RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
April 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm
(This post was last modified: April 8, 2012 at 11:31 pm by radorth.)
(April 8, 2012 at 11:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because much was copied from the first effort, "Mark" and still other parts were invented by later writers to fill in Mark's blanks and refined by later editors.
It isn't so hard. Read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle."
I read it. He said Luke "slavishly copied Matthew" So I guess Earl contradicts your statement, not to mention himself. How exactly do the Gospels contradict, or filled in later, if they were "slavishly copied" by Luke? Earl could not seem to remember what he wrote the day before IMO.
A far more rational and less cynical conclusion is the one reached by the non-Christian Wll Durant, which is basically "you can't make this stuff up" even if there are some contradictions. And BTW, how do a few fishermen write similes as good as Shakespeare's and "the greatest system of morals" ever laid down? (Jefferson)
The only major addition is the end of Mark and otherwise, a few verses like "many are called but few chosen."
(April 8, 2012 at 11:25 pm)zip_ster Wrote: I have been reading a lot about the lack of evidence surrounding the whole Jesus story. I have to admit that it is possible that it is a myth at best, a complete fraud at worst.
Having been raised around all this for 45 years, its just hard to wrap your brain around... that it all really was just bullshit. Even if I know it was.
If you can answer Durant's rationale in "Caesar and Christ" I will agree with you. Or the atheist H.G. Wells' rationale in his "Short History of the World." They will give you something to wrap your mind around, assuming it can stretch that far.
