What's not to love?

[Anyse]

[quote='Anyse' pid='277767' dateline='1335456493']
[quote='Zen Badger' pid='277233' dateline='1335327501']
You're talking as if jesus was a real person.


That seems to be an argument from authority and majority I'm afraid. There's actually a fairly good case made by other scholars such as Carrier and Price that makes Jesus' existence questionable. May want to look into it if you haven't yet.

I have read Carrier and Price, thank you! I find no problem with an historical Jesus, that's all. The arguments on both sides are logical, well structured and so on. Also, were I so into "authority," I would be in church right now! LOL! A little levity helps, doesn't it?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[quote='Anyse' pid='277767' dateline='1335456493']
[quote='Zen Badger' pid='277233' dateline='1335327501']
You're talking as if jesus was a real person.


That seems to be an argument from authority and majority I'm afraid. There's actually a fairly good case made by other scholars such as Carrier and Price that makes Jesus' existence questionable. May want to look into it if you haven't yet.

I have read Carrier and Price, thank you! I find no problem with an historical Jesus, that's all. The arguments on both sides are logical, well structured and so on. Also, were I so into "authority," I would be in church right now! LOL! A little levity helps, doesn't it?

I shall spare thee then.

[Minimalist]

So, in this one area, it would behoove all atheists to accept the "historical" Jesus.

Even Ehrman cannot explain what he means by "historical jesus." Fundies mean a come-back-from-the-dead, walking-on-water, loaves-and-fishes, magician and certainly Ehrman does not buy that particular bit of bullshit.

I, for one, do not accept the historical jesus concept since it is essentially meaningless. Was there someone named Yeshua bar-Yosef in first century Palestine? Sure. They were such common names that there had to be a hundred of them.

But xtians do not worship the name. They worship the magic tricks. They certainly do not abide by the so-called "teachings."

What we have is complete silence in the early first century; from Philo, from Pliny the Elder, from Seneca, from the Dead Sea Scrolls. No one heard the slightest rumor of an outlandish tale of someone being executed by a Roman Magistrate and coming back from the dead. I have yet to read Ehrman's latest book ( and I read everything he writes, eventually) but he discusses the HJ concept in Jesus Interrupted and it was the weakest part of the book.

[Anyse]

@ Aynse- Yes, he "believes". It isn't the "belief" bit at issue, is it? It's the demonstration bit. What makes you think that appealing to authority, (or hilariously in this case, the beliefs of any given authority) lends a position credibility? What makes the beliefs of a scholar more poignant or noteworthy than the beliefs of your average meth addled midwestern christian fundamentalist?

Bart Ehrman is one of US! He has written many books on the New Testament and has spent his life in this area of study. Along with other scholars, he agrees with an "historical Jesus." There is NOTHING wrong with this! A person existed once in time, that's all. You may sense my rational agreement with scholars as "appeal to authority." However, I have read much and studied much and, again, I just don't have a problem with this! Remember what I wrote AFTER agreeing with the idea of an "historical Jesus"? That was more important than my agreement with the historical Jesus.

[DeistPaladin]

Bold emphasis mine:

I, for one, do not accept the historical jesus concept since it is essentially meaningless. Was there someone named Yeshua bar-Yosef in first century Palestine? Sure. They were such common names that there had to be a hundred of them.

Amen. What the hell do people even mean by "historical Jesus". It's like saying "historical Superman." The superpowers are so interwoven into the character that a telling of the real story of a purely mortal Jesus would bear no resemblance to the Gospel version.

Nearly every episode in the Gospels of the supposed life of Jesus either involves a miracle or is centered around one. Take away the supernatural and you've gutted the entire story.

---

So it seems fair to say that if there is an afterlife, I will end up in the company of at least 50 American Founders, Newton, Bacon, Locke, the abolitionists who were virtually all "fundy" Christians, most if not all leaders of the Enlightenment and revivals which changed the world, Solenzenitzen and probably Mahatma Gandhi.

And the more cynical unbelievers here will end up in the company of ...er...Minimalist, Deist Paladin, Dawkins, Tom Paine perhaps, and I'm afraid, the Pharisees.

Enough with the damn appeals to authority already. It's a logical fallacy! The reasoning is especially fallacious when you consider that many of these characters lived in a more primitive time when religion was more prevalent and so little was known about our universe.

I could argue with you about many founders being deists, Newton was a heretical Christian who rejected the Trinity, and Gandhi was a Hindu but this would all be beside the point. The main point of the OP was to ask us what we thought of the teachings of Jesus. We have answered it. Can you defend his teachings?

For Reason's sake, read the Gospels cover-to-cover. Do it with a critical eye. Rip off those rose-colored glasses. Replace the word "Jesus" with "Hercules" or "Gilgamesh" if that helps.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bart Ehrman is one of US!

I beg to differ, at least insomuch as I am apparently not one of you. Ehrman believes there was a "Historical Jesus", whatever that means. I do not, he and I are clearly operating on different sets of standards, at least in this regard. There is nothing wrong with this, you're right...... unless you demand that truth claims be demonstrated. Then you have a serious issue. You may agree with scholars, I'd rather agree with demonstrable evidence, regardless of who presents it or what package it comes presented in.

Was there a historical Jesus? Not until someone can demonstrate such, nope. That's what they call "provisional certainty" with regards to the "null hypothesis".

[jess_essential]

@Minimalist-- quite glad you referred to Seneca!

[Minimalist]

Personally, I think Yeshua bar-Yosef was picking up camel shit on the Damascus-Arabia caravan route.

[The Grand Nudger]

Before, during, or after people we're doling out camelshit about Yeshua bar-Yosef along the same?

[jess_essential]

Oh dear, can SOMEONE please inform me on what in the flying hell this "HONEY BADGER" thing is? Hmmmmm. Not attempting to be rude whatsoever, but I've been seeing it everywhere, and I have no clue what it's even about... Hmph.