from Galilee, the other from Jerusalem. Both were likely preachers of some sort and one got himself crucified. Their stories merged along with any stories that sounded like it was said by a wise preacher. Not sure I buy that either but it makes a bit more sense than a god man.

Back when people were extremely superstitious and willing to believe all manner of stories, the gospels made sense. Unfortunately, those very same stories today appear ridiculous to a non believer. Especially miracles…believed back then but now? If miracles were occurring as often as stated in the gospels, non Christian’s would have noted them. None of them did, yet the miracles of others were reported ie, Apollonius.

Richard Carrier pointed out how so many mythical characters were given “real life” stories and thinks this is what happened with Jesus…originally he was a mythical savior brought to earth by Mark. This also makes more sense than the NT. So, I have no idea who’s right or wrong other than the the NT just makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever layers within the story happened to someone somewhere might be true but the “Good News” itself is just creative imagination.

[airportkid]

... the “Good News” itself ...

The "Good News" christians are so proud of is tawdry and not all that good.

Here's a possible example of actual "Good News" - through universal applied psychology war has been made impossible and hunger eliminated.  Life on earth in the here and now is more enjoyable and much less fraught.

Compare that to what christians consider "Good News" - believe some hapless dude 2000 years ago was killed and that death erases any post-death consequences of everything you've ever done wrong or will do wrong.  It does nothing for you in the here and now, but after you die you won't be actually dead and will live forever under constant unrelenting supervision.


To my mind the "Good News" is that the christian "Good News" will never happen.

[pattylt]

... the “Good News” itself ...

The "Good News" christians are so proud of is tawdry and not all that good.

Here's a possible example of actual "Good News" - through universal applied psychology war has been made impossible and hunger eliminated.  Life on earth in the here and now is more enjoyable and much less fraught.

Compare that to what christians consider "Good News" - believe some hapless dude 2000 years ago was killed and that death erases any post-death consequences of everything you've ever done wrong or will do wrong.  It does nothing for you in the here and now, but after you die you won't be actually dead and will live forever under constant unrelenting supervision.


To my mind the "Good News" is that the christian "Good News" will never happen.

While I think Judaism has many problems, at least what you do in the here and now is what matters.  For centuries Judaism had no heaven or hell.  At some point they brought in the concept of “the world to come” but many still don’t consider that heaven.  It’s something for us to accomplish.  It’s a shame they bought into a bunch of rituals and priests.  It was ok without that crap. Still, the focus is on this world.  Christian’s ignore this life for a fantasy of heaven that they hope is whatever they imagine instead of actually making this one livable.

[Bucky Ball]

The "Good News" christians are so proud of is tawdry and not all that good.

Here's a possible example of actual "Good News" - through universal applied psychology war has been made impossible and hunger eliminated.  Life on earth in the here and now is more enjoyable and much less fraught.

Compare that to what christians consider "Good News" - believe some hapless dude 2000 years ago was killed and that death erases any post-death consequences of everything you've ever done wrong or will do wrong.  It does nothing for you in the here and now, but after you die you won't be actually dead and will live forever under constant unrelenting supervision.


To my mind the "Good News" is that the christian "Good News" will never happen.

While I think Judaism has many problems, at least what you do in the here and now is what matters.  For centuries Judaism had no heaven or hell.  At some point they brought in the concept of “the world to come” but many still don’t consider that heaven.  It’s something for us to accomplish.  It’s a shame they bought into a bunch of rituals and priests.  It was ok without that crap. Still, the focus is on this world.  Christian’s ignore this life for a fantasy of heaven that they hope is whatever they imagine instead of actually making this one livable.

Even the Jewish sect(s) that eventually bought into immortality, .... dead was dead. ALL the dead were dead, until the last judgement. THEN all the dead were resurrected and judged. No heaven, in the meanwhile. Even Christians (thoughtlessly) buy into this. "Rest in peace". WTAF ? Heaven is a bunch of people in bed ?

[Minimalist]

Moses doesn't seem so impressed at the end!

[Bucky Ball]