Is Jesus a Mythical Character? (Jesus Christ, priest, Earth, gospel)

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Well, I wasn't trying to prove anyone "wrong" here. Just showing that Robert Beckford fits the criteria you presented. If you don't think so then I stand corrected.

Oh. Ok, now I get it.

Sorry Penguin. I seem to have a bad case of the stupids today (and a slight case of the paranoids).

[logician]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Does that mean you can't cite any scholars in the field who agree with you or Freke or Gandy?

Agree with what point? That the Jesus depicted in the bible may not have existed? There are many.

There is not one historian contempoary to the time of Jesus that ever wrote of such a man.

You would think that his supposed death accompanied by earthquakes, a unique trial, a possible ressurection or stolen body would have been quite newsworthy, but no mention by historians.

Go figure.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Oh. Ok, now I get it.

Sorry Penguin. I seem to have a bad case of the stupids today (and a slight case of the paranoids).

Naw.. you're ok. I'm not sure you and I have ever conversed or debated here on RF....I usually find your post or responses pleasing and knowledgeable.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by logician

Agree with what point? That the Jesus depicted in the bible may not have existed? There are many.

There is not one historian contempoary to the time of Jesus that ever wrote of such a man.

You would think that his supposed death accompanied by earthquakes, a unique trial, a possible ressurection or stolen body would have been quite newsworthy, but no mention by historians.

Go figure.

Agreed.....

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Naw.. you're ok. I'm not sure you and I have ever conversed or debated here on RF....I usually find your post or responses pleasing and knowledgeable.

Well thanks Penguin, and likewise.

[dogsgod]

Originally Posted by Oberon

With all due respect, you are WAY off here. I would say by your statement that you haven't read any significant indepth scholarship on the historical Jesus, because anything that went into any depth on the sources for the Gospels (or explained Q or Matthew and Luke's use of Mark) would have explained that these were recordings of oral traditions. If you have read scholarship, I would ask you to cite it.

If an oral tradition existed in the case of the gospels why did the authors of Matthew and Luke copy Mark almost word for word? If an oral tradition existed, why are the birth stories of Matthew and Luke entirely different? We would expect a different wording but an otherwise parallel storyline if an oral tradition was the case. The sayings in Matthew and Luke are so similar in wording that oral tradition is ruled out in favor of a common written source referred to as Q.

And having read the gospels in Greek many times, along with the LXX (and a fair amount of the Hebrew) this statement:"Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT"

is blatantly false.

I'll return to this.

Yes he does, but apparently you haven't read the texts you are discussing. Gal 1:15-./ thereupon after three years I went up into Jerusalem to visit Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days, and I did not see the other[s] of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.

Had he said brother of Jesus you might have a case except for the confusion it would cause since he's only mentioned in Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his family. The author of Luke/Acts doesn't so much as mention James as a brother of Jesus.

Such is the problem with all texts from ancient history. If you want to apply such standards of historicity to the gospels, fine. I have no problem with that, as long as you do the same for all ancient texts. Of course, this would mean that we can write off just about everything we know about history as myth, because there is more textual evidence for Jesus than most figure from ancient history. Scholars and historians write biographies of ancient people from a single text removed hundreds of years from the person discussed. Like I said before, you look on the texts of the Gospels with such a critical eye because you haven't read enough of ancient historical works (or enough scholarship on the historical Jesus).

The gospels are not to be read as accounts of actual events, they are of a theology. There are no historical accounts of Jesus.

[dogsgod]

Oberon, here is a source for parallel lines from the gospels found in "OT" scriptures. The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

[Oberon]

Agree with what point? That the Jesus depicted in the bible may not have existed? There are many.

OK. So cite one or two experts in the field of early christianity/biblical studies/historical Jesus (and by experts I do not mean some guy with a B.A. in psychology but with a PhD and preferably a professor in one of the above fields) who argues that the historical Jesus never existed.

There is not one historian contempoary to the time of Jesus that ever wrote of such a man.

Why would Jesus be a concern of theirs until Christianity was large enough to matter (at which point we do have such recordings)? Before that time, we have biographies in the form of the gospels by people who WERE interested in it. Are the completely historical? No. But then again, those "contemporary historians" you mentioned weren't either. Classical historians wrote about miracles and divine events all the time. Yet we continue to parse their works for historical events.

If an oral tradition existed in the case of the gospels why did the authors of Matthew and Luke copy Mark almost word for word? If an oral tradition existed, why are the birth stories of Matthew and Luke entirely different? We would expect a different wording but an otherwise parallel storyline if an oral tradition was the case. The sayings in Matthew and Luke are so similar in wording that oral tradition is ruled out in favor of a common written source referred to as Q.

I do not argue that Matthew and Luke did not use Mark, nor that their is a possibility that Q may have been written. However, you have not studied how oral tradition works. It is possible to transmit stories/sayings verbatim orally, without any written documents.

Had he said brother of Jesus you might have a case except for the confusion it would cause since he's only mentioned in Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his family. The author of Luke/Acts doesn't so much as mention James as a brother of Jesus.

Except that Paul uses the greek kurios/lord to apply to Jesus in his writings, and Cephas is Peter (Petros being greek for rock, and cephas aramiac).

The gospels are not to be read as accounts of actual events, they are of a theology. There are no historical accounts of Jesus.

Again, you obviously haven't read enough ancient history to judge this. "Historians" such as Herodotus and Josephus fill their accounts with miracles, theology, fables, etc.

Oberon, here is a source for parallel lines from the gospels found in "OT" scriptures. The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

When I ask for citations, I mean scholarly citations, not internet junk. I might as well respond by citing some Christian website as defense for the historical Jesus.

[dogsgod]

Oberon, what would an oral tradition of a death defying godman that walked on water, calmed the seas, and raised the dead prove? That a son of God really came down to earth and performed miracles? Did your historical Jesus have supernatural powers?

[Oberon]

Oberon, what would an oral tradition of a death defying godman that walked on water, calmed the seas, and raised the dead prove? That a son of God really came down to earth and performed miracles? Did your historical Jesus have supernatural powers?

Again I am not Christian. And no, a starting assumption of an historian is that miracles are not provable and therefore cannot be said to be "historical." Christian historians may believe that they happened, but will acknowledge that they cannot be defended as historical events. However, miracles occur in the works of many ancient historians (along with historical errors). Yet historians still use them.

EDIT- I wish to add this caveat: When I say that historians (whether believers or not) cannot argue for the historicity of the miracle stories within the gospels, this does not mean they don't argue that the events didn't take place in some way. The best explanation may be found in the second volume of Meier's three volume work on the historical Jesus. Events happen, even today, that some interpret as miracles (say a healing at a particular shrine). The fact that a person went to a shrine sick (or at least pretending or thinking himself sick) is not debated, nor is the fact that the person walked away claiming to be healed. What is debated is whether or not a miracle actually happened.
In much the same way, a scholar can argue that historical events lie behind a particular miracle story without arguing that a miracle took place or even being Christian (see, for example, Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician"). For example, they can say that a particular healing likely took place, while at the same time arguing that it was not a miracle anymore than modern faith healings that happen.