5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Jersey Girl]

So there's no more to say about the OP, then?

The whiny ass bitch KevinSim successfully derailed the thread.
I predict he will continue to do so.

Oh come on. He's not the only one who created a derail here.

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

Do you really want to play scripture war with me? If so, I'll be back to engage.

Well, you'd be playing it with a fellow Christian then. That's not my quote.

V/R
Doc

Nope. I'd be playing it with a poster who pulled it out of context.

[_Jersey Girl]

So there's no more to say about the OP, then?

If you have something more to say, feel free.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Nope. I'd be playing it with a poster who pulled it out of context.

No True Context. I think you just created a fallacy, madame. The bottom line is there are many Christians who do believe one is Born Again in Mr. Christ, and is transformed into a new person. They also believe it's biblical. I don't have the energy to play Schrodinger's doctrine with you. Not sure why you'd fall on your sword for this one...

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Nope. I'd be playing it with a poster who pulled it out of context.

No True Context. I think you just created a fallacy, madame. The bottom line is there are many Christians who do believe one is Born Again in Mr. Christ, and is transformed into a new person. They also believe it's biblical. I don't have the energy to play Schrodinger's doctrine with you. Not sure why you'd fall on your sword for this one...

- Doc

Fall on my sword? Were you falling on your sword when you replied with a verse of scripture? If not, then stop trying to use that stuff on me.

Yes, there is context. The New Testament that you extracted the verse from isn't intended to be read as collection of separate verses and that is where you make your mistake.

When you read a text book or novel, do you isolate one sentence to characterize an entire chapter or the book as a whole?

When you pick up a text book of novel, do you read one sentence and forgo reading the rest of the book and it's chapters?

Of course not.

There's an entire discussion in 2 Corinthians 5 and you're pulling one verse out?

I see the mistake that you're making, do you?

[_Jersey Girl]

Here, Cam, I know you probably don't care about this, but you're getting it anyway. What you did there is not unlike LDS who pull 1Corinthians 15:29 (?) out of context to make a case for vicarious baptisms, when read in context of the chapter, it's clear that Paul is using the baptism of the dead as a rhetorical device.

Here's the chapter from which you pulled that one verse. This is how you read the Bible, Cam. This is a letter, you read it like you would any other letter.

Using KJV, because that is what LDS use.


2 Corinthians 5 King James Version (KJV)

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain

Paul is referring to the resurrection of Christ and the expected resurrection of believers, Cam, not changing the nature of man in this earthly existence.

If you want to know what Paul taught about the nature of man, I point you to the Book of Romans. You'll find it there. Essentially, if the nature of man could be changed in this life, there would be no need for a Redeemer/Savior or for Salvation itself.

You're welcome.

[_honorentheos]

When you write, "primary sources", what exactly are you thinking about?

That which is considered a primary historical source, the which 0 exist for Jesus. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

The gospels are tertiary, or secondary at best, demonstrate historical inconsistencies, geographical errors, yada yada, and as such are not historical accounts of Jesus's life.

I suppose if one pretends that only primary sources provide real information then there is no real information about Jesus. Secondary sources can provide good information. In the case of Jesus if there were primary sources you could ,should, subject them to the same critical consideration. It is how the pieces of evidence fit together that matter.

There is good secondary evidence of Jesus. The New Testament, the existence of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic churches, and The body of second and third century writing discussing the received tradition form an interrelated network of events pointing back to Jesus.People who wish not to believe in Jesus create a misdirection by pointing to what people who never heard of Jesus had to say about him (very little)

I tend to go along with those who accept the available evidence as sufficient for there to have been a historical Jesus on whose life the Christian narratives have been built. Not being even remotely versed in historiography, the idea that common methodologies for piecing together ancient history allow what evidence is available for the historic Jesus to be considered reasonable is enough for me to accept it as such without any real concern. I'm not particularly invested in seeing Jesus the person relegated to myth any more than I am concerned in pin-pointing exactly how the Book of Mormon was composed. It would be nice to see both nailed down indisputably, of course, but the tangential evidence regarding Jesus' life and divinity mythology being a human construct in the first case and the Book of Mormon being a construct of the 19th century in the second are more compelling. And thus more interesting to me as topics.

So, I don't think requiring primary source documents to establish the plausible existence of a historical Jesus is necessary, neither for proper use of the methodologies of historic investigation nor to engage Christianity as a religion from a critical position.

ETA: Regarding the evidence, I had linked previously to a discussion between Kishkuman and Aristotle Smith where both discussed method and then evidence which is a pretty nice way to approach the question. It interested me that they both agreed the writings of Paul met a minimum criteria to establish that there was a historic person of some nature behind the narratives (in Kish's case apparently, perhaps barely so). While the quibbling over Josephus was interesting, to my mind it didn't affect the outcome substantially.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, I don't think requiring primary source documents to establish the plausible existence of a historical Jesus is necessary, neither for proper use of the methodologies of historic investigation nor to engage Christianity as a religion from a critical position.

And that's just it. One doesn't require a source document to establish a plausible* narrative. It has worked for thousands of years for very large religions, and small ones like Mormonism.

One has similar issues with Muhammad, the Gautama Buddha, and various other religions throughout the ages. They all seem to gather steam years after the originator passes, whoever that was, and to whatever degree he is accurately portrayed by later preachers and historians.

V/R
Doc

*by plausible I mean whatever works for the believer to believe

[_Jersey Girl]

ETA: Regarding the evidence, I had linked previously to a discussion between Kishkuman and Aristotle Smith where both discussed method and then evidence which is a pretty nice way to approach the question. It interested me that they both agreed the writings of Paul met a minimum criteria to establish that there was a historic person of some nature behind the narratives (in Kish's case apparently, perhaps barely so). While the quibbling over Josephus was interesting, to my mind it didn't affect the outcome substantially.

I just finished reading it. Remarkable and picked up a book recommend in the process. Thank you.

ETA: Earlier in the thread I wrote,

"What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it."

Yes, just a little! :-)

[_SteelHead]

I tend to go along with those who accept the available evidence as sufficient for there to have been a historical Jesus on whose life the Christian narratives have been built. Not being even remotely versed in historiography, the idea that common methodologies for piecing together ancient history allow what evidence is available for the historic Jesus to be considered reasonable is enough for me to accept it as such without any real concern. I'm not particularly invested in seeing Jesus the person relegated to myth any more than I am concerned in pin-pointing exactly how the Book of Mormon was composed. It would be nice to see both nailed down indisputably, of course, but the tangential evidence regarding Jesus' life and divinity mythology being a human construct in the first case and the Book of Mormon being a construct of the 19th century in the second are more compelling. And thus more interesting to me as topics.

So, I don't think requiring primary source documents to establish the plausible existence of a historical Jesus is necessary, neither for proper use of the methodologies of historic investigation nor to engage Christianity as a religion from a critical position.

ETA: Regarding the evidence, I had linked previously to a discussion between Kishkuman and Aristotle Smith where both discussed method and then evidence which is a pretty nice way to approach the question. It interested me that they both agreed the writings of Paul met a minimum criteria to establish that there was a historic person of some nature behind the narratives (in Kish's case apparently, perhaps barely so). While the quibbling over Josephus was interesting, to my mind it didn't affect the outcome substantially.

I think there is sufficient evidence to make Jesus as a real person plausible, but that the gospels fall far shy of being a historical narrative of his life. They are embellished mythology with the aim of promoting a nascent theology.