This is a subject that has cropped up in a couple threads already so I figure why not give it it's own thread.
So the questions Was the Biblical Jesus a real person? If not was there at least a historical Jesus used as a basis for the stories? Could it have been a complete fabrication?
Please provide evidence for or against your argument. If you use the Bible provide external sources to also back up your claim.
Remember when Paul when on a missionary to Greece? It would have been easier to convert the natives if he used a common figure that they all knew and respected, and claimed that to be God.
It's a pretty common tactic in Christianity. It's possible that is how the story of Jesus got started. There would appear to be a similar story to his.
It's a pretty common tactic in Christianity. It's possible that is how the story of Jesus got started. There would appear to be a similar story to his.
Hey magegarywolf....
Aren't halos based off the Egyptian sun disks that circled Seth's or Osiris's, or one of the many Egyptian gods?
When evaluating this, you have to remember the type of questions historians will ask when trying to find out what the source for an account is. We do know that there were documents written from about 50 AD (Thessalonians) to 100 AD (Revelation) that, in themselves, made certain claims about a person named Jesus. The questions that really help answer how much they reflect reality are: What was the genre of the writing? (For example, poetry is seldom intended to be taken literally, but history-writing usually is) The gospels do not really follow a certain norm, but come somewhat close to the format of ancient biographies. To say that they are INTENDED to be read as myths is not really supported by scholars of the time. The book of Acts actually is about as perfectly alligned with the "style-guide" of the time for history writing as you can get. Note the beginning of Luke (which is continue in Acts):
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
If you write that kind of thing in the beginning of a book, what do you think you WANT people to think when they read it? Right, you want them to think it actually happened in a real sense. Now also add the fact that you write it in the STYLE of a history book. It is pretty clear what the intent is here.
The second question is this: How does the content DIFFER from the content of other writings that were known/written at the time. Historians seldom find those things interesting that are "normal" for a timeframe, though that is important. When trying to evaluate an ancient text, the really interesting thing is in what is different from the normal stuff. For the normal things, the author may have just copied it from somewhere. But if he writes something new, something different, then the historian will ask: "Why did he write this thing X, when I would have expected him to write this, normally at the time, thing Y" Sure, some elements of the Jesus narrative have things in common with other Religions of the time. The real question is: Do the books of the New Testament tell a story that is significantly enough different from 1. Judaism, 2. Greek Mythology & Philosophy, 3. Pagan Religions, that we must suspect some ACTUAL events caused the writers to write what they did.
That is the question we need to answer if we want to find out if the real life of a historical Jesus was the reason that caused the NT writers to write their accounts of him the way they did.
I'm a little late on this topic and I'm sure its been mentioned, but there are several ancient historians who mention a Jew named Jesus-the only name I can remember is Josephus. Just as well, the gospel accounts are credible historical sources, whether you want to believe it or not. Jesus, the miracle worker from Nazareth existed.
I'm a little late on this topic and I'm sure its been mentioned, but there are several ancient historians who mention a Jew named Jesus-the only name I can remember is Josephus. Just as well, the gospel accounts are credible historical sources, whether you want to believe it or not. Jesus, the miracle worker from Nazareth existed.
The works of Josephus on the matter were altered, possibly even completely forged.
Josephus' second work was altered. The first one, the legit one, mentions a Jesus of Nazareth.
Well as far as ancient manuscripts go, having 4 independently written accounts of the same story is like having 30 witnesses to the same crime in court today. There is also the fact that no contradicting archaeological evidence has been found to this day (especially in regards to Luke and Acts, both being written by a historian, he made note of a lot of towns and cities that the apostles visited). We also have manuscripts within 30 (or 50...i don't remember exactly) years of the original book of mark. Again, as far as ancient manuscripts go, that's astonishing.
If you still doubt me, I suggest you go talk to a historian. Find me one who seriously doubts the existence of the historical jesus.
Christ myth theory:Those who have proposed one form or another of the theory have documented the similarities between stories of Jesus and those of Krishna, Adonis, Osiris, Mithra, and a pre-Christian cult of Jesus (Joshua) within Judaism.
Christ myth theory:Those who have proposed one form or another of the theory have documented the similarities between stories of Jesus and those of Krishna, Adonis, Osiris, Mithra, and a pre-Christian cult of Jesus (Joshua) within Judaism.
COINCIDENCES HAPPEN. Communication was hard back then, how could information on all of those gods be found?
