Was Jesus Good?

[Burny]

I see folks are getting all wound up over this Jesus character! Not worth it IMHO.

 

Christians like to make Jesus all about love, but there is much evidence to the contrary no matter how negative you might think the so-called "new atheists" are. (Why do we insist on name calling everyone?!)

 

Jesus introduced the idea of eternal suffering for not believing in himself. That doctrine alone negates any "love" that people find in his teachings (that can never be definitively attributed to him - I've read all the books too and there's no 100% consensus). I just watched a documentary on Charles Manson. You know what stuck me? Many of his teachings actually resonated with me. He taught a lot of love and a lot of shared community values. And he was also fucking crazy and wrecked a lot of good folks lives.

 

How is Jesus any different than that?

[Blood]

"Jesus" is a character in a mythical tale about Jews murdering their own messiah so that Gentiles could justify their theft of Jewish holy books. 

 

The question is moot. It's like asking if Robinson Crusoe or Don Quixote was good. 

[pratt]

was jesus good?

 

my father who did not know jesus, lives a longer life, help more people, kinder than that curse the fig tree jesus,,,,,

 

i know for shre, my father was good, jesus definitely can learn from my father

[Guest]

"Jesus" is a character in a mythical tale about Jews murdering their own messiah so that Gentiles could justify their theft of Jewish holy books. 

 

The question is moot. It's like asking if Robinson Crusoe or Don Quixote was good.

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character. Notice your ethically motivated remarks which are implicit in what you wrote, "theft of Jewish holy books." Do you realize that many of the original Christians were Jews? Yes, it was divergent from the Jewish faith ultimately with the writings of Paul, but that doesn't make Judaism more valid as a result, or less. Both of those are poor means for coming to an analytical conclusion of what Christianity and Judaism are, and also poor conclusions for interpreting human beings historically.

 

Can we not embrace the existence of diversity in worldviews without drawing lines in the sand, or must we dismiss all religious people in order to hit the fundamentalist target truly which is the aim of such criticisms.

 

Food for thought.

[Guest]

I see folks are getting all wound up over this Jesus character! Not worth it IMHO.

Christians like to make Jesus all about love, but there is much evidence to the contrary no matter how negative you might think the so-called "new atheists" are. (Why do we insist on name calling everyone?!)

Jesus introduced the idea of eternal suffering for not believing in himself. That doctrine alone negates any "love" that people find in his teachings (that can never be definitively attributed to him - I've read all the books too and there's no 100% consensus). I just watched a documentary on Charles Manson. You know what stuck me? Many of his teachings actually resonated with me. He taught a lot of love and a lot of shared community values. And he was also fucking crazy and wrecked a lot of good folks lives.

How is Jesus any different than that?

How is Jesus any different than Charles Manson?

 

Really? Is that supposed to inspire an intelligent response?

[qadeshet]

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016
 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

[Guest]

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016

 

 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

Most Bible scholars, secular included believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Where have you been?

[qadeshet]

 

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016

 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

Most Bible scholars, secular included believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Where have you been?

 

 

You'e got to be kidding. Do you care what Bible Scholars believe? Or do examine the evidence? Jesus Mythicism is growing faster than Christianity. Since Nazareth didn't even exist as a town in 30 AD, Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed. Bart Ehrman even wrote a book trying to "prove" that Jesus existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument...

 

He primarily based his "proof" on hypothetical sources like "Q". Examine the evidence yourself before you trust the opinions of Bible Scholars.

 

And was Jesus good? Since he promised to send all non believers to Hell, I have to say no. Even the cruel and vengefull OT god never went that far.

[Blood]

 

"Jesus" is a character in a mythical tale about Jews murdering their own messiah so that Gentiles could justify their theft of Jewish holy books. 

 

The question is moot. It's like asking if Robinson Crusoe or Don Quixote was good.

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character. Notice your ethically motivated remarks which are implicit in what you wrote, "theft of Jewish holy books." Do you realize that many of the original Christians were Jews? Yes, it was divergent from the Jewish faith ultimately with the writings of Paul, but that doesn't make Judaism more valid as a result, or less. Both of those are poor means for coming to an analytical conclusion of what Christianity and Judaism are, and also poor conclusions for interpreting human beings historically.

 

 

 

"Judean" was both an ethnic and a religious identity. People could join the religion who were not ethnically Judean. They still called themselves "Judean," even if their ethnicity was Italian, according to Cassius Dio. 

 

So if the early Christians were Jews, it was probably only in this religious and non-ethnic sense. The New Testament's major theme is that salvation has come to the Gentiles through the (ethnic) Jews' execution of the Messiah. That alone should tell you who the actual authors of Christianity are: Gentiles. 

[Guest]

 

 

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016

 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

Most Bible scholars, secular included believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Where have you been?

 

 

You'e got to be kidding. Do you care what Bible Scholars believe? Or do examine the evidence? Jesus Mythicism is growing faster than Christianity. Since Nazareth didn't even exist as a town in 30 AD, Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed. Bart Ehrman even wrote a book trying to "prove" that Jesus existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument...

 

He primarily based his "proof" on hypothetical sources like "Q". Examine the evidence yourself before you trust the opinions of Bible Scholars.

 

And was Jesus good? Since he promised to send all non believers to Hell, I have to say no. Even the cruel and vengefull OT god never went that far.

 

I've heavily examined the evidence, reading several of Ehrman's book, but also many others beyond that on the subject, as well as personal study in the original Koine Greek.  But please, continue on about how I should "examine the evidence."  

 

Nazareth did exist prior to Jesus, and the mythicist claim is that it ceased to exist for a period of time based upon certain archaeological evidence, which has been refuted by scholars such as Ehrman himself.  And do you know why German scholars first asserted the existence of "Q" which literally means "sources" in German (Quelle).  Or do you have a better explanation for how the synoptic gospels came to include the information they did?

 

Jesus, or at least the authors used the word Gehenna, not "hell," and likely believed different things about it than what came to be the orthodox dogma on the subject.  Read Matthew 10:28.

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016

 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

Most Bible scholars, secular included believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Where have you been?

 

 

You'e got to be kidding. Do you care what Bible Scholars believe? Or do examine the evidence? Jesus Mythicism is growing faster than Christianity. Since Nazareth didn't even exist as a town in 30 AD, Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed. Bart Ehrman even wrote a book trying to "prove" that Jesus existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument...

 

He primarily based his "proof" on hypothetical sources like "Q". Examine the evidence yourself before you trust the opinions of Bible Scholars.

 

And was Jesus good? Since he promised to send all non believers to Hell, I have to say no. Even the cruel and vengefull OT god never went that far.

 

I've heavily examined the evidence, reading several of Ehrman's book, but also many others beyond that on the subject, as well as personal study in the original Koine Greek.  But please, continue on about how I should "examine the evidence."  

 

Nazareth did exist prior to Jesus, and the mythicist claim is that it ceased to exist for a period of time based upon certain archaeological evidence, which has been refuted by scholars such as Ehrman himself.  And do you know why German scholars first asserted the existence of "Q" which literally means "sources" in German (Quelle).  Or do you have a better explanation for how the synoptic gospels came to include the information they did?

 

Jesus, or at least the authors used the word Gehenna, not "hell," and likely believed different things about it than what came to be the orthodox dogma on the subject.  Read Matthew 10:28.

 

We need to use the same methods as Historians, not Bible Scholars. All you need to do is show contemporary Historical accounts, or inscriptions, referring to Jesus of Nazareth, He never existed. If you wish to make a case for the Historical Jesus, you're welcome to try. But not here. You made a blanket claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which needed to be corrected. The best we can say is that someone, maybe named Yeshua, maght have partially inspired the Gospel accounts. Show the archeological evidence for Nazareth in 30 AD. Bart Ehrman's failed apocalyptic prophet Jesus needs to be proved, not assumed. Using "evidence" like "Q", or Criteria, or the Gospels themselves, is not acceptable.

 

What Did Jesus Say or Teach About Hell

 

Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”

Matthew 22:13 “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 8:12 “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Luke 16:23 “being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”

Luke 12:5 “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

 

Would you have a beer with this guy? By today's standards, Jesus was not a very good person. If I had been listening to him back then, I would have given him the finger and moved on.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, Posted  11,June,2016

 

 

There is a mythology that certainly arose, but Jesus of Nazareth isn't a fictional character.

 

Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospel Jesus, is a Mythical character, like Zeus and Heracles. One of the many 1st Century Yeshuas may have inspired the story, but even that is conjecture. Damn, what have you been reading? If you think you can prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Bible Scholars will love you.

Most Bible scholars, secular included believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Where have you been?

 

 

You'e got to be kidding. Do you care what Bible Scholars believe? Or do examine the evidence? Jesus Mythicism is growing faster than Christianity. Since Nazareth didn't even exist as a town in 30 AD, Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed. Bart Ehrman even wrote a book trying to "prove" that Jesus existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument...

 

He primarily based his "proof" on hypothetical sources like "Q". Examine the evidence yourself before you trust the opinions of Bible Scholars.

 

And was Jesus good? Since he promised to send all non believers to Hell, I have to say no. Even the cruel and vengefull OT god never went that far.

 

I've heavily examined the evidence, reading several of Ehrman's book, but also many others beyond that on the subject, as well as personal study in the original Koine Greek.  But please, continue on about how I should "examine the evidence."  

 

Nazareth did exist prior to Jesus, and the mythicist claim is that it ceased to exist for a period of time based upon certain archaeological evidence, which has been refuted by scholars such as Ehrman himself.  And do you know why German scholars first asserted the existence of "Q" which literally means "sources" in German (Quelle).  Or do you have a better explanation for how the synoptic gospels came to include the information they did?

 

Jesus, or at least the authors used the word Gehenna, not "hell," and likely believed different things about it than what came to be the orthodox dogma on the subject.  Read Matthew 10:28.

 

We need to use the same methods as Historians, not Bible Scholars. All you need to do is show contemporary Historical accounts, or inscriptions, referring to Jesus of Nazareth, He never existed. If you wish to make a case for the Historical Jesus, you're welcome to try. But not here. You made a blanket claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which needed to be corrected. The best we can say is that someone, maybe named Yeshua, maght have partially inspired the Gospel accounts. Show the archeological evidence for Nazareth in 30 AD. Bart Ehrman's failed apocalyptic prophet Jesus needs to be proved, not assumed. Using "evidence" like "Q", or Criteria, or the Gospels themselves, is not acceptable.

 

What Did Jesus Say or Teach About Hell

 

Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”

Matthew 22:13 “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 8:12 “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Luke 16:23 “being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”

Luke 12:5 “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

 

Would you have a beer with this guy? By today's standards, Jesus was not a very good person. If I had been listening to him back then, I would have given him the finger and moved on.

 

Bible scholars use what is called the Historical Critical Method, which is employed on all sorts of ancient texts and IS a historical method.  What you're advocating for is a type of history that ignores what types of evidence historians are usually dealing with to piece together the facts.

 

Perhaps we could start another thread on if Jesus actually existed, and I can show you the cumulative case seems to indicate that a Jesus of Nazareth (yes Nazareth also existed, contrary to mythicist claims) did exist.  Dismissing the New Testament canonical texts as not even relevant to the discussion is not an honest historical approach if you ask me.  Duh, none of the shit they said is true about a god, but that doesn't mean they are useless historically, which is the major blind spot in your position.

 

Its as if you just dismiss Biblical Scholarship entirely, with reference to Jesus' actual life.

 

Also, you only quoted some of the statements by Jesus about Gehenna, and you should read up on what other Second Temple Jews said about it to see what he might have meant.  

[sdelsolray]

My understanding of historical and textual criticism is that it is a matter of probabilities as to whether a particular historicity is true or not.

 

A majority of relevant scholars conclude that the probability that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed in greater than him not existing.  However, a minority of relevant scholars conclude that the probability that Jesus of Nazareth is entirely mythical (i.e., he did not exist) is higher than him existing.

 

Both views are plausible.

 

But why does it matter?  A large portion of the Jesus story is certainly myth, and whether that myth is based on an actual person, a literary composite or outright fiction seems to be a minor and irrelevant point.

[qadeshet]

 

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 11:39 AM

 

Bible scholars use what is called the Historical Critical Method, which is employed on all sorts of ancient texts and IS a historical method.  What you're advocating for is a type of history that ignores what types of evidence historians are usually dealing with to piece together the facts.

 

Perhaps we could start another thread on if Jesus actually existed, and I can show you the cumulative case seems to indicate that a Jesus of Nazareth (yes Nazareth also existed, contrary to mythicist claims) did exist.  Dismissing the New Testament canonical texts as not even relevant to the discussion is not an honest historical approach if you ask me.  Duh, none of the shit they said is true about a god, but that doesn't mean they are useless historically, which is the major blind spot in your position.

 

Its as if you just dismiss Biblical Scholarship entirely, with reference to Jesus' actual life.

 

Also, you only quoted some of the statements by Jesus about Gehenna, and you should read up on what other Second Temple Jews said about it to see what he might have meant.

 

I do dismiss the various Criteria Medods used by Bible Scholars. Using the Criteria of Embarrassment, it is probable that Jesus must have washed john's feet because that would have been embarrasing for Christians at the time. Deconstructing a Myth doesn't help in finding the truth. The job of a Bible Scholar is to defend Christianity. No Historian uses Bible criteria.

 

Confessions of a Theologian-Bible scholars really do do History differently

 

There is no actual life of Jesus to dismiss! The Gospel Jesus didn't exist. We have discussed the "Historical Jesus" many times. I don't even care. If he existed, he was just another failed would-be prophet, who got himself killed, and stayed dead. Like the Tahib, the Egyptian, or Jesus ben Ananias. If you feel that you can make a better case than Bart Ehrman, great. Make you best case and post it.

 

The Christ Myth Theory: Hoax or Plausible Theory?

[Guest]

 

 

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 11:39 AM

 

Bible scholars use what is called the Historical Critical Method, which is employed on all sorts of ancient texts and IS a historical method.  What you're advocating for is a type of history that ignores what types of evidence historians are usually dealing with to piece together the facts.

 

Perhaps we could start another thread on if Jesus actually existed, and I can show you the cumulative case seems to indicate that a Jesus of Nazareth (yes Nazareth also existed, contrary to mythicist claims) did exist.  Dismissing the New Testament canonical texts as not even relevant to the discussion is not an honest historical approach if you ask me.  Duh, none of the shit they said is true about a god, but that doesn't mean they are useless historically, which is the major blind spot in your position.

 

Its as if you just dismiss Biblical Scholarship entirely, with reference to Jesus' actual life.

 

Also, you only quoted some of the statements by Jesus about Gehenna, and you should read up on what other Second Temple Jews said about it to see what he might have meant.

 

I do dismiss the various Criteria Medods used by Bible Scholars. Using the Criteria of Embarrassment, it is probable that Jesus must have washed john's feet because that would have been embarrasing for Christians at the time. Deconstructing a Myth doesn't help in finding the truth. The job of a Bible Scholar is to defend Christianity. No Historian uses Bible criteria.

 

Confessions of a Theologian-Bible scholars really do do History differently

 

There is no actual life of Jesus to dismiss! The Gospel Jesus didn't exist. We have discussed the "Historical Jesus" many times. I don't even care. If he existed, he was just another failed would-be prophet, who got himself killed, and stayed dead. Like the Tahib, the Egyptian, or Jesus ben Ananias. If you feel that you can make a better case than Bart Ehrman, great. Make you best case and post it.

 

The Christ Myth Theory: Hoax or Plausible Theory?

 

Here we go folks, qadeshet has shown his hand and revealed the underlying ad hominem argument which dismisses the basis of my argument.

 

Notice the, "Criteria of Embarrassment," as if that could actually be an academic category for this approach to historical inquiry.  Note further the basis for this criterion according to qadeshet, "because" an explanatory conjunction, "that would have been embarrassing for Christians at the time."  And makes the ultimate claim that, "Deconstruction a Myth doesn't help in finding the truth," one can scarce even begin to wonder how qadeshet could justify that conclusion.  As if understanding the original authors and founders of Christian religion are irrelevant, because those sayings were contained within religious propaganda documents preserved through a tradition of various methods of copying manuscripts and papyri?

 

"The job of a Bible Scholar is to defend Christianity," is the revelation that qadeshet doesn't actually know what he is talking about when he says "Bible Scholars," as there are plenty who have no intention whatsoever to defend Christianity.  Biblical scholars are very learned historians, who have had to learn about a wide range of diverse cultures in order to understand the world in which these writings were formulated and better understand the authors who conveyed them.  This usually involves the learning of Latin, Classical Greek, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and sometimes Arabic.  But yes, dismiss this diverse field of scholarship on the basis of your ad hominem.

[Blood]

Your high opinion of Bible scholars is completely unwarranted. Biblical scholars are theologians and textual scholars-- not historians in any way, shape or form. Few of them have any requisite degrees in ancient history. This was stated plainly by one of the few US professors who actually does have a master's in both the Bible and Ancient History, during a speech he made during the UCSD Exodus Conference, May 31-June 1, 2013:

 

“Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history. [His emphasis.] … in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion.” – William H.C. Propp

 

[Guest]

 

Your high opinion of Bible scholars is completely unwarranted. Biblical scholars are theologians and textual scholars-- not historians in any way, shape or form. Few of them have any requisite degrees in ancient history. This was stated plainly by one of the few US professors who actually does have a master's in both the Bible and Ancient History, during a speech he made during the UCSD Exodus Conference, May 31-June 1, 2013:

 

“Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history. [His emphasis.] … in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion.” – William H.C. Propp

 

 

Ugh, there is so much miss education of people on Biblical scholarship on this board sometimes..  Textual scholarship IS a historical discipline, dealing with historical often canonical texts, textual scholars who study or the Iliad are both historians who emphasize understanding ancient writings.  In order to understand those texts, it requires textual scholars to broaden their focus beyond simply the texts themselves, and expand into understanding the wider culture and exchange of ideas that existed in the world at that time.  That's why many scholars moved to the New Perspective on Paul, due to the recent advances in scholarship on Second Temple Judaism (archaeological and philological), and how that changes the way one might read some of Pauline literature.  

 

Some of them DO have the "requisite degrees" (wtf is that?) in ancient history, and there you go again equating Biblical scholarship to a religious practice.  It's not, there are many secular Biblical scholars who have no active bias towards preserving doctrines, dogmas and beliefs.  The constant ignoring of this simple fact, and the diverse expertise of particular scholars within a field, also shows that this argument is ultimately biased and ad hominem.  

[qadeshet]

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 12th June, 2016

 

This my last post on this thread. Jesus wasn't that all that good.

 

Notice the, "Criteria of Embarrassment," as if that could actually be an academic category for this approach to historical inquiry.  Note further the basis for this criterion according to qadeshet, "because" an explanatory conjunction, "that would have been embarrassing for Christians at the time."  And makes the ultimate claim that, "Deconstruction a Myth doesn't help in finding the truth," one can scarce even begin to wonder how qadeshet could justify that conclusion.  As if understanding the original authors and founders of Christian religion are irrelevant, because those sayings were contained within religious propaganda documents preserved through a tradition of various methods of copying manuscripts and papyri?

 

Deconstricting a Myth is not the way of getting to the truth. Can we deconstruct the Oddysey to find the historical Heracles? Did Heracles really immolate himself and ascend to the Heavens? Or was he just a very strong man? I really doubt it.

I have no need, nor desire, to debunk all the Criteria used by Christian Bible Scholars. That is not the point of this post, at all. Very few Bible Scholars, if any, are Historians. Maybe you can name one, I can't. Really, you should be on a Christian Forum.

 

From The Washington Post:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up.

 

Yes. The original authors and founders are irrelevant because we know nothing about them. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, or when they were written. I don't care.

[Guest]

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 12th June, 2016

 

This my last post on this thread. Jesus wasn't that all that good.

 

Notice the, "Criteria of Embarrassment," as if that could actually be an academic category for this approach to historical inquiry.  Note further the basis for this criterion according to qadeshet, "because" an explanatory conjunction, "that would have been embarrassing for Christians at the time."  And makes the ultimate claim that, "Deconstruction a Myth doesn't help in finding the truth," one can scarce even begin to wonder how qadeshet could justify that conclusion.  As if understanding the original authors and founders of Christian religion are irrelevant, because those sayings were contained within religious propaganda documents preserved through a tradition of various methods of copying manuscripts and papyri?

 

Deconstricting a Myth is not the way of getting to the truth. Can we deconstruct the Oddysey to find the historical Heracles? Did Heracles really immolate himself and ascend to the Heavens? Or was he just a very strong man? I really doubt it.

I have no need, nor desire, to debunk all the Criteria used by Christian Bible Scholars. That is not the point of this post, at all. Very few Bible Scholars, if any, are Historians. Maybe you can name one, I can't. Really, you should be on a Christian Forum.

 

From The Washington Post:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up.

 

Yes. The original authors and founders are irrelevant because we know nothing about them. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, or when they were written. I don't care.

1. Who cares what adjective we use to describe the historical Jesus, he was just a man.  What should matter though, if we're people conversing who are committed to intelligent conversation is that evidence and logic should be analyzed and weighed, and I am finding it difficult to accept the reason you're asserting here.

 

2. You asked, "Can we deconstruct the Oddysey to find the historical Heracles?"  What kinds of questions are these, do some creative thinking!  "What can we understand about the way Greek people thought about the world they lived in, because of the heroes and gods that they constructed in their mythologies, for instance Heracles?"  Your questions reveal the snobbery you ultimate have to the ways people expressed themselves in those times, and dismiss the creativity of anyone who doesn't agree on the fact that there is no god.  Don't you think you might be missing a HUGE portion of history with this approach, for instance, the FOUNDATIONAL ideas and beliefs which motivated them as actors in that history which was living and breathing when it happened.

 

If you think I should be on a Christian forum, then I don't know what else to say, you seem to think equating Jesus is a historical figure is akin to proclaiming his divinity!  How can reason with such conclusions.  I'm very much so NOT a Christian, and have no desire for the intellectual constraint of a god, or any other external abstract system for that matter.  

 

You even say, "the original authors and founders are irrelevant because we know nothing about them," which is a ridiculous statement to be frank with you.  We don't know many of the authors NAMES, but that doesn't mean that we can't know anything about what they wanted to communicate and what their language and ideas must have revealed about them.  You also seem to be ignoring the texts that we actually know were from Paul of Tarsus, who did exist as well, and was one of the founders of Christianity.  Is it hard to believe: Jesus existed .... and: He wasn't divine or didn't have healing powers, and do that simultaneously?

[Blood]

 

 

Your high opinion of Bible scholars is completely unwarranted. Biblical scholars are theologians and textual scholars-- not historians in any way, shape or form. Few of them have any requisite degrees in ancient history. This was stated plainly by one of the few US professors who actually does have a master's in both the Bible and Ancient History, during a speech he made during the UCSD Exodus Conference, May 31-June 1, 2013:

 

“Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history. [His emphasis.] … in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion.” – William H.C. Propp

 

 

Ugh, there is so much miss education of people on Biblical scholarship on this board sometimes..  Textual scholarship IS a historical discipline, dealing with historical often canonical texts, textual scholars who study or the Iliad are both historians who emphasize understanding ancient writings.  In order to understand those texts, it requires textual scholars to broaden their focus beyond simply the texts themselves, and expand into understanding the wider culture and exchange of ideas that existed in the world at that time.  That's why many scholars moved to the New Perspective on Paul, due to the recent advances in scholarship on Second Temple Judaism (archaeological and philological), and how that changes the way one might read some of Pauline literature.  

 

Some of them DO have the "requisite degrees" (wtf is that?) in ancient history, and there you go again equating Biblical scholarship to a religious practice.  It's not, there are many secular Biblical scholars who have no active bias towards preserving doctrines, dogmas and beliefs.  The constant ignoring of this simple fact, and the diverse expertise of particular scholars within a field, also shows that this argument is ultimately biased and ad hominem.  

 

 

 

Wrong again. Textual scholars who study the Iliad are not historians. They are literary scholars. No different than textual scholars who study Chaucer or any other literary figure. The text is the focus of their scholarship. It's primarily a literary discipline. 

 

The highest degree offered by one of the most prestigious Bible schools in the USA, Yale Divinity School, is called M.Div. -- Master of Divinity. They describe their entire department as theological studies. There is not an ounce of "secularism" in the descriptions of any of their degree programs. 

 

http://divinity.yale.edu/academics/degree-requirements

 

The degree of Master of Divinity (M.Div.) certifies completion of a program of theological studies designed primarily, although not exclusively, to prepare the candidate for ordination to the Christian ministry. The requirements reflect the intention of YDS to provide an education that is theologically informed, professionally competent, academically rigorous, and oriented to the life of the church.

 

But what about their mission statement? Surely this would state clearly that they have no intention of "preserving dogmas, doctrines, and beliefs"?

 

http://divinity.yale.edu/about-yds/mission-history

 

Yale Divinity School has an enduring commitment to foster the knowledge and love of God through scholarly engagement with Christian traditions in a global, multifaith context. Participating in the vibrant life of Yale University, the Divinity School is uniquely positioned to train leaders for church and society given its ecumenical and international character, engagement with music and the arts, and commitment to social justice. Rigorous scholarly inquiry, corporate worship and spiritual formation, and practical engagement in a variety of ministries enable students to develop their knowledge and skills in a community that welcomes and affirms human diversity. The Divinity School pursues its mission of training students for service in church and world through three principal activities: (1) it prepares people for lay and ordained Christian ministries; (2) it shares with the Graduate School in educating scholars and teachers for theological schools and departments of religious studies; (3) it equips people preparing for public service or other careers to understand more fully the theological dimensions of their vocations.

 

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

 

Your high opinion of Bible scholars is completely unwarranted. Biblical scholars are theologians and textual scholars-- not historians in any way, shape or form. Few of them have any requisite degrees in ancient history. This was stated plainly by one of the few US professors who actually does have a master's in both the Bible and Ancient History, during a speech he made during the UCSD Exodus Conference, May 31-June 1, 2013:

 

“Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history. [His emphasis.] … in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion.” – William H.C. Propp

 

 

Ugh, there is so much miss education of people on Biblical scholarship on this board sometimes..  Textual scholarship IS a historical discipline, dealing with historical often canonical texts, textual scholars who study or the Iliad are both historians who emphasize understanding ancient writings.  In order to understand those texts, it requires textual scholars to broaden their focus beyond simply the texts themselves, and expand into understanding the wider culture and exchange of ideas that existed in the world at that time.  That's why many scholars moved to the New Perspective on Paul, due to the recent advances in scholarship on Second Temple Judaism (archaeological and philological), and how that changes the way one might read some of Pauline literature.  

 

Some of them DO have the "requisite degrees" (wtf is that?) in ancient history, and there you go again equating Biblical scholarship to a religious practice.  It's not, there are many secular Biblical scholars who have no active bias towards preserving doctrines, dogmas and beliefs.  The constant ignoring of this simple fact, and the diverse expertise of particular scholars within a field, also shows that this argument is ultimately biased and ad hominem.  

 

 

 

Wrong again. Textual scholars who study the Iliad are not historians. They are literary scholars. No different than textual scholars who study Chaucer or any other literary figure. The text is the focus of their scholarship. It's primarily a literary discipline. 

 

The highest degree offered by one of the most prestigious Bible schools in the USA, Yale Divinity School, is called M.Div. -- Master of Divinity. They describe their entire department as theological studies. There is not an ounce of "secularism" in the descriptions of any of their degree programs. 

 

http://divinity.yale.edu/academics/degree-requirements

 

The degree of Master of Divinity (M.Div.) certifies completion of a program of theological studies designed primarily, although not exclusively, to prepare the candidate for ordination to the Christian ministry. The requirements reflect the intention of YDS to provide an education that is theologically informed, professionally competent, academically rigorous, and oriented to the life of the church.

 

But what about their mission statement? Surely this would state clearly that they have no intention of "preserving dogmas, doctrines, and beliefs"?

 

http://divinity.yale.edu/about-yds/mission-history

 

Yale Divinity School has an enduring commitment to foster the knowledge and love of God through scholarly engagement with Christian traditions in a global, multifaith context. Participating in the vibrant life of Yale University, the Divinity School is uniquely positioned to train leaders for church and society given its ecumenical and international character, engagement with music and the arts, and commitment to social justice. Rigorous scholarly inquiry, corporate worship and spiritual formation, and practical engagement in a variety of ministries enable students to develop their knowledge and skills in a community that welcomes and affirms human diversity. The Divinity School pursues its mission of training students for service in church and world through three principal activities: (1) it prepares people for lay and ordained Christian ministries; (2) it shares with the Graduate School in educating scholars and teachers for theological schools and departments of religious studies; (3) it equips people preparing for public service or other careers to understand more fully the theological dimensions of their vocations.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be stuck a few decades back in terms of how academia is organized today.  Ancient textual scholars have become more historical in their methodologies, rather than just through the traditions of literary scholarship.

 

There you go again equating Bible scholarship with religious sector of that field.  Not all scholars studied the ancient texts from a religious perspective, duh.

 

If one wanted a non-religious perspective of Biblical scholarship, they wouldn't go to a program in order to receive that training, though that is not to dismiss the methods and practices endorsed at Yale (perhaps some of them are good), but one must understand that a Divinity School is going to have a religious bias.

 

Again, you're generalizing and now you've presented a false equivalency.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Has anyone looked into the hypothesis that TrueScotsman is another incarnation of stevebennet?  He's really starting to sound like the historical, non-mythical steve, who actually did exist in many different forms.

[Guest]

Has anyone looked into the hypothesis that TrueScotsman is another incarnation of stevebennet?  He's really starting to sound like the historical, non-mythical steve, who actually did exist in many different forms.

Who is stevebennet, or are you making a joke?

[qadeshet]

Has anyone looked into the hypothesis that TrueScotsman is another incarnation of stevebennet?  He's really starting to sound like the historical, non-mythical steve, who actually did exist in many different forms.

 

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I get suspicious. Shall we see if he can commit the "Unpardonable sin"? Maybe he's No True Scotsman. Something smells fishy when someone uses nothing but Christian appologetics. I don't know of any ex-C who believes that Bible Scholars are unbiased Truth Seekers. And only Believers proclaim absolute certainty about anything. Either that, or he's totally confused.

[Guest]

 

Has anyone looked into the hypothesis that TrueScotsman is another incarnation of stevebennet?  He's really starting to sound like the historical, non-mythical steve, who actually did exist in many different forms.

 

 

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I get suspicious. Shall we see if he can commit the "Unpardonable sin"? Maybe he's No True Scotsman. Something smells fishy when someone uses nothing but Christian appologetics. I don't know of any ex-C who believes that Bible Scholars are unbiased Truth Seekers. And only Believers proclaim absolute certainty about anything. Either that, or he's totally confused.

Oh so I'm using Christian apologetics now? I've only been here at Ex-C for a few years, and have testimonies posted here, but yes "only believers proclaim absolute certainty about anything," hello No TrueScotsman fallacy! I have given by basis for certainty in the posts offered in the other forum.

 

Bible Scholars are often biased, but your stereotype is just one particular flavor of Biblical scholarship that exists within the Christian tradition, and not secular academia.

 

You seem incapable of even wanting to understand me, despite by cogent rebuttals to your arguments, but I'm the confused one. You're the one trying to paint me as some confused ex-C who is a secret apologist for Christianity.

 

Check your bias...