Adam and Eve as a Myth

[Heathen Hammer]

Perhaps?

Based on what/​

Biblical scholars, would that not be inaccurate? Would they not have a predilection for accepting an historical Jesus since they are, after all, debating nuances of the philosophy and already accept that one person taught them? There would be a natural bit of confirmation bias already.
​

Not necessarily?

Based on what?​

Based on the fact that they debate still exists, and that historians use different, more concrete methods than scholars for their subject matter.
​

 

[outhouse]

Biblical scholars, perhaps; historians, not necessarily. The debate is ongoing.

There is a debate going on, but its mostly the myther's fighting history.


Like some creationist, I see many myther's going for the gaps of our knowledge and trying to insert mythology into them while ignoring what is known.

all in a attempt to undermine what is known.


im not sure if most scholars dont spend more time areguing with each other more then defending their opinions. But that doesnt mean certain debates carry any weight

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, whether they did or not isn't as important [at the moment] as is the fact that it's not settled by any means.

Examination of the total lack of real evidence certainly is feasible enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Examination of the total lack of real evidence certainly is feasible enough.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

times two!

 

[outhouse]

Examination of the total lack of real evidence certainly is feasible enough.

there is more evidence towards jesus existance then many people claimed to be historical.


while I agree many scholars do have biases, the overwhelming majority do find enough evidence for his existance.

I started out in the myth camp, with no bias. After reviewing the evidence, it spretty overwhelming there was a man who traveled and healed and was martyred, and legends grew surrounding such events.

I just dont see romans creating mythology making a jew their hero, yet it is what we have

 

[waitasec]

for me it's neither here or there that he existed...just like it really doesn't bother me if king arthur or robin hood ever existed...but what makes jesus interesting is that people do not make life choices based on these characters as they do with him...that is what concerns me most.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

there is more evidence towards jesus existance then many people claimed to be historical.

Not really. The ciritcal 'evidences' tend to be contrived; have to wonder why.

its pretty overwhelming there was a man who traveled and healed

Healed? Not a chance, there's zero evidence of any supernatural events. None.

I just dont see romans creating mythology making a jew their hero, yet it is what we have

The Romans didn't create him. They just used something convenient.

 

[waitasec]

Not really. The ciritcal 'evidences' tend to be contrived; have to wonder why.

not that i disagree...i am in the neutral position. but can you elaborate on this a little more

Healed? Not a chance, there's zero evidence of any supernatural events. None.

this i agree with, that and the walking zombies bit

The Romans didn't create him. They just used something convenient.

i agree with this too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, goodie. Another Mythical Jesus thread in the making.

 

[Quagmire]

Oh, goodie. Another Mythical Jesus thread in the making.

Maybe we should just merge all of those and call it the Merry-go-Round thread.

 

[waitasec]

Maybe we should just merge all of those and call it the Merry-go-Round thread.

wouldn't that apply to most threads?

 

[Quagmire]

wouldn't that apply to most threads?

Not as appropriately.

 

[waitasec]

Not as appropriately.

you know, this idea never even occurred to me before joining RF...it's an interesting thought no less...

 

[outhouse]

Healed? Not a chance, there's zero evidence of any supernatural events. None.

I never said there was anything supernatural about it.

many peopled healed people naturally, he was basically a first century doctor which included expelling demons, spirits, ect ect. But also ointments from natual plants and other peasant medicine methods

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I never said there was anything supernatural about it.

many peopled healed people naturally, he was basically a first century doctor which included expelling demons, spirits, ect ect. But also ointments from natual plants and other peasant medicine methods

Used in that context though 'healed' did not imply 'people got better while Jesus was standing around'

 

[Heathen Hammer]

not that i disagree...i am in the neutral position. but can you elaborate on this a little more

Not to spoil Jay's expectations or anything, but... [ ]

.. the fact that the most-cited Josephus contains one statement mentioning Jesus which is agreed to be a forgery, that in the Testimonium referencing the execution by Pilate. And the mention of him as a brother of James, with a reference to calling him 'Christ", which the Hebrew Josephus would never have done, and shows, for want of a better word, extrapolation.

If this person is concretely historical, why the need for deception and 'artistic license'? The passages most favored for citation are not present in earlier manuscripts in the case of wording of references to James.

It's not as concrete as people want to make out, and proclaim loudly. It's not settled, it's clearly open to question. Im not saying anything concrete. Merely objecting to overblown concrete positives and eyerolling at legitimate skepticism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And the mention of him as a brother of James, with a reference to calling him 'Christ", which the Hebrew Josephus would never have done, and shows, for want of a better word, extrapolation.

Then one wonders why the majority of Josephus scholars consider the James reference to be authentic. Perhaps you should avail yourself of that scholarship before further exposing your ignorance of the topic.

Oh, and by the way, I suspect that the term you intended was 'interpolation,' not 'extrapolation'. ​

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, that is probably the word..grats, you're the first..

And, a majority is of no consequence. As is your ignorance of the scholarly interest in challenging that passage's authenticity

For amusement:

Arguments challenging authenticity

The James passage


An 1842 copy of Eusebius' Church History


A comparative argument made against the authenticity of the James passage by scholars such as Tessa Rajak is that the passage has a negative tone regarding the High Priest Ananus, presenting him as impulsive while in the Jewish Wars Josephus presents a positive view of Ananus and portrays him as prudent.[88] [89]
A textual argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.[88] An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that given that the mention of Jesus appears in the Antiquities before that of the John the Baptist a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.[88] A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.[88]
Some of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the James passage revolve around the similarities and differences between the accounts of Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the New Testament. Although Josephus' account of the method of death of James differs from that of the New Testament, this is seen as an indication that the Josephus account is not a Christian interpolation.[19]
John Painter states that Origen expresses surprise that given that a Josephus who disbelieves in Jesus as Christ (Commentary on Matthew Book X, Chapter 17) should write respectfully of James, his brother.[90] However, according to Painter unlike the Testimonium this issue has not generated a great deal of controversy, although viewed as a potential reason for doubting authenticity.[90]
An issue that is subject to more debate is that in Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17), Origen cites Josephus as stating the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him, and that his death was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.[72][74][91] A the end of Book II, Chapter XIII Origen disagrees with Josephus' placement of blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James, and states that it was due to the death of Jesus, not James.[90]
In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. In this reference Eusebius writes: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.” However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.[90] Painter states that whether the Book II, Chapter 23.20 statement by Eusebius is an interpolation remains an open question.[90]
Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.[76] However, John Painter states that placing the blame for the siege of Jerusalem on the death of James is perhaps an early Christian invention that predates both Origen and Eusebius and that it likely existed in the traditions to which they were both exposed.[90] Painter states that it is likely that Eusebius may have obtained his explanation of the siege of Jerusalem from Origen.[76]
G. A. Wells has stated that the fact that Origen seems to have read something different about the death of James in Josephus than what there is now, suggests some tampering with the James passage seen by Origen.[83] Wells suggests that the interpolation seen by Origen may not have survived in the extant Josephus manuscripts, but that it opens the possibility that there may have been other interpolations in Josephus' writings.[83] Wells further states that differences between the Josephus account and those of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria may point to interpolations in the James passage.[83]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then one wonders why the majority of Josephus scholars consider the James reference to be authentic. Perhaps you should avail yourself of that scholarship before further exposing your ignorance of the topic.

Oh, and by the way, I suspect that the term you intended was 'interpolation,' not 'extrapolation'. ​

... a majority is of no consequence.

It is of far greater consequence than a pretentious fact claim from an amateur with internet access. Even your representation of the purported 'evidence' demonstrates remarkable confusion and thoughtlessness:

And the mention of him as a brother of James, with a reference to calling him 'Christ", which the Hebrew Josephus would never have done, ...

The 20.9.2 reference in question is as follows:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.​

​

​

​

So Josephus was in no way suggesting Jesus as [the] Christ, but simply informing the readers that the Jesus being referenced was the one called Christ by others. It was an attempt at disambiguation, and there is absolutely nothing about it that would be unusual coming from a Jew.

As is your ignorance of the scholarly interest in challenging that passage's authenticity

Yet another pretentious and thoroughly specious fact claim.