The Grassy Knoll

Originally posted by Nemesio
If I might propose the analogy: The analogy of Kennedy's being killed by Indians in 1975 might
be akin to saying that Jesus wasn't crucified, escaped to India, and formed a society which is
still around today.

Absolutely not.

The entire danwa premise in this and other threads is completely asinine. He states he wants 'standards' in determination of historical accuracy, but it is not within the realm of possibility. If the only evidence of Kennedy's life and death were a book of fairy tales that called him the son of the unseen almighty creator, copied long before the advent of mass communication, I would also contend that he (Kennedy) never existed.

Originally posted by David C
Absolutely not.

The entire danwa premise in this and other threads is completely asinine. He states he wants 'standards' in determination of historical accuracy, but it is not within the realm of possibility. If the only evidence of Kennedy's life and death were a book of fairy tales that called him the son of the unseen almighty creator, copied long before the advent of mass communication, I would also contend that he (Kennedy) never existed.

I suppose then, that you are willing to drop everything we "know" about the ancient Greeks and Romans?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I suppose then, that you are willing to drop everything we "know" about the ancient Greeks and Romans?

No. There is verifiable, physical evidence of the existence of Greek and Roman empires. The same cannot be said for the jesus myth. Everything pertaining to his supposed existence comes from one source. One that has a vested interest in propogating said myth.

Originally posted by David C
No. There is verifiable, physical evidence of the existence of Greek and Roman empires. The same cannot be said for the jesus myth. Everything pertaining to his supposed existence comes from one source. One that has a vested interest in propogating said myth.

I find it interesting that you assert that everything we know pertaining to Jesus comes from one source (the Bible you imply). Would you be comfortable considering the modern Bible to be made up of a variety of independent sources (Matthew, Mark, James, Pauline epistles etc.)? I know you will then pick up the argument on the canonization side of things (how the Bible was formed), but that all happened in diets and conventions occuring centuries or millenia later (according to your thinking).

We can take on canonization in a different post, but first we might ask if the Bible should be considered as one source of information on Jesus or as a collection of sources of information about Jesus?

Also, by referring to the "Jesus Myth" are you placing yourself on the absolute fringe of historical scholarship by asserting that a man named Jesus who gave eloquent bits of wisdom prose and seemed to perform miracles never existed? Or are you simply denying his divinity? In other words, just HOW MUCH of the "Jesus Story" do you believe to be myth?

Thank you in anticipation of your response.

Nemesio,

When you have a moment, might you respond to my post on the 4th page of this thread? I would be interested in hearing your response.

Thank you.

Originally posted by David C
No. There is verifiable, physical evidence of the existence of Greek and Roman empires. The same cannot be said for the jesus myth. Everything pertaining to his supposed existence comes from one source. One that has a vested interest in propogating said myth.

Dave it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. In addition to The Lutheran's point, there were also other "outside" sources who reference many events pertaining to the existence of Jesus, such as Josephus.

No one is asking you to be proselytized here. The question at hand is how to determine if the "Gospels" are reliable sources of historical information or not. Get your head in the game!

As usual I halfway disagree with everyone. I think, based on historical sources, that Jesus was a real person, but just that, a person. I do see the gospels as mythology with regard to things like raising Lazerous from the dead, walking on water, the whole Easter thing, etc. Basically all his miracles. I think there was an ex-carpenter who wandered around collecting disciples and was crucified by the Romans. I think it is very likely that he never actually claimed to be the son of god and was just a good guy, but that later he was considered a prophet and then savior when people made up or embellished stories about him.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
As usual I halfway disagree with everyone. I think, based on historical sources, that Jesus was a real person, but just that, a person. I do see the gospels as mythology with regard to things like raising Lazerous from the dead, walking on water, the whole Easter thing, etc. Basically all his miracles. I think there was an ex-carpenter who wandered ...[text shortened]... e was considered a prophet and then savior when people made up or embellished stories about him.

We've covered most of this in the Abe Lincoln was not President thread, and previously in this thread. We're looking for criteria here.

Originally posted by L8LutheranConvert
I find it interesting that you assert that everything we know pertaining to Jesus comes from one source (the Bible you imply). Would you be comfortable considering the modern Bible to be made up of a variety of independent sources (Matthew, Mark, James, Pauline epistles etc.)? I know you will then pick up the argument on the canonization side of ...[text shortened]... of the "Jesus Story" do you believe to be myth?

Thank you in anticipation of your response.

I'll apologize for the brevity of my replies. I've put forth my ideas in many other threads

Would you be comfortable considering the modern Bible to be made up of a variety of independent sources (Matthew, Mark, James, Pauline epistles etc.)?

No. They are all part of the same body of work that was plagarized at Nicea.

Also, by referring to the "Jesus Myth" are you placing yourself on the absolute fringe of historical scholarship by asserting that a man named Jesus who gave eloquent bits of wisdom prose and seemed to perform miracles never existed? Or are you simply denying his divinity? In other words, just HOW MUCH of the "Jesus Story" do you believe to be myth?

You've obviously not read any of the threads in which I've participated or started. As a pointed response, yes...I am probably considered a fringe lunatic. 'Jesus Christ' is a myth. There were many wandering rabbis preaching in Palestine named Yeshua. At best, 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a conglomeration of those persons. Much of the 'eloquent bits of wisdom prose' the NT attributes to Jesus are simply aphorisms that likely pre-date even the OT (Zarathushtra springs to mind.)

Originally posted by poopsiecui
Dave it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. In addition to The Lutheran's point, there were also other "outside" sources who reference many events pertaining to the existence of Jesus, such as Josephus.

No one is asking you to be proselytized here. The question at hand is how to determine if the "Gospels" are reliable sources of historical information or not. Get your head in the game!

Originally posted by poopsiecui
Dave it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure buddy, if it makes you feel better about your beliefs. All I can say in response is, "Yes, I do. It is you who are patently misguided."

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27109

Originally posted by David C
Originally posted by poopsiecui
[b]Dave it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure buddy, if it makes you feel better about your beliefs. All I can say in response is, "Yes, I do. It is you who are patently misguided."

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27109[/b]

Your doing an excellent job of staying on topic and arguing specific points.

Originally posted by poopsiecui
Your doing an excellent job of staying on topic and arguing specific points.

I've made my points. As far as I am concerned, danwa's strawman isn't worth 'arguing'.

Originally posted by L8LutheranConvert
I find it interesting that you assert that everything we know pertaining to Jesus comes from one source (the Bible you imply). Would you be comfortable considering the modern Bible to be made up of a variety of independent sources (Matthew, Mark, James, Pauline epistles etc.)?

Originally posted by David C
No. They are all part of the same body of work that was plagarized at Nicea.

It is 4:17am, so I am not going to reply to this in full, but suffice it to say, that both statements
are incorrect.

First of all, the Bible has intercontradictory historical data on Jesus's life on various minor and
not so minor points (cf. my posts on the day of the Crucifixion). Second of all, the Gospels do
not comprise 4 independent sources; indeed, Sts Matthew, Mark and Luke are interdependent.
Sts Matthew and Luke differ in matters of interpretation of the sources they used (cf. the
Beatitudes for a quintessential example). St Paul attests to never having seen Jesus, so all his
Epistles (many of which are not written by him) have no meaning for determining historical
information about Jesus, only about the Jesus-movement with which he was involved.

However, we don't have a lot of reason to believe that Nicaea was a source of 'plagarism' (I am
not sure what David means here). We have evidence that these documents existed in rather
complete forms long before Nicaea. Did editing take place? Sure, but not massive rewriting or
'plagarism.'

I will try to jump in some more later.

Nemesio

Originally posted by L8LutheranConvert
I agree with poopsiecui in that theists and atheists alike are often sceptical of miraculous claims. Endorsement of a miracle occurence (The Resurrection), which many Christians make, does not necessarily open the door to endorsement of routine miraculous events. As an example, I would offer the fact that many orthodox Christians who believe whol ...[text shortened]... doesn't render Nemesio's whole post lame, but I am look for a bit of clarity on these points.

Nemesio,

What is your response to the questions I raised in the quoted post, found on page 4 of this thread? Specifically the concerns I raise about your use of probability.

I think the whole discussion on this thread is too important to let it slip out of our memories.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Nemesio
We have evidence that these documents existed in rather
complete forms long before Nicaea.

We do? Is there something other than Codex Vaticanus (325 CE, forsooth!) and Codex Sinaiticus (350 CE) of which I am unaware? Other Codecii post date those two.