You mean someone is presenting real evidence?
I mean: good thing this isn't a church, it's a debate forum. Therefore complaining about what happens in church is pretty pointless
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You mean someone is presenting real evidence?
Darn ... I guess I should go read something substantive in the subject so I can keep up with vepurusg. :yes:Take that, Jay, you wacko.
We are told that Jesus and his followers were provided for out of the means of a number of women. That does give means for the immediate group of followers to be bigger. There were also a number of fishermen in the inner circle. That again provides means for a larger following. Jesus also spent time with the tax collectors, and dining with them, which would have been able to feed a larger following.no but you cannot support a large group surviving on dinner scraps. only having 3or 4 followers his inner circle, is all that makes sense.
Yes, some scholars suggest a misplaced body or stolen body. However, most don't give much heed to a stolen body. It would be much more likely that the body was simply misplaced. It could even have been thrown into a pit.Take the frog out of your pocket, because a stolen or misplaced body ranks high in what scholars look at to figure out the best option, its fiction after a vision that is more probably.
Can you name scholars that think that Paul is worthless? And I mean serious scholars?paul is almpst worthless because he is a "want -to- be" apostle who is removed far from the original movement. he is more responsible for Bjesus removing Hjesus from oral tradition
The idea of the resurrection (which really isn't talked much about in the OT) was one of a general resurrection. The idea wasn't that only one person would be resurrected. It was that all the righteous would be resurrected in the end. Paul even mentions this much, and stresses that Jesus is simply the first fruits of this general resurrection.I'd rethink that, and not put it out to the pasture unless you have good evidence.
the resurrection was a very powerful theme back then going way back in the OT.
And you know nothing of the original movement as paul took it in his own direction.
the thing that sticks out, is that the movement only gained steam after his death.
That doesn't place him as a martyr. That simply places him as the catalyst for a movement.the fact the movement gained all its steam after his death, places him as a martyr
it may not have been intentional.
The Temple being corrupt doesn't make the religion corrupt. They are two different things.sure it was
the temple was the religions government and bank, it was corrupt.
Jews were looking for new ways to worship within judaism, the religion itself was fine. hence the word corrupt, not ruined.
Can you name a single scholar (and source), that states that Paul was never a Jew? Also, he was never a criminal, or bounty hunter. You're just mudslinging there.you dont know that, and its a hot topic within scholarships
his judaism is debated.
he was a want to be so bad, its not a stretch to think this criminal litterate bounty hunter, wrote himself in.
Paul didn't take it cross cultures though. It was all within the Greco-Roman culture. More so, you didn't really address what I said.yes free religion and health care took off in all directions, but thats not what jesus started
it was responsible for the cross cultural oral tradition that paul learned from.
its not like he spied on judaism and stole it.
There were many options. The Greco-Roman gods were also options. Plus, what Jesus was offering was hardly a new method of worship. Jesus was in a long line of individuals promoting such a form of worship.you dont know that. you dont know that they just heard of this new method of worship for poverty strticken people that didnt cost a arm and a leg and start using it.
No. It was still within the Greco-Roman culture. Palestine was effected by such. It was still in the same culture.by that time it was already within another culture
of course you can trace roots back to judaism
Your view stands only if you ignore everything I said, as well as the Wiki link. Because really, you never addressed what I actually said.My view stands, as its not that diffgerent from the roman/gentile foundation laid previously.
its far removed from a the sect of judaism that it started out from.
a gentile preaching more of the roots of judaism to keep his version of the movement as pure as possible makes perfect sense, given his geographic location
Hyam Maccoby although, as you can see, his views are not generally accepted.Can you name scholars that think that Paul is worthless? And I mean serious scholars?
And yes, it was freely brought to the Gentiles. All of our sources state such.
The liklihood that a real Jesus existed that resembled the NT stories is about as high as the probablity of existence of other man-gods of the past.
Hyam Maccoby although, as you can see, his views are not generally accepted.
As for the rest, I can think of nothing quite so silly as an outhouse posturing as a library.
What Gentiles? Paul wasn't a Gentile (you've never shown any reason to think of him as such).says the gentile's [facepalm]
Darn ... I guess I should go read something substantive in the subject so I can keep up with vepurusg. :yes:
And I don't think you understand the problem. Given Josephus, the early Cristian writings, and the total absence of 1st century mythicist polemic, there are precisely two ways to sustain a mythicist position: (a) appalling willful ignorance, or (b) the presumption of a conspiracy of fabrication, redaction, and general duplicity.You don't seem to have understood my post.
Talk of certainty is a childish star man.Certainty that this Yeshua character existed is a matter of faith, not reason.
I do not know enough about the Jesus myth theory to comment on its validity, but it is interesting to note that it is becoming more publicized.
The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Not 'insane.' Far less respectable than 'insane.'I like how Bart Ehramn describes deniers as kooks, implying that the claims are somehow fantastic or insane.
Not 'insane.' Far less respectable than 'insane.'
And I don't think you understand the problem. Given Josephus, the early Cristian writings, and the total absence of 1st century mythicist polemic, there are precisely two ways to sustain a mythicist position: (a) appalling willful ignorance, or (b) the presumption of a conspiracy of fabrication, redaction, and general duplicity.
:biglaugh: Oh, my! Not Jesus the myth but Jesus the 'probable con-man' [sic].False dichotomy.
I see what's going on here; you're practicing some appalling willful ignorance yourself. Sorry to hear it.
If you'd actually think for a moment with a critical mind, you might find other options there.
Those are not the only two ways to uphold a reasonable possibility of the fellow not having existed.
Like I said, I think this fellow (or possibly fellows) upon whom Yeshua was loosely based was probably a con-man, like any number of other two bit criminals who peddled their magician acts to take advantage of people at the time. There were plenty of them, and it's not a stretch to figure one probably set off all of the nonsense that went spiraling out of control and into myth after.
I don't know how distantly inspired the character may have been, and nobody really does. There are plenty of hypotheses, but there's no real consensus on who or what the historical Yeshua was, if such a person existed.
The question of whether this Yeshua fellow "existed" comes largely down to how we qualify existence- at what point does a myth become so removed from the thing that triggered it that the subject of the myth can be said not to exist? Is there ever such a point?
In one sense, we can say centaurs existed, because at some point somebody probably saw something (likely intoxicated, witnessing somebody riding bare-back). The myth may be based on something concrete down the line- but is that thing really a centaur?
No, it's just a guy on a horse. A centaur is something else all-together.
Almost every story is based on something- but when it becomes fictionalized and distorted to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the original, it is only reasonable to start questioning whether the thing at hand ever existed at all.
Whatever your beliefs about a magical zombie happen to be, they are false- completely. The Yeshua of the bible -a fictionalized character of a god made flesh- never existed.
Whether the character was based on one or more other real people, and how distantly, is another matter.
(c) If it doesn't look like a duck, and it doesn't quack like a duck, it's probably reasonable to say it's not a duck.
And beyond that, there is the perfectly reasonable:
(d) It was a CULT. The people were suffering from mass hysteria and delusions.
This is known to happen- WELL documented. There's plenty of documentation of suicidal Christian crazy from the era as well.
Your arguments would be laughable if they weren't so sad.
Josephus drew from common knowledge- ancient historians were hardly incredulous or rigorous; it's merely a reflection of what people thought, which is hardly news (and most historians do understand that there was some degree of slight embellishment going on there- evidenced by other translations- which hardly takes conspiracy for faithful scribes who were trying to avoid blaspheming). Look at all of the Christian rhetoric inserted into Beowulf, for example- it's simply an inevitable consequence of Christian scribes copying things for centuries, NOT conspiracy (and thankfully they did, otherwise we would have lost much more priceless cultural heritage, rather than just having it slightly -and very obviously and largely reversibly- contaminated).
Early Christian Writings are not consistent or reliable sources- if they were, we'd have a much better picture of a historical Yeshua, and much better academic consensus.
Absence of first century mythicist polemic? Seriously? Because some people believed something was true means it is? You clearly have no concept of how cults or mass hysteria function.
There's no more reason that we should expect mythicist polemic if Yeshua were false, than would we expect overwhelming documentation if Yeshua were real.
Nobody cared until quite a bit later; do you know how many decades it took for the Romans to even figure out that the Christians were distinct from the Jews? Their general mindset was "WTF is going on here? Who are these people and what is wrong with them?"
Add to that, ancient peoples were generally incredulous by modern standards; they believed in all sorts of magic and nonsense- they had no real reason not to at that time.
Yeah... you have no idea what you're talking about.
To use your words: appalling willful ignorance.
Please consider a bit of open mindedness.
Because terms like obstinant, thoughtless, and agenda-driven are far more appropriate. When they choose to apply their standards less selectively I'll consider treating them with less contempt.Why should anyone who does not see the evidence presented for historical Jesus as weak be called anything other than cautious or thorough?
We are told that Jesus and his followers were provided for out of the means of a number of women.
There were also a number of fishermen in the inner circle. That again provides means for a larger following.
That again provides means for a larger following.
Jesus also spent time with the tax collectors, and dining with them, which would have been able to feed a larger following
Yes, some scholars suggest a misplaced body or stolen body. However, most don't give much heed to a stolen body. It would be much more likely that the body was simply misplaced. It could even have been thrown into a pit.
Can you name scholars that think that Paul is worthless? And I mean serious scholars?
As for Paul taking the movement in his direction. Not really. All sources agree that Paul was only bringing the movement to a certain group; the gentiles.
Finally, the movement hardly gained steam after the death of Jesus. Even then, it barely moved along. It was simply lucky to have even survived the destruction of Jerusalem. And even then, it moved in a variety of different directions. It still had Jewish movements that continued until at least the 4th century.
The Temple being corrupt doesn't make the religion corrupt. They are two different things.
that states that Paul was never a Jew?
Paul didn't take it cross cultures though. It was all within the Greco-Roman culture. More so, you didn't really address what I said.
You have shown no evidence that Matthew, or the other individuals who were pushing the Jesus movement were anything but Jews.
Why should anyone who does not see the evidence presented for historical Jesus as weak be called anything other than cautious or thorough?