5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Willy Law]

Just listened to a decent podcast on this from the Thinking Atheist. I'm a hopeful agnostic when it comes to a historical Jesus

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/podca ... -of-christ

[_I have a question]

3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes or no, what relevance does that have for us today?

I suppose if you come up with the answer that you don't believe that Jesus existed or that you don't believe he actually did the things that the Gospel authors claim that he did, you could always use the scriptures to form a kind of philosophy for living.

Or not.

Seriously, though. If you're strongly interested in this topic, check out the link that EA provided. That will take you to what I think of as an awesome and informative thread. Read the comments provided by Aristotle and Kish, and see what you think about it.

I'm not here to change your mind about anything either way.

You seem to think I'm searching for an answer to the question about Jesus historicity or authenticity. I'm not. If I've mislead you then....GREAT! I'm interested in the question about, if we start from a base assumption that Jesus is exactly the guy portrayed in the Gosoels who did all the things he's portrayed as doing....then so what? Of what material difference does that make today, here and now, for us?

[_Chap]

1. Poster A:
So far as I can see, the situation in regard to jesus as an object of history is more or less as follows:
(a) A series of events occurred in first-century Palestine that generated a series of narratives about a person called Jesus. The most economical explanation of the origin of those narratives is that a person of that name actually existed in that time and place.
(b) However, the nature of those narratives is such that they are unlikely to give us much reliable historical information about what the person called Jesus actually did.

2. Poster B:
Yes, but how on earth can you expect to have reliable historical evidence about a first-century Galilean peasant? People like that just didn't get written into the kind of records generated by people who were not his followers, and in any case only a small part of such records has survived.

3. Poster A:
Did I suggest otherwise? Not only is there little or no reliable historical information about what Jesus actually did - we wouldn't expect there to be much, if any. Please note that I am not saying that he didn't exist at all. We just don't have much reliable information about him.

[By the way: having been away from this thread for a while, I return to it to find that the signal to noise ratio has improved markedly. Could there be some technical explanation for this?]

[_Jersey Girl]

You seem to think I'm searching for an answer to the question about Jesus historicity or authenticity. I'm not.

I don't know what to think about your intention. I certainly couldn't tell from you OP. Five bullet points and nothing else, leaves me with five bullet points and nothing else.

If I've mislead you then....GREAT!

I'm interested in the question about, if we start from a base assumption that Jesus is exactly the guy portrayed in the Gosoels who did all the things he's portrayed as doing....then so what? Of what material difference does that make today, here and now, for us?

I'll return to the above tomorrow and see what I want to do with your questions. That is, assuming you're not misleading me again.

;-)

[_I have a question]

I'll return to the above tomorrow and see what I want to do with your questions. That is, assuming you're not misleading me again.

;-)

My questions are to the board in general, feel free to contribute...or not...

You need to stop disrespecting me, I hold the Priesthood.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello Cam!

And again, what makes Mr. K and Mr. EA any more knowledgeable on the matter than anyone else?
- Doc

I think you meant to type Mr. K and Mr. AS, yes? (Not that my friend EA isn't a very knowledgable fellow that contributed in that- IMO- awesome thread as well)

As clearly shown by reading the past thread that was referenced by EA in this thread - Mr. K and Mr. AS have an abundance of deep and wide knowledge concerning this topic. As someone who obviously knew/knows much, much, much less about this than either of them did/do, I was very appreciative to read their contributions and I learned quite a bit from them. in my opinion - the informative value of their contributions were exceedingly high!

Now, that does not mean that they - any they alone - are the only two people who possesses this high level of knowledge but to answer your above question - "What makes them any more knowledgable on the matter than anyone else?"

I would suggest that reading a single thread - the one that was linked here - would provide a mountain of concrete evidence that these two MDB members (Kish and AS) are fantastically more knowledgable on this particular topic than the average MDB member is. (I certainly put myself in the "average MDB member" category)

But what I find interesting (and more than a little puzzling) is - given this obvious knowledge that has been shared - why would some not simply read and appreciate it? Why the resistance to give credit where credit is so clearly deserved?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Chap]

...

But what I find interesting (and more than a little puzzling) is - given this obvious knowledge that has been shared - why would some not simply read and appreciate it? Why the resistance to give credit where credit is so clearly deserved?

...

Who is resisting reading anybody's posts? A good post gets appreciated without the need for any recommendation but itself. One-member fan-clubs and their associated schmoozing are simply an irritating distraction from that. (But as the Four Noble Truths teach us, there is an end to suffering. You just have to push the right buttons.)

That is the nice thing about a discussion board where pseudonymity is the normal state of things. Nobody gets to do a John Gee here - "Hey! I have a PhD, so I won't even address your arguments unless you can pass this little test I have devised." For those without such qualifications, this game gives them a fair try at the ball.

Even better, for those with weighty academic qualifications and impressive affiliations, they get to see how much attention their views are given if nobody knows who and what they are. What's not to like?

And by and large, it all works pretty well.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Chap!

...

But what I find interesting (and more than a little puzzling) is - given this obvious knowledge that has been shared - why would some not simply read and appreciate it? Why the resistance to give credit where credit is so clearly deserved?

...

Who is resisting reading anybody's posts?

What?
I have a better question for you - Who asked if anyone was resisting reading anybody's posts?

One-member fan-clubs and their associated schmoozing are simply an irritating distraction from that.

OMG! (Or if you prefer - Oh my crap load of random mutations and natural selection with a few splashes of punctuated equilibrium tossed in)

In my years on these boards, this might be the most ironic post I have ever read!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Chap]

...

But what I find interesting (and more than a little puzzling) is - given this obvious knowledge that has been shared - why would some not simply read and appreciate it? Why the resistance to give credit where credit is so clearly deserved?

...

Who is resisting reading anybody's posts?

Hey Chap!

What?

I have a better question for you - Who asked if anyone was resisting reading anybody's posts?

Perhaps I am missing your point? What is it that you think is not being done, but that you want to be done?

[_Ceeboo]

What is it that you think is not being done,

Reading!

but that you want to be done?

Reading before replying!

Peace,
Ceeboo