RE: Reason Jesus must have been a real person
September 23, 2018 at 9:49 am
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2018 at 10:23 am by mrj.)
(September 18, 2018 at 8:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:I would think based on prophecy, a 'fake' Jesus would have been named Immanuel. Not Jesus.
The first thing you have to do is lose the notion that there is any coherence to this OT horseshit. "El" was the big kahuna in the Northern Kingdom so the "prophecy" of Immanu-el reflected the northern tradition. But the Assyrians took out the northern kingdom at the end of the 8th century and Judah, which had this yhwh character as their big god couldn't very well pay homage to El, could they?
Right - so I'm aware that the Old testament is really about TWO Gods - El and Yaweh - if not more. And I also read Carrier and various other books about the historicity of Jesus. Clearly, there's a lot of myth in there. I think it's very interesting that there's something called the hero myth - a common set of attributes that all mythical heroes have (21 perhaps?), and Jesus has maybe 19 of those qualities. Only one character in history has more (King Arthur? Not sure).
But I was explaining to someone about the Isaiah prophecy regarding the virgin birth, and how it is mistranslated. But then I realized that the same prophecy uses "Immanuel" not Jesus. The point being - if the gospel writer of Matthew was willing to fabricate the virgin birth based on a prophecy, why didn't he ALSO change the name of Jesus to Immanuel? Maybe because he based it so much on Mark, and Mark was already out there? Maybe he was only willing to make minor corrections, or add new parts of the story?
(September 18, 2018 at 9:56 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Carrier proposed Jesus as existing between heaven and earth? WTF?
My understanding is that Carrier's position is that the letters of Paul, the earliest written account of Jesus, never define a physical being. If you read Paul's letters (the real ones), you can make the claim that Paul was writing about a supernatural figure that lived a life in the 'space' - specifically the area between heaven and earth. Remember back then, there was earth, and the sky literally was "heaven". From this and other extrapolations (ie, Gospels are not history, real history doesn't mention jesus at all, etc), Jesus probably wan't real at all.
But my question is then, the history of Jesus as documented in the Bible is TOO inconsistent. A truly mythical figure would have a more consistent history, simply because there are no facts to get in the way. if EVERYTHING is made up, why make up inconsistencies? This makes me think that there was perhaps a real person(s) at one time (Yeshua, whatever) that was the basis for the Jesus figure, and his/their history got twisted and turned over time to give us the story we have today.
(September 19, 2018 at 1:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I like that this guy is up front about being a cafeteria Catholic.
Yeah, that may be generous. I tend to come across as religious but always argue based on facts and evidence. I haven't given up on God yet. I wouldn't say I'm an atheist. More of a Deist which a cultural Catholic upbringing, I guess. I'd classify myself as a seeker of truth. Regardless, I tend to piss everybody off.
(September 19, 2018 at 6:03 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(September 18, 2018 at 8:15 pm)mrj Wrote: Don't you think, then, that the gospels were at least based on a real person?
Are you that desperate?
Uh, no. Why would you say that?
(September 19, 2018 at 11:45 am)Simon Moon Wrote: "Jesus" was not a name in first century Palestine. Jesus is an Romanization of the name Yeshua.
I think it is quite possible that the Yeshua/Jesus character in the Bible was based on a real person, or persons. Who cares?
The problem is, even if Yeshua was a historical person, that does not offers zero evidence that he was a god-man, who performed magic.
Not only that, whoever the Yeshua/Jesus person was, he would not recognize the portrayal or stories about himself in the Bible. The person in the Bible, even if based on a real person, is completely mythologized.
Well, I do care if Jesus was real or not. Why would you not? It's history.
As for evidence that he was God, I didn't ask that. I simply asked if the Gospel stories are probably based on a real historical figure to a degree. My point being that the Gospels are so inconsistent and so antithetical to the social norms of the time, they must have some historical basis. Don't read any further into it than that.
