Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree with that. I have always assumed that the NT was based on an actual historical person, I just think some, or even most, of what was written wasn't historically factual.
Come on pneuma! Spill the beans pal. Is it your belief that the 'historical Jesus' was just someone that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on and that the Gospel stories are just made up or do you think that historical Jesus actually DID wander around performing miracles, raising the dead, feeding thousands with nothing, bringing dead people back to life and got crucified but resurrected three days later and now lives in 'heaven' and that the Gospel is a true reflection of what went on?
You see fella. If your argument is that...IF there was an historical Jesus then he was nothing more than itinerant rebel rabbi with no magical powers, not divine, who wandered around the area shouting about the injustices of the establishment and got killed for that then you and I have no argument. If however, you believe that there was an historical Jesus and that person was exactly as described in the Gospel i.e., the miracle working divine son of the Hebrew war God Yahweh, who was executed and came back to life and now resides in a place called heaven, then we are in disagreement.
Clarifying the matter would also help our new friend to understand exactly which Jesus you are arguing for as it appears that he thinks you are arguing for the former when I know that you are in fact arguing for the latter.
Question: can one's position be taken serious if one has to hedge their bet?
I don't know if anyone else noticed this or not but Raf/Carrier position on the James passage is them hedging their bet.
Both state the James passage referring to Christ is a Christian interpolation.
Yet both argue that the Christ in the James passage is in reference to Jesus Ben Damneus.
Sorry but it cannot be both, pick one and stand by it.
IMHO if one has to hedge their bet one is not sure of their own stance on the issue.
I have done. My position hasn't changed. My position is that the passage refers to a different Jesus and that the words 'he that is called Christ' is an addition. That has been my position throughout. What I am more interested in at the moment is clarifying YOUR position on who you believe this historical Jesus was. Non divine itinerant preacher or divine son of Yahweh.
That's a fair question, based on what I wrote. I don't know that anything in that passage isn't factual (although the bit about the "word of God" coming to John is obviously a matter of opinion.
But, to be clear, what I should have written was:
I just think some, or even most, of what was written about Jesus wasn't historically factual.
Exactly, I do not see how Raf and thrill cannot understand that.
They cannot seem to believe in a man, who some called the Christ, without believing all the other stuff so they fight against there ever being a man who some called the Christ.
That is their hang up not mine.
I don't know whether it helps at all, but what I suggest (and am willing to argue) is that there really has to be an historical Jesus, though it is very odd that Josephus overlooks him, while writing about Pilate and even Bannus and even the baptist it seems. But the fact is that the gospel writers seem to be stuck with a Jesus they don't much care for and have to rewrite him s he becomes the Jesus they want.
A Jesus from Galilee who concerned himself with the Jews and didn't even meet Paul who was to be the founder of the Church. Arrested and executed by the Romans. Dead.
So a couple of contradictory nativities are invented to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. e is constantly running into gentiles (Roman centurions for preference, but samaritans will do, at a pinch) whom he declares so much more Faithful (in what before Christianity had even been invented, I am not sure) than the Jews whom he regularly beats up on, and particularly the Pharisees who get a terrible press in the gospels, and in the end the Roman Crucifixion is blamed squarely on the Jews. And for good measure an empty tomb (which I have to give some weight as it is pretty much the last thing the gospels agree on) and frightened women running away to say nothing, or to report to the disciples or in great Joy or to run smck into Jesus - take your pick - the resurrction accounts are so discrepant that the logical conclision is that there was no resurrection account so they had to invent them.
And the most you can say is they for sure weren't cribbing from each other.
So that a Jesus they had needs to be revamped means there was a Jesus they didn't much like but were stuck with. That to me says an historical Jesus, but NOT the Gospels Jesus. I thnk, gentlemen, you may be in agreement, but don't know it.
The one that turned out to be real, in the end, like Santa and the Blue Honda Prius...or was it red? And the Klingons, they turned out to be real, too, and Darth Jam -jar, I seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
That's a fair question, based on what I wrote. I don't know that anything in that passage isn't factual (although the bit about the "word of God" coming to John is obviously a matter of opinion.
But, to be clear, what I should have written was:
I just think some, or even most, of what was written about Jesus wasn't historically factual.
All Luke is doing is checking his history book and adding it to the gospel account that the others have but don't have the history.
Nothing wrong in that, but Luke does spoil a good start by inventing a spurious and ludicrous tale of an attempt by his neighbours to kill Jesus. For one thing, Nazareth didn't even exist at the time - not so much as to have its own synagogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Yes, yes! It is you. I remember this when I was looking you up last time and thinking....spot on...
"Specifically, Tim's answers seem to rely on scholarship. But when really probed, it turns out that the majority of scholars often disagree with Tim. You often find Tim siding with a minority of scholars. Which is fine, but he generally does not admit this in his answers.
It's not necessarily a problem for Tim to disagree consistently with the scholarly majority, but it is a problem for him to consistently use the words "most scholars" when it benefits his own argument, and then to ignore what "most scholars" think when it comes to his conclusions. In other words, he draws upon the expertise of scholars when it suits him, but ignores their opinions when it does not. He never mentions that there are respected scholars who disagree with him. Often he dismisses their arguments as "conservative" or "fundamentalist" when in fact, they are quite mainstream.
He also does not acknowledge when even the majority of atheist scholars do not agree with him. Therefore often it seems like Tim's answers are based on scholarship (his bio), when in fact, they often fly in the face of scholarship. Again, he does not have to agree with scholarship. But he shouldn't make it seem like his answers are based on research when sometimes they're based on his own speculations."
"An example of this is Tim O'Neill's answer to Why didn't Jesus write his own Gospel? Here Tim writes that Jesus was most likely illiterate. It turns out that the majority of scholars think that Jesus was probably literate, but possible that he was illiterate. Tim takes the opposite view. He thinks Jesus was probably illiterate, but possible that he was literate. This is against the majority scholarly opinion."
"The best example is his argument about the Resurrection. Tim O'Neill's answer to What evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus? Here Tim argues that the resurrection of Jesus was a "A Story that Grew in the Telling". There is good scholarship that suggests that the resurrection, true or false, was not a story that grew in the telling, but that's irrelevant to my point. The problem with this answer is that the Story that Grew in The Telling is a theory that is advanced by very few scholars. In fact, I'd argue that no scholars argue for Tim's theory in the way that he does. The reason is that there are many problems with his theory. But, I will admit that portions of his theory are substantiated by scholarship and he takes these pieces and puts them together into his own theory. Again, the problem I have with this theory is that it looks like it's wholly substantiated by scholarship (count how many times he uses the words "most scholars"), when in actuality, no scholars that I know of currently advance this theory. At the very least, it's not a popular theory among scholars at all." https://www.quora.com/What-do-Christ...storical-Jesus
Anyway. Enough of this, which I will freely admit is attacking you rather than the argument (just having fun 'Mr Thinker' Lighten up chap) At the end of the day it is unimportant whether or not there was an historical Jesus or not. Unless he was who the Gospels say he was he is totally irrelevant.
Where'd he go?
Anyway, you put yore fingagaer on it, Raffs. The Gospel Jesus has to be true in pretty much all the substantial claims. We can skip the shekel -eating fish or the announcement in the temple, The spear in the side (Sorry but the Shroud was already done for because it is a FLAT image) and the mobile star.
At a pinch we can manage without Emmaeus, the penitent thief and the transfiguration that John has never heard of. We could even skip the Bethlehem birth, the virgin birth and the raising of Lazarus - which nobody BUT John has ever heard of.
But Jesus has to be a sacrifice by means of which a new covenant is forged to allow man to escape ...whatever it is the UR bods think it is so important we escape from.
The one thing you can't allow back in the Gospels is an observing Jew who thought he was the messiah, bit wasn't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-27-2016 at 03:41 PM..
That's a fair question, based on what I wrote. I don't know that anything in that passage isn't factual (although the bit about the "word of God" coming to John is obviously a matter of opinion.
But, to be clear, what I should have written was:
I just think some, or even most, of what was written about Jesus wasn't historically factual.
...including the miracles? Was the crucifixion factual...the resurrection?
I don't know whether it helps at all, but what I suggest (and am willing to argue) is that there really has to be an historical Jesus, though it is very odd that Josephus overlooks him, while writing about Pilate and even Bannus and even the baptist it seems. But the fact is that the gospel writers seem to be stuck with a Jesus they don't much care for and have to rewrite him s he becomes the Jesus they want.
A Jesus from Galilee who concerned himself with the Jews and didn't even meet Paul who was to be the founder of the Church. Arrested and executed by the Romans. Dead.
So a couple of contradictory nativities are invented to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. e is constantly running into gentiles (Roman centurions for preference, but samaritans will do, at a pinch) whom he declares so much more Faithful (in what before Christianity had even been invented, I am not sure) than the Jews whom he regularly beats up on, and particularly the Pharisees who get a terrible press in the gospels, and in the end the Roman Crucifixion is blamed squarely on the Jews. And for good measure an empty tomb (which I have to give some weight as it is pretty much the last thing the gospels agree on) and frightened women running away to say nothing, or to report to the disciples or in great Joy or to run smck into Jesus - take your pick - the resurrction accounts are so discrepant that the logical conclision is that there was no resurrection account so they had to invent them.
And the most you can say is they for sure weren't cribbing from each other.
So that a Jesus they had needs to be revamped means there was a Jesus they didn't much like but were stuck with. That to me says an historical Jesus, but NOT the Gospels Jesus. I thnk, gentlemen, you may be in agreement, but don't know it.
Exactly old horse. I don't really think there was a historical Jesus and frankly, I don't particularly care short of enjoying a good discussion about it but if there was then I'm with you...he was no gospel Jesus.
But pneuma, I feel, is being rather disingenuous by giving the impression that he is arguing for nothing more than the itinerant rebel rabbi that you have just described when in fact, he believes that the historical Jesus is the divine character we find in the gospels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you old enough to remember Harvey?
