Quote:
On your part it's called manipulation to support what you want to believe, many reasonable people have read the same Gospels and not drawn your conclusion.

Oh, G-C...you're not claiming to be reasonable are you? NOt after all this time.

You believe in bullshit. The antithesis of reasonibility.

(March 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Nestor Wrote: Could Jesus have lived much earlier than the typically ascribed period, already mythologized by the time the epistles were written and then revised by the Gospels to fit into a more recent and relevant setting?

I've wondered about the "Teacher" revered by the Qumran sect. Apparently they felt the Temple was defiled. Jesus condemned the Temple. Jesus was crucified 40 years before the Temple was destroyed (similar to the 40 years in the desert). There is the nativity story about fleeing to Egypt. We have the Therapeutae in Egypt. Then later we have Egypt as a center for Gnosticism and Monasticism.

I guess that is all just disconnected clues. I don't know what it means.
EDIT: I suppose the story of fleeing to Egypt doesn't imply anything about the actual history of Christianity. I remember now that it was a "fulfillment" of prophecy. (Sorry this post is so disorganized.)

(March 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Nestor Wrote: As Bart Ehrman wrote, and I can understand why, "The real problem with Jesus is not that he is a myth invented by early Christians—that is, that he never appeared as a real figure on the stage of history. The problem with Jesus is just the opposite. As Albert Schweitzer realized long ago, the problem with the historical Jesus is that he was far too historical."

That's how I feel too.

Maybe some new Early Christian writings will turn-up in the papier-mâché mummy masks.

(March 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Nestor Wrote: As Bart Ehrman wrote, and I can understand why, "The real problem with Jesus is not that he is a myth invented by early Christians—that is, that he never appeared as a real figure on the stage of history. The problem with Jesus is just the opposite. As Albert Schweitzer realized long ago, the problem with the historical Jesus is that he was far too historical."

Neat, professor Ehrman! Since Jesus is so historical, perhaps you can tell me what the real story was. I've been waiting 10 years for someone to clear that up for me!

Do tell!

Spare no details!

I'm sitting comfortably, awaiting a gripping yarn, filled with recently discovered historical documents that shed light on this until now vaguely defined shadowy character.

(waits for, "Um, well, he was named Yeshua. And he was, you know, a religious teacher of some kind. And he was crucified. ...And he had a brother named 'James'. ...And he was named Yeshua. ...Did I mention he was some kind of religious leader?")

Ehrman's problem is that all he can trot out are the fucking gospel which he has made a career of trashing. He doesn't get to turn around now and claim they are reliable.

An analogy I've used is that he has spent 20 years shitting in the same small pond and now wants to say "but, here....here is a clean spot you can drink from."

Right. So the "real jesus" got crucified, and had a brother. Maybe even talked a load of nonsense or got baptised by a particular person.

Does that narrow it down to just one person in history do you think?

I'm interested in how this "historical Jesus" is more of a real person than the "historical Harry Potter" would be, if it was based on a boy called Harry, who had a brother, said a couple of the things Harry said, and went to school.

The thing is, there are so few points on his timeline that there is any hope of pinning to him with any accuracy, that it leaves about 99% of his life up for grabs.

I'm far more impressed with what Tim has brought to us. I was expecting to rip apart all the logical fallacies I've been reading about from Ehrman, but that wasn't the case. It's interesting stuff, but I feel even allowing it all still doesn't pin jesus on one real person.

IMO, the historical Jesus is an important issue - even if we only know he was crucified.
- Christians care, because almost any form of Christianity requires a historical Jesus. If the myth hypothesis could be proven, then Christianity would need to redefine itself radically.
- Historians care, because it is a clue to Christianity's origins.

The problem arises when there are "Christian Historians" whose religion depends on the existence of a historical Jesus, however tenuously supported it may be.

(March 4, 2015 at 9:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The problem arises when there are "Christian Historians" whose religion depends on the existence of a historical Jesus, however tenuously supported it may be.

Then it all breaks down from there like the people who where looking for pieces of noahs ark and they turned out to be frauds with old pieces of wood and or forged and made their own.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Ehrman's problem is that all he can trot out are the fucking gospel which he has made a career of trashing. He doesn't get to turn around now and claim they are reliable.

An analogy I've used is that he has spent 20 years shitting in the same small pond and now wants to say "but, here....here is a clean spot you can drink from."

No, for 20 years he didn't shit in the pond. A better analogy would be he spent 20 years analyzing the content of the pond and found high concentrations of decomposed feces. He announced so. He analyzed the germs that did the decomposing to determine what the turd was like when first laid into the pound. He also announced that. Now he is trying to reconstruct from the deduced properties of the fresh shit whether one animal laid the shit at the beginning and what some of the traits of the animal must have been.

The fact that christians think the pound is rose water glittered into existence by magic unicorns does not mean one could not say there really was an animal that laid the turd that spoiled the pound.

You may disagree and think there really wasn't an original turd, only lots of bacteria churning away, that made the pond what it is today. But that is not the challenge you are posing to him. You are saying since it ain't no rose water, there ain't no unicorn.

One learns more by trying to find out whether and what animals laid the shit to stimulate bacterial activity than simply stopping at there ain't no unicorn.

(March 4, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: The thing is, there are so few points on his timeline that there is any hope of pinning to him with any accuracy, that it leaves about 99% of his life up for grabs.

Bingo. And all the supposedly "known" things about Jesus, which I maintain are dubious but let that go, are so general that he could be anybody.

"Yeshua" was a common name. There were many religious leaders, doomcriers and messiah-wannabes since Judaism itself was in crisis. Pilate crucified a lot of Jewish leaders. James was a common name, as underscored by so many of them in the NT itself. Lots of guys had brothers.

And even if we can be sure that this Historical Jesus existed, is he even the Gospel character Jesus anymore?

We may as well retell the story of Dr. Who. Only lets get rid of the TARDIS. And the traveling through time and space. And the sonic screwdriver. And the regeneration. And make him human instead of an alien.

Or we could just as easily retell the story of Harry Potter. Only get rid of all the magic and the fanciful creatures.

Or how about we retell the story of Superman only without the costume, super powers, alien ancestry and all that?

The miracles and the divinity ARE the story of Jesus. Take them away and you tell a different story about a different person.