The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

hey I saw a movie about jesus is that a better portrayal of jesus than the bible?

Depends. Who starred?

 

[jelly]

Depends. Who starred?

Arnold, the best line was "I'll be back."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Arnold, the best line was "I'll be back."

If it's Arnold coming back, I think I'll sit out the rapture. That guy takes himself way too seriously.

 

[jelly]

If it's Arnold coming back, I think I'll sit out the rapture. That guy takes himself way too seriously.

everbody knows jesus was joking, that is the sad part... :sad:

 

[fallingblood]

oh well then if a body is found of jesus who is going to be biblical jesus or historical jesus?

Both. You need to just try to pay attention. The difference between the two are view points.

 

[fallingblood]

just to revisit the OP and carry on as I would believe fallingblood would like.
what the hell does this bolded part mean? does it mean you don't believe the bible when it comes to the protrayal of biblical/historical jesus?
was jesus an apple or an onion and some how the bible got it wrong, PLEASE fallingblood PONTIFICATE. and if you don't know what that means: explain what you are talking about when you say "that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him"

The bolded part means exactly what it says. I no longer feel a need, or even a want to try to help you understand. You continued lack of want to learn, or understand at the very least, is weary.

 

[fallingblood]

Can't take your word for it. Sorry. I've heard from about 50 folks that it is the consensus, so you'll need to gather some voters behind you.

Here is my argument for Josephus having written about Jesus: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

 

[jelly]

The bolded part means exactly what it says. I no longer feel a need, or even a want to try to help you understand. You continued lack of want to learn, or understand at the very least, is weary.

haha so is the bible an accurate portrayal of biblical jesus whom you cannot separate from historical jesus?
I saw only a few minutes of the jesus christ superstar did I miss an accurate portrayal of jesus?

 

[jelly]

The bolded part means exactly what it says. I no longer feel a need, or even a want to try to help you understand. You continued lack of want to learn, or understand at the very least, is weary.

you can feel pathetic too I wouldn't care.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here is my argument for Josephus having written about Jesus: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

Thanks. If I ever get around to reading various opinions about that issue, I may try to read yours, too. But I'm more interested in the issue before us.

Namely, how do we determine the actual and real "scholarly consensus" (SC)?

Everyone claims that he knows what it is, and of course it always happens to match the speaker's own personal opinion. (Well, unless it's me talking.)

But what if you claim that the SC holds that Acts is good historical work, but angellous claims the SC believes that Acts is useless as history?

How am I to know what is the actual SC?

By reading a Wiki article on it, maybe?

Or is there one single Council of Scholars which issues "Statements of Scholarly Consenses?"

How does that work? I'm pretty tired of being beaten over my head with the Scholarly Consensus. I'd like to know which ones are made of steel and which of feathers.

 

[outhouse]

By reading a Wiki article on it, maybe?

its a rough draft that will give you a starter course and a little background if you want to learn.



your like a guy talking about racing motorcycles in the pit but wont get on a bike and then complains how slow everyone is going.

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't work for me at all. I think passionate Paul would have written extensively about the historical Jesus, if he'd actually had any reports about it. Jesus was the center of his life.

The gospel writers -- 30 to 50 years later -- felt it important to tell the historical story of Jesus, but those who actually experienced it (and Paul who interviewed them) felt no such urge? That's way beyond my ability to believe.

You're forgetting that the early Xians believed in an immanent parousia. Since people wrote things down in order to archive information, there would be no need to archive such information in a scenario in which the parousia was going to happen tomorrow. It was not until after some time had passed that they came to realize that the parousia was not happening anytime soon, and thus they began the process of archiving the stories.

 

[sojourner]

he wasnt a traveling teacher of judaism ?

Yes, but he also taught in the Temple. One could do both...

 

[sojourner]

If you want me to think of you as serious participant in this debate, you'll have to address me with at least a pretense of politeness.

Just a wild guess on my part: I don't get the impression that Jay gives a tinker's damn what you think of him as a participant in this debate. he's got better things to do than concern himself with your impressions.

 

[sojourner]

Do you think we could pick things up a bit?

When your attitude is limited to:

When we first met, you asked how I could be so cheeky as to disagree with the consensus of Biblical scholars on certain matters.

My first answer was this: I think scholars often misunderstand human psychology. They can read all the old manuscripts, attend all the seminars, learn all the esoteric bits they like, but unless they understand the human heart, their conclusions are likely to be flawed. Add a heavy dash of cultural awe at Christianity itself, and bad conclusions and theories are inevitable.

what would be the point of picking things up? You'd be left back at square one counting your toes.

I really don't see how anyone could reasonably deny that.

That's because you're wearing your 21st century lenses to look at 1st century thought.

So I think it's always important to doubt ourselves, examine ourselves, and even accuse ourselves of bias. The tool with which we examine truth should be tested even moreso than the materials we study. So if someone suggests possible bias in our views, I think we should consider ourselves guilty until proven innocent.

The best Bible scholars do that.

 

[sojourner]

So the Bible can be trusted on historical issues but the BOM can't?

Can you recite a couple of high points for your thinking on that?

Archaeological integrity, for starters. There's no proof of ancient source for the BOM.

 

[sojourner]

Does anyone else think that this thread needs to be drug out behind the barn and shot?

 

[jelly]

Just a wild guess on my part: I don't get the impression that Jay gives a tinker's damn what you think of him as a participant in this debate. he's got better things to do than concern himself with your impressions.

use abductive reasoning (wild guessing) and let me know if Jaywalker Soule thinks like fallingblood: that historical jesus and biblical jesus are the same and the bible doesn't portray historical jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

your like a guy talking about racing motorcycles in the pit but wont get on a bike and then complains how slow everyone is going.

You're like a fan who goes to a championship motorcycle race and after the race, sneaks backstage to advise one of the racers in how to shift a motorcycle from first to second.

(This is fun. I think we should make a new section of the forum where we can go and write analogies about one another!)

 

[fallingblood]

Thanks. If I ever get around to reading various opinions about that issue, I may try to read yours, too. But I'm more interested in the issue before us.

Namely, how do we determine the actual and real "scholarly consensus" (SC)?

Everyone claims that he knows what it is, and of course it always happens to match the speaker's own personal opinion. (Well, unless it's me talking.)

But what if you claim that the SC holds that Acts is good historical work, but angellous claims the SC believes that Acts is useless as history?

How am I to know what is the actual SC?

By reading a Wiki article on it, maybe?

Or is there one single Council of Scholars which issues "Statements of Scholarly Consenses?"

How does that work? I'm pretty tired of being beaten over my head with the Scholarly Consensus. I'd like to know which ones are made of steel and which of feathers.

You find the Scholarly consensus by doing research. When the vast majority of scholars say the same thing, or agree on a subject, that would be the scholarly consensus.

As for if I believed that the scholarly consensus said Acts was good history, and Angellous came by and said no, I would most likely state that I was wrong. He is more knowledgable than me on this topic, and has definitely read more.