Was Jesus Good?

[Guest]

No, it isn't "clear" that Jesus existed. A lot of theologians -- whom you mistakenly identify as historians -- think so, but the silence of real historians is so deafening that when one of them, Michael Grant, wrote a book on the subject, the publisher added the prominent subtitle, An Historian's Review of the Gospels. That was to let the public know that they were not getting yet another sermon from a theologian pretending to be an historian, but an actual, secular historian dispassionately examining the texts.

 

Sadly, the crushing weight of cultural "tradition" is so heavy that not even Grant could escape its influence, and he made the catastrophic error of using theologians and apologists as his sources -- something he would have never done in any other context. This vitiated any value the book might have otherwise had.

 

Gospel writers are not "historians," in either the ancient or modern sense. Western culture is someday going to have to come to grips with that cold fact. History-like writing is not history. Stories about the past are not "history." And myths don't always revolve around talking lions or one-eyed giants or humans changing into animals. The most effective myths seem like very real stories about real-sounding people.

I am not regarding theologians when I talk about Biblical scholarship. I already addressed this AT LENGTH, and refuted your fallacious arguments.

 

Some Biblical scholars are NOT theologians and are committed to critical methods independent of religion or tradition, we call them secular. For someone who supposedly likes ancient history, one would think this is an obvious point.

[Guest]

 

And myths don't always revolve around talking lions or one-eyed giants or humans changing into animals. The most effective myths seem like very real stories about real-sounding people.

A good example of this - and how religions are formed for that matter - are the numerous cargo cults that exist in the pacific.

Religions are often mythologized events which sometimes did transpired, but are fueled with metaphysics and mythology to support its message and narrative.

 

The mythicist take on Jesus of Nazareth is built upon evidential presuppositions that ignores the Historical Critical Methods to studying ancient texts. And the kind espoused by Blood and qadeshet is founded on the ad hominem argument that all Bible Scholars are theologians, which they're not as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

[quinntar]

I am very interested in the pictures of Jesus where the artists portrays him dualistically. Something about good and evil there, a two faced demi God maybe.

[sdelsolray]

Based on the mythology in the Bible, Jesus was both good and bad.

[quinntar]

Based on the mythology in the Bible, Jesus was both good and bad.

Well if they think he's God then they probably think he knew what good and evil was. But was he good/evil/both or something else.

[quinntar]

Ah, actually I recall verses in the new testament where Jesus is telling people to make their tree/fruit good.

 

So did he think he knew what the knowledge of goodness was, because that's what it sounds like.

[sdelsolray]

 

Based on the mythology in the Bible, Jesus was both good and bad.

Well if they think he's God then they probably think he knew what good and evil was. But was he good/evil/both or something else.

 

 

What believers think is anyone's guess.  On the other hand, what they are taught to think is fairly predictable, since the indoctrination is fairly predictable.  They are taught to think that Jesus is only good, no bad and no mention, curiosity or inquiry into "something else".

 

As a fictional character, he could be good and bad and something else all mixed together.  Indeed, in reality there are persons that are good, bad and many other things all within the same life.

[quinntar]

 

 

Based on the mythology in the Bible, Jesus was both good and bad.

Well if they think he's God then they probably think he knew what good and evil was. But was he good/evil/both or something else.

 

 

As a fictional character, he could be good and bad and something else all mixed together. Indeed, in reality there are persons that are good, bad and many other things all within the same life.

I wonder if you can mix your good and bad nature together, to become a new breed of..? I can't push my mind that far.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Based on the mythology in the Bible, Jesus was both good and bad.

Well if they think he's God then they probably think he knew what good and evil was. But was he good/evil/both or something else.

 

 

As a fictional character, he could be good and bad and something else all mixed together. Indeed, in reality there are persons that are good, bad and many other things all within the same life.

I wonder if you can mix your good and bad nature together, to become a new breed of..? I can't push my mind that far.

 

 

 

 

They don't necessarily need to be expressed at the exact same time.  One day someone may be good.  Another day they may be bad.  On yet another day they may be neither, or something else.

 

"They say time is the fire in which we burn." -Delmore Schwartz

[Vigile]

 

 

If he were alive today, we'd see him as just another David Koresh. 

 

I wonder how much of our relative tolerance (as a society) for Christianity can be attributed to cultural memes and norms? If Christianity wasn't "our" religion, perhaps we'd have an easier time disregarding it and the Jesus-character? A lot of people, many non-Christians and seculars included, still carry a certain degree of respect for the Church as a cultural institution, and most of all, for Jesus as an ideal and role-model. We have no problem deriding Mohammed, but Jesus? That respect is still deeply ingrained in people.

 

 

No doubt. And as you mention, in Islamic societies, the same is true of Mohammed. People in general just accept many things without question that are ingrained in culture or that are instilled since early childhood. 

[Margee]

 

 

 

 

 

As a fictional character, he could be good and bad and something else all mixed together. Indeed, in reality there are persons that are good, bad and many other things all within the same life.

I wonder if you can mix your good and bad nature together, to become a new breed of..? I can't push my mind that far.

 

No need for a new breed. Good and bad are human qualities and we all have them. (unless one claims to be perfect?)  Whether jesus was real or not, he had good and bad (after we  study the NT) because he was just a human. 

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

As a fictional character, he could be good and bad and something else all mixed together. Indeed, in reality there are persons that are good, bad and many other things all within the same life.

I wonder if you can mix your good and bad nature together, to become a new breed of..? I can't push my mind that far.

No need for a new breed. Good and bad are human qualities and we all have them. (unless one claims to be perfect?) Whether jesus was real or not, he had good and bad (after we study the NT) because he was just a human.

Yeah.

[miamia]

Ugh, sorry this is going to be another wall of text, long and obnoxious, I cant sem to help it. I hope it interests someone. Feel free to disagree of call me an idiot! <3 this is kind of just free-flowing thoughts.

 

What is "good" and "bad" other than a matter of preference?

Even if we can agree that Jesus was a real person,

We cannot know for sure what he did or said.

We can't know what his motive was for doing and saying the things he supposedly did or said.

We can't know for sure what situation caused him to behave the way he behaved.

There are things we might assume, but assuming is *wrong* (doesn't serve my purposes)

There are many many people in history that have been outright vilified, or romanticized through rumor. The product that we see today is not preferable to many of us, but we have sketchy evidence at best about Jesus PERSONALLY. most of what we see is the aftermath.

The stories floating around about anyone with any sort of public visibility were/are heavily manipulated by personal bias, and tailored to the ends of those vying for power in many occasions. Then passed down, evolving to suit the age and the individuals.

This is an interesting area to investigate.

There is no god. There is zero evidence of him to date. If jesus, as a man, existed at all, like any other random man of his time, I'm sure if he could see today the strange way that events have played out in history and ideas have trickled down, he and his fellow men would be as baffled as any of us.

Even if he was a raving hitleresque lunatic, can he really be held culpable for everything that happened since his life choices were made? Every individual in history has had a hand in shaping our current experience, good and bad. Briliant ideas from people with the best "morals" and intentions have been twisted by others to make life unpleasant for generations. Horrible actions by others in some cases have had lasting positive effects. Does the "bad" outweigh the "good"? Does the "good" outweigh the "bad"? Does anyone actually weild enough power to make the idea of being personally good or bad have any merit? If their actions an ideas can't have a predictable effect on history as a whole as far as they are concerned, can the individual be blamed for their perpetuation? Is it possible that those actions and ideas were perpetuated because at one point they benefited some one in some way, just like the perpetuation of traits in NATURAL SELECTION? (this is an actual theory)

Again, this is not a validation of christianity. it's a validation of the fact that these things did in fact happen, spontaneously, without any supernatural input. Do things happen randomly sometimes with no discernible reason? Yes. But once they are perpetuated, you then have a pattern to study. What is the pattern?

Random mutations happen all the time. They are part of our evolution. Sometimes a mutation has a horrific effect, sometimes it is benign but not useful, sometimes it is useful for a time, and eventually falls into obsolescence, becoming an irritating, potentially miserable thing, that can even ruin lives, like the genetic tendency of some individuals to store excess fat. What was once a life saving trait that allowed their predecessors genes to trickle down to the present day is now a tremendous burden for some individuals that can cause a plethora of health problems. this is only compounded by the fact that their predecessors were also so industrious and innovative that they contributed to the set up of a world in which their offspring would not have to constantly burn energy for survival. What is good? Being able to store lots of fat to suvive? No, it's statistically harmful. Right now... but by understanding the function behind it a solution can be found, and the "problem" Is effectively solved. Do we now view this trait in terms of good and bad? Or is our understanding more multidimensional?

 

If I don't grasp the purpose of this thread I am deeply sorry.

[Guest]

Ugh, sorry this is going to be another wall of text, long and obnoxious, I cant sem to help it. I hope it interests someone. Feel free to disagree of call me an idiot! <3 this is kind of just free-flowing thoughts.

 

What is "good" and "bad" other than a matter of preference?

Even if we can agree that Jesus was a real person,

We cannot know for sure what he did or said.

We can't know what his motive was for doing and saying the things he supposedly did or said.

We can't know for sure what situation caused him to behave the way he behaved.

There are things we might assume, but assuming is *wrong* (doesn't serve my purposes)

There are many many people in history that have been outright vilified, or romanticized through rumor. The product that we see today is not preferable to many of us, but we have sketchy evidence at best about Jesus PERSONALLY. most of what we see is the aftermath.

The stories floating around about anyone with any sort of public visibility were/are heavily manipulated by personal bias, and tailored to the ends of those vying for power in many occasions. Then passed down, evolving to suit the age and the individuals.

This is an interesting area to investigate.

There is no god. There is zero evidence of him to date. If jesus, as a man, existed at all, like any other random man of his time, I'm sure if he could see today the strange way that events have played out in history and ideas have trickled down, he and his fellow men would be as baffled as any of us.

Even if he was a raving hitleresque lunatic, can he really be held culpable for everything that happened since his life choices were made? Every individual in history has had a hand in shaping our current experience, good and bad. Briliant ideas from people with the best "morals" and intentions have been twisted by others to make life unpleasant for generations. Horrible actions by others in some cases have had lasting positive effects. Does the "bad" outweigh the "good"? Does the "good" outweigh the "bad"? Does anyone actually weild enough power to make the idea of being personally good or bad have any merit? If their actions an ideas can't have a predictable effect on history as a whole as far as they are concerned, can the individual be blamed for their perpetuation? Is it possible that those actions and ideas were perpetuated because at one point they benefited some one in some way, just like the perpetuation of traits in NATURAL SELECTION? (this is an actual theory)

Again, this is not a validation of christianity. it's a validation of the fact that these things did in fact happen, spontaneously, without any supernatural input. Do things happen randomly sometimes with no discernible reason? Yes. But once they are perpetuated, you then have a pattern to study. What is the pattern?

Random mutations happen all the time. They are part of our evolution. Sometimes a mutation has a horrific effect, sometimes it is benign but not useful, sometimes it is useful for a time, and eventually falls into obsolescence, becoming an irritating, potentially miserable thing, that can even ruin lives, like the genetic tendency of some individuals to store excess fat. What was once a life saving trait that allowed their predecessors genes to trickle down to the present day is now a tremendous burden for some individuals that can cause a plethora of health problems. this is only compounded by the fact that their predecessors were also so industrious and innovative that they contributed to the set up of a world in which their offspring would not have to constantly burn energy for survival. What is good? Being able to store lots of fat to suvive? No, it's statistically harmful. Right now... but by understanding the function behind it a solution can be found, and the "problem" Is effectively solved. Do we now view this trait in terms of good and bad? Or is our understanding more multidimensional?

 

If I don't grasp the purpose of this thread I am deeply sorry.

Well said. Careful though, that kind of dispassionate appreciation of the facts might get you in trouble.

[Blood]

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about.  The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said. 

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud. 

[Guest]

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

[Blood]

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere. 

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians. 

[qadeshet]

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere. 

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians. 

 

Be carefull, Blood. You may wind up the the dog house.

[Guest]

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere.

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians.

And there we go, a complete denial of any Pauline epistles. That each of them is a pseudepigraphal writing, which is an absurd claim that very few fringe scholars believe.

 

You do realize you can be an atheist without believing absurd arguments that are simply contrary to available information. I hope so.

[Guest]

 

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere.

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians.

Be carefull, Blood. You may wind up the the dog house.

Woof!

[quinntar]

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

Ok so let's say Jesus was real, the disciples, the apostles were real. So what now, is Christianity reasonably true or completely false? If it's reasonably true, then in what way is it true (You'll need to define that) If it's completely false then the discussion ends.

[quinntar]

You know how some have said that the new testament was invented by wealthy greeks. I had this thought, the greeks were always good at war and especially renowned for building the trojan horse.

 

I wonder if the phrase

 

"Beware of greeks bearing gifts."

 

Should be changed to

 

"Beware of greeks bearing bibles."

[Guest]

 

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

Ok so let's say Jesus was real, the disciples, the apostles were real. So what now, is Christianity reasonably true or completely false? If it's reasonably true, then in what way is it true (You'll need to define that) If it's completely false then the discussion ends.

 

It's still false, duh.  What do you think was at stake in our discussion?

 

Real people who had innovative ideas within the traditions that existed at the time, which were incompatible with the way the universe actually is.  Simple as that.

[Guest]

You know how some have said that the new testament was invented by wealthy greeks. I had this thought, the greeks were always good at war and especially renowned for building the trojan horse.

 

I wonder if the phrase

 

"Beware of greeks bearing gifts."

 

Should be changed to

 

"Beware of greeks bearing bibles."

People say a lot of strange things yes.  

[qadeshet]

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

 

 

 

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

 

So, Paul meets the actual brother of his Master, and shows so little excitement? He could have just as easily used "Brother of the Lord" as referring to a fellow Christian. Paul refers to others using the same title. Brother. Mythicists are fully aware of this reference, and consider it very slim evidence for an Historical Jesus. And since you are not a Bible Scholar, this shouldn't bother you: Many of us don't care, in the least, what Bible Scholars think. If you had read this Epistle first, before the Gospels, would you still think that Paul was talking about a biological brother? That is why the Epistles should be read first. Otherwise it is just too easy to read the Gospels into the Epistles.

 

And Paul never uses the descriptive "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his Letters. He is quoted in the Book of Acts using this phrase, but the range of dates for Acts is 80 -130 AD. Paul doesn't seem too concerned with any recently dead Jesus, but with the Jesus Christ from his visions. Do you consider the Book of Acts historically accurate?