historical Jesus also a myth?

[Ben Kenobi]

no. alexandre is important as a warrior king who conquered a vast swath of territory and whose generals and other comrades shaped that part of the world for centuries to come, not as a religious figure.

Today, yes. But when Plutarch was written? No. He was considered to be a Son of Zeus.

there are many possible historical jesuses

No, again. There's just one. The one in the Gospels.

tell us far more about the author’s own ideas and perceptions than about any historical figure.

What other historical sources do you possess that talk about Jesus's life and ministry?

what matters is the conversation about god (man) that jesus represents.

Does Jesus himself say this, or is this your 21st century interpolation?

[Sava]

Does Jesus himself say this

I think you should prove he existed before attributing quotes to him.

[Proteus_MST]

Today, yes. But when Plutarch was written? No. He was considered to be a Son of Zeus.



No, again. There's just one. The one in the Gospels.



What other historical sources do you possess that talk about Jesus's life and ministry?



Does Jesus himself say this, or is this your 21st century interpolation?

The problem is that a lot of things written in the gospels seem to be there to prove, that Yeshua is the jewish Messias.
For example the 2 genealogical trees, that he had discussions with the priests in the temple during his youth or that he rode through the gates of Jerusalem on a donkey.
(Not to forget the many accounts of wonders)

This also includes Jesus crucifixation (and subsequent resurrection)

What remains if we take everything away that can be explained by a desire of the author, to sell his audience that "his prophet" is the jewish Messiah?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think you should prove he existed before attributing quotes to him.

Cockney's argument presupposes that he exists.

[Sava]

if only c0ckney's presuppositions were evidence

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that a lot of things written in the gospels seem to be there to prove, that Yeshua is the jewish Messias.

How is this a problem? It's a problem if it isn't true but if it is, it would be crucial to a history about Jesus. One would expect a true history of Christ to contain historical facts about him and his life. This includes his genealogy, where his parents came from, where he was born, etc. This is all stuff in the Gospels.

that he had discussions with the priests in the temple during his youth or that he rode through the gates of Jerusalem on a donkey.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that biography would contain discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees, or him riding on a donkey in Jerusalem on Passover.

(Not to forget the many accounts of wonders)

This also includes Jesus crucifixation (and subsequent resurrection)

Now this, I can understand skepticism. The problem is, where do you draw the line? You're saying, "this is true and this is not". Why is this superior to 'He never existed at all?"

What remains if we take everything away that can be explained by a desire of the author, to sell his audience that "his prophet" is the jewish Messiah?

Better question, how do you keep the parts you like and throw away the parts you do not like? How do you know that Jesus helping the poor isn't also wrong?

[Sava]

How is this a problem? It's a problem if it isn't true but if it is, it would be crucial to a history about Jesus. One would expect a true history of Christ to contain historical facts about him and his life. This includes his genealogy, where his parents came from, where he was born, etc. This is all stuff in the Gospels.

You're using circular logic. "It's true because the Bible says it is" ... in so many words

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm actually not sure that the historical Sava isn't a myth either

(I already know that the historical Asher is a myth )

[Sava]

Sava may be considered a hoax

[C0ckney]

Cockney's argument presupposes that he exists.

no. my argument is that it doesn't really matter whether or not there was a real jewish prophet called jesus, because the main part of his existence is mythical; that he is not a historical figure, but rather a universal one for man itself.

[Proteus_MST]

How is this a problem? It's a problem if it isn't true but if it is, it would be crucial to a history about Jesus. One would expect a true history of Christ to contain historical facts about him and his life. This includes his genealogy, where his parents came from, where he was born, etc. This is all stuff in the Gospels.

Because he has a clear motive to make up things in order to gain followers.
Which is why it would be valuable if you would have non christian evidence about Yeshua (not about the christians but Yeshua himself) ...
like, for example, a letter by some Jew who told his relatives that he listened to a preacher named Yeshua ... or that he saw Yeshuas triumphant entry into jerusalem.
Considering the descriptions of Jesus entrance into Jerusalem, there should have been lots of people who would have taken notice of this event ... not only christians but also unconvinced Jews and also romans who were faithful to the roman pantheon.
Finding jewish or roman notes about the execution about an agitatorn named Yeshua would help a lot, too.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that biography would contain discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees, or him riding on a donkey in Jerusalem on Passover.

Sure ... a Biography would contain this.
But a propaganda scripture which is aimed at gaining followers for the christian faith (or rather followers for the jewish sect that has christ as Messiah ... which, after all, are the origins of Christianity) would contain such passages as well ... no matter whether it is the truth or not.

Now this, I can understand skepticism. The problem is, where do you draw the line? You're saying, "this is true and this is not". Why is this superior to 'He never existed at all?"

Better question, how do you keep the parts you like and throw away the parts you do not like? How do you know that Jesus helping the poor isn't also wrong?

Isn´t this the problem with the whole bible?
It always is a criticism of american christian fundamentalists towards "mainstream christians" (which, in their belief, includes catholics) that these do a lot of cherry picking with regards to the bible.

But is this criticism unjustified?

For example the story about the deluge.
AFAIK catholics dismiss the story as not to be taken as literal truth.
That´s very understandable considering he fact that it doesn´t really fit to our scientific knowledge of the world.

But where do you draw a line between dismissing the one thing and taking the other thing for truth?
Especially since the gospels disagree on more than one account (for example on the genealogy of Jesus) ... the presence of absence of a virgin birth (I´d assume that a virgin birth would be such an extraordinary feat that every gospel would mention it) or the exact date of last supper and crucifixion.

So I find it hard to

Especially as the church later when it gained power (i.e. from Constantine on) was very busy in burning scriptures that contradicted the things it considered to be the "right teaching" (and persecuting people who followed these haeresias).
How efficient the catholic church was with destroying scriptures that didn´t fit into its version of the "right teachings" you can see with the Nag Hammadi library ... some of the gnostic texts it contained were lost for 1.5 millenia ... due to the fact that gnosticism was declared a heresy ... its followers persecuted and its scriptures burned.
So how couldn´t it be possible that the "truth" about Jesus was in one of those scriptures burned or destroyed in the jewish uprising against the roman rule (for example in a small parish of messianic jews in Jerusalem, which wasn´t spread around christian parishes in the roman empire, because it was missing all those wonders and signs of Jesus = Messiah ... and therefore was unfit for propaganda in order to gain new followers for jesus)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which is why it would be valuable if you would have non christian evidence about Yeshua (not about the christians but Yeshua himself) ...

Like Josephus?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're using circular logic. "It's true because the Bible says it is" ... in so many words

I'm arguing that a genealogy and the story of his birth is not unusual in biographies of the time. We would expect to see it.

[Proteus_MST]

Like Josephus?

AFAIK Josephus only writes that about christians which, according to their faith, follow a Messiah who was executed by Herodes.

Which to me sounds more like one of the christians told him about their faith ... and not like Josephus having direct informations that there really has been a Jesus (for example by seeing Jesus himself ... or at least reading roman accounts about the execution of a Yeshua)

[Ben Kenobi]

no. my argument is that it doesn't really matter whether or not there was a real jewish prophet called jesus, because the main part of his existence is mythical; that he is not a historical figure, but rather a universal one for man itself.

I'm arguing that in order for Christianity to be true, the historical Jesus is crucial. You cannot separate his teachings and his life here on earth. If the Gospels are false than so is everything he teaches, not just the stuff you don't like.