Spirituality
07 Jan 10
07 Jan 10
Despite wikipedia claiming that there is no controversy (and locking the page because of controversy), the Jesus Myth hypothesis is still very much alive.
The Jesus project is a project that seeks to investigate and determine the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Here's an interesting article from a skeptic:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/articles/the_quest_of_the_mythical_jesus
And one from a non-skeptic (which I personally find weak), also linked from the Jesus Project page:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=378
This is still a recent offshoot of a more established project (The Jesus Seminar) which also dealt with the extent of the Historical Jesus, so hopefully more articles will come out in the next years.
Note: Not from the Jesus Project, but also interesting in this topic is this interpretation of the New Testament as Old Testament midrash:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI find the arguments intriguing, but not necessarily compelling. It seems probable to me that Jesus existed in some form. It seems beyond dispute that many of the mythological attributes (like Jesus' divinity) are wrong, but I think the legends are based on something. Of course parsing out any concrete details from the available information is probably impossible. For my part, I choose to start from the assumption that Jesus did exist in some form and go from there.
Despite wikipedia claiming that there is no controversy (and locking the page because of controversy), the Jesus Myth hypothesis is still very much alive.
The Jesus project is a project that seeks to investigate and determine the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Here's an interesting article from a skeptic:
http://www.centerforinquiry. ...[text shortened]... ew Testament as Old Testament midrash:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by rwingettEstablishing a body of evidence for non-existence is much harder than establishing a body of evidence for existence. Shouldn't the correct starting assumption be the opposite and then go from there and see if the evidence is compelling?
For my part, I choose to start from the assumption that Jesus did exist in some form and go from there.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaPerhaps. But whether Jesus existed or not does not really interest me. To paraphrase the quote, if Jesus did not exist it would be necessary (or useful) to invent him. I choose to work from the provisional assumption that Jesus existed in some form. If it turns out that he was a completely mythological character, then that's fine. Nothing in my world view requires that he actually be real (or that he actually not exist).
Establishing a body of evidence for non-existence is much harder than establishing a body of evidence for existence. Shouldn't the correct starting assumption be the opposite and then go from there and see if the evidence is compelling?
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by rwingettSo a correct historical view is not part of your world view? How bizarre.
Perhaps. But whether Jesus existed or not does not really interest me. To paraphrase the quote, if Jesus did not exist it would be necessary (or useful) to invent him. I choose to work from the provisional assumption that Jesus existed in some form. If it turns out that he was a completely mythological character, then that's fine. Nothing in my world view requires that he actually be real.
Keep burying your head in the sand and departing from unfalsifiable assumptions.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaThis thread speaks volumes.
Despite wikipedia claiming that there is no controversy (and locking the page because of controversy), the Jesus Myth hypothesis is still very much alive.
The Jesus project is a project that seeks to investigate and determine the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Here's an interesting article from a skeptic:
http://www.centerforinquiry. ...[text shortened]... ew Testament as Old Testament midrash:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Pray tell, did we land on the moon?
As in the other threads, you have yet to provide how you establish the authenticity of any historical document, event or etc.. Instead, you suggest that we should start from the position of non-occurrence. Okay. Let's start with you. How are you going to establish your existence, since we're starting with the assumption that you don't exist?
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI am interested somewhat in research into the 'historical Jesus', but not necessarily the 'historicity of Jesus'. But as many of the facts will likely remain unavailable to us there will always be an element of myth to the character of Jesus. What interests me is how we shape that myth and to what ends we put it. Myth making can be a useful tool for any culture in its efforts to define itself. The trick is not to literalize those myths. If we divest the character of Jesus of his supernatural elements he could be put to good use yet.
So a correct historical view is not part of your world view? How bizarre.
Keep burying your head in the sand and departing from unfalsifiable assumptions.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLOL, are you comparing the evidence we have about the moon landing to that of the existence of Jesus?
This thread speaks volumes.
Pray tell, did we land on the moon?
As in the other threads, you have yet to provide how you establish the authenticity of any historical [b]document, event or etc.. Instead, you suggest that we should start from the position of non-occurrence. Okay. Let's start with you. How are you going to establish your existence, since we're starting with the assumption that you don't exist?[/b]
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillThat deals with the Jesus Seminar topic (which alleged sayings/stories of Christ are myth), but the Jesus Seminar never put the existence of Jesus himself into question.
For an easy to read yet scholarly rebuttal of much Jesus Project hype see -
[b]"Dethroning Jesus - Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ" Darrell L. Bock Phd. & Daniel B. Wallace Phd. Thomas Nelson Publishers[/b]
The Jesus project is about the historical view on the very existence of Jesus.
That said, I doubt any single article or book can claim to be a definitive rebuttal of either hypothesis.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI don't disagree. A lot of the alleged Christ's message appeals to me.
I am interested somewhat in research into the 'historical Jesus', but not necessarily the 'historicity of Jesus'. But as many of the facts will likely remain unavailable to us there will always be an element of myth to the character of Jesus. What interests me is how we shape that myth and to what ends we put it. Myth making can be a useful tool for any cul ...[text shortened]... divest the character of Jesus of his supernatural elements he could be put to good use yet.
I understand that you might believe that it changes little, but to not be interested at all in the issue (not even in terms of mere curiosity) is hard for me to understand. But all I can do is accept.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's a topic worthy of being explored. It's just not one that I personally want to spend a lot of time on, partly because I don't think it can be known. It would change a lot for many people if it could be known one way or the other, but as I have no emotional investment in his being 'real', it changes little for me.
I don't disagree. A lot of the alleged Christ's message appeals to me.
I understand that you might believe that it changes little, but to not be interested at all in the issue (not even in terms of mere curiosity) is hard for me to understand. But I all I can do is accept.