Jesus' Wife?

[Valmy]

I think they are trying to communicate that this "guy" is whatever they needed him to be at the time they were writing whatever it is they were writing.

Which was how this kind of thing was traditionally done. You cannot expect people of that era to not act within their own culture.

My point here is that their goal was not so much to convince anyone that Christ was the Son of God and should be worshiped, but that people should listen to whatever it is they are trying to tell them. That might be that he is the Christ, and it might be that you should be nice to prostitutes, and it might be that you really should pay your taxes.

I think their goal was to express that Christ was the Son of God and thus the perfect man and then go about defining what that means and demonstrating what that looks like in context of stories and events that the reader would have heard of.

There is nothing here that is clearly driven by what they actually think happened, as opposed to what message they want to send. What happened, or what characteristics Christ had, is completely malleable  - he is just a stand in for whatever the writer wants to say.

Well it is not that simple. I mean they, like Herodotus, are driven by what they think happened but that is informed by certain values. They just thought about things differently.

In other words, for any particular writer, is they wanted to say "One ought to think proposition X" then it just so happened that Jesus said "X is really great!". There isn't any sense that the writers might have thought ~X, and changed their mind because of what they learned about Jesus'.

No they were informed by Greek philosophy and the Greek historical tradition. Not by the Enlightenment. Which is what one should expect right?

[Valmy]

Indeed - which is why I think the argument about whether Jesus actually existed or not pretty much misses the point.

Even if the entire point is a discussion about his possible historic existence? I would agree it misses the point of his spiritual role. He is a representation of a spiritually perfect person. Loving and selfless.

Whether he did or did not exist, it seems very clear that assuming some person did exist who people generally mean when they talk about "Jesus", he likely would be as surprised by his supposed characteristics as any modern reader is reading about them.

Probably.

Which is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.

I don't think that is reasonable at all. They wrote about him the way they wrote about everybody. Likewise it would be surprising to find that the historical Nero was nothing at all like his portrayal even if much was added as a literary device. They are accentuating qualities they understood him to have to communicate certain things.

[Sheilbh]

I recommend Pope Benedict's Jesus trilogy on this sort of thing. It really is a very brilliant series of books. And it's like reading great criticism or history, even when you disagree and are aware of their biases, there's a real pleasure in seeing expertly executed interpretation.

[Berkut]

Indeed - which is why I think the argument about whether Jesus actually existed or not pretty much misses the point.

Even if the entire point is a discussion about his possible historic existence? I would agree it misses the point of his spiritual role. He is a representation of a spiritually perfect person. Loving and selfless.

But in that case, whether he actually existed or not isn't even relevant. The idea of him is what is being sold, so who actually cares whether or not he was a real person?

But the reality is that people do in fact care a great deal. The basis of the dominant world religion rests on the idea that he actually existed, not that there is some existent ideal.

Whether he did or did not exist, it seems very clear that assuming some person did exist who people generally mean when they talk about "Jesus", he likely would be as surprised by his supposed characteristics as any modern reader is reading about them.

Probably.

Which is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.

I don't think that is reasonable at all. They wrote about him the way they wrote about everybody.

I don't think this "they" you are referencing was some homogenous entity that all had identical goals and methods.

Likewise it would be surprising to find that the historical Nero was nothing at all like his portrayal even if much was added as a literary device.

If it turned out that in fact Nero had nothing at all to do with his depiction, then in fact that would be rather interesting, and if someone made an argument that I should believe something on the basis of the idea that Nero had some set of characteristics, then in fact it would be rather relevant to point out that he actually did not.

And you can't really compare some historical figure to God. It isn't really an analogy that works - nobody is asking anyone to structure our moral, ethical, and societal codes around the divine revelation of Nero. If they do, and it gains traction, then it might be worthwhile pointing out to them as well that they actually don't really know the first thing about the actual Nero and what he thought, and in fact their scripture is actually entirely created by themselves, and has no more intrinsic validity than any other set of ideas put forth by their contemporaries.

They are accentuating qualities they understood him to have to communicate certain things.

How do you know they are accentuating qualities they understood him to have, or are making up whatever qualities they wish for him to have?

Like, for example, that he is the actual son of god, as opposed to simply a teacher?

[Razgovory]

As a matter of fact, there decent evidence that the historical knowledge of Nero is incorrect.  I believe Josephus mentioned that he was slandered by historians in Rome.  Our knowledge of historical character of great antiquity is poor.  Often based on one or two sources.  It's entirely possible that Nero didn't kill his mother.  Perhaps it was just a slander created by his enemies.  And of course, the Caesars were worships as gods.

[Berkut]

Valmy, I don't recall - are you actually a Christian? Do you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact divine?

[The Brain]

He was certainly fabulous.

[Caliga]

One thing I'll say for him, Jesus was cool.

[The Brain]

One thing I'll say for him, Jesus was cool.

Yeah, and I can't fucking believe that they changed that line!

[jimmy olsen]

Just read the article in the OP. Wow did the investigation go some weird places, was not expecting kind and sensitive personholding gangbang porn to be a significant clue when I started it.

EDIT: Who the hell edited my post!?

[HVC]

If you used c u c k or a derivitive the board auto changes it.

*edit* also why are you posting in a two month old thread without adding anything?

[jimmy olsen]

If you used c u c k or a derivitive the board auto changes it.

*edit* also why are you posting in a two month old thread without adding anything?

I just came across the article and wanted to add my 2 cents.

[HVC]

Well at least you posting reminded me of the time CdM admitted his love of big cock rabbits in Mexico and I've been giggling for the last few minutes, so it wasn't all bad.

[Josephus]

It would make me sad to think that Jesus had a mother in law

A Jewish one at that.

[Josephus]

There are faster ways to kill yourself then to create fictional character that offends local authorities so they saw you in half, or behead you.

Yeah I am pretty sure Jesus was a real dude who existed and who had followers. It seems a bit bizarre to create a person and movement simply because you want to piss off both the Jews and the Romans in the 1st century.

But, you know, Jesus didn't write any books like Caesar did.

Yeah. Thats always been my argument. There was no profit in inventing Jesus at the time. Certainly it didn't work out for Paul, his key "inventor". Whether Jesus was the Son of God is debatable, but that he existed in one form or another, to me, makes sense.