did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see its pieces still being debated now, and the general view you posted above.

still controversial after all these years, interesting.

 

[Oberon]

For reasons I care not to explain, I think that John is a compilation of texts written at different times and completed as late as 110 or even later.

The oral transmission theory doesn't work here because there was not an eye-witness who passed on traditions associated with Jesus or any other original teacher. Everything in John is encased in advanced theology that comes from years of reflection.

I agree with some of this. I don't see much of a reason to doubt that a disciple was behind John (i.e. it was written by his/her follower or followers). But John is clearly largely concerned with theological matters and little concerned with the Jesus tradition. As you say, it reflects "advanced theology that comes from years of reflection."

 

[atanu]

google is your friend

Thank you. You too are a friend.

But I find it beyond understanding whether revelation is required either for a) historical events which were recorded by witnesses or b) for self evident facts? What is the use of revelation (eg Veda) to teach me that dogsgod is one man and atanu another? Revelation, to me, is bringing to light what is hidden to sensual instruments.

This is just a personal view. Pl. carry on the eternal debate.

regards

 

[waitasec]

That's because of the advanced theology of John - dated in the 90s and on. The traditional answer is that John was a teenager and lived to a ripe old age.

For reasons I care not to explain, I think that John is a compilation of texts written at different times and completed as late as 110 or even later.

The oral transmission theory doesn't work here because there was not an eye-witness who passed on traditions associated with Jesus or any other original teacher. Everything in John is encased in advanced theology that comes from years of reflection.

emphasis by me

because of the years of waiting...and waiting and waiting

john had to reconcile the idea that jesus was supposed to come back within the lifetime of his disciples.

 

[outhouse]

I agree with some of this. I don't see much of a reason to doubt that a disciple was behind John (i.e. it was written by his/her follower or followers). But John is clearly largely concerned with theological matters and little concerned with the Jesus tradition. As you say, it reflects "advanced theology that comes from years of reflection."

I thought I heard that the author of john was supposed to be prisoned for quite sonme time???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

emphasis by me

because of the years of waiting...and waiting and waiting

john had to reconcile the idea that jesus was supposed to come back within the lifetime of his disciples.

I disagree with this. There is no attempt by John to address the late and anticipated coming of Jesus. It is entirely concerned with the needs of the current community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought I heard that the author of john was supposed to be prisoned for quite sonme time???

You're thinking about the author of Revelation, who was exiled to the island of Samos. It may or may not have been the same author of the Gospel.

 

[fallingblood]

You're thinking about the author of Revelation, who was exiled to the island of Samos. It may or may not have been the same author of the Gospel.

Do you know what the likely hood of them being the same would be?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you know what the likely hood of them being the same would be?

About zero IMHO.

 

[horiturk]

maybe jesus existed,maybe he didn't......some of the things he "said" were quite good but unless we find his grave,the real grave,we'll have no evidence.

 

[fallingblood]

maybe jesus existed,maybe he didn't......some of the things he "said" were quite good but unless we find his grave,the real grave,we'll have no evidence.

Not necessary at all to find his grave. There are various historical figures that we have no idea where they are buried.

 

[outhouse]

jesus body was more then likeley stolen if he existed so that the he would fit the OT as a messiah, falling in line with all the other pagan myths ov ressurection at that time.

 

[Oberon]

Not necessary at all to find his grave. There are various historical figures that we have no idea where they are buried.

Nope. There's no proof anybody existed without a grave. POWs, people whose ashes were scattered, stuffy like that, have no evidence for their existence. No grave = no evidence for existence. Can't be any clearer.

 

[fallingblood]

Nope. There's no proof anybody existed without a grave. POWs, people whose ashes were scattered, stuffy like that, have no evidence for their existence. No grave = no evidence for existence. Can't be any clearer.

That sucks, because I want to be cremated. I just hope people debate about my existence as much as they did with Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

That sucks, because I want to be cremated. I just hope people debate about my existence as much as they did with Jesus.

Oh they will. You will be the stuff of legends...

 

[dogsgod]

Believers are cause for discussion. A fictional character sacrificed for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead turned out to be the most influential character of all. People actually believe this central character, the Son of God Himself, is a basis for a man that actually existed in real life. Incredible. Those that don't buy it are of course considered crazy by the indoctrinated, gottaluvit.

 

[Oberon]

People actually believe this central character, the Son of God Himself, is a basis for a man that actually existed in real life.

Are we talking about Jesus or Augustus Caesar?

 

[fallingblood]

Believers are cause for discussion. A fictional character sacrificed for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead turned out to be the most influential character of all. People actually believe this central character, the Son of God Himself, is a basis for a man that actually existed in real life. Incredible. Those that don't buy it are of course considered crazy by the indoctrinated, gottaluvit.

And there is the problem. You fail to realize that myth enters into the lives of many different historical characters. And it is not just with ancient figures. Even Harry Houdini, living at the beginning of the 1900's, has myth attached to his life.

Maybe if you took any time to see what critical scholars and historians are saying about Jesus. You may want to take a little time to see that they are approaching Jesus in the same way that they do with other figures, such as Augustus, who you would never be so close-minded about as to say that (even though some did) he was the son of a god and savior of mankind simply because some wrote that.

 

[dogsgod]

What believers are doing here is trying to draw an historical figure out of a mythology because they got it backwards. It's not uncommon for myths and legends to develop about an historical figure, but it takes religion to draw an historical figure from myth. It's rather humorous to see the comparisons with Augustus. Another thing believers don't realize is that ancient rulers established a divine right to rule by linking themselves with gods, it was a means of keeping the peasants in their place, to accept their lot in life. Mythology has Jesus born among ordinary people wherein only the Magi knew of his divine right to rule, but in mythology stories like this are told in order to set the plot, all of which is completely lost on the believer.

 

[Oberon]

What believers are doing here is trying to draw an historical figure out of a mythology because they got it backwards.

Strategy one of trying to score points in a debate when a) all those most qualified think your position is ridiculously ill-informed and b) you really don't know what you are talking about: categorize all those whose view differs from yours as "believers" regardless of their actual religious positions. That way you appear to other fools as somehow more objective

It's not uncommon for myths and legends to develop about an historical figure, but it takes religion to draw an historical figure from myth.

Strategy 2: Ignore all the historical analyses of the past 200+ years, including those by non-believers, and ignore the vast differences between the gospels, other histories and historical figures from the ancient worlds, and actual mythic figures. Then make sweeping claims on what constitutes myth vs. history when you haven't actually read the primary texts of either.

Another thing believers don't realize is that ancient rulers established a divine right to rule by linking themselves with gods, it was a means of keeping the peasants in their place, to accept their lot in life.

Which would sort of explain why those who believed that Jesus was the messianic "king" of the jews might deify him...