Not one single word of that provides any evidence of a historical Jesus. So why the extra screen name Jem. Does it make you feel you've gotten some extra support In the same way your ill-considered posts do , christians have nothing but blustered about how Jesus was historical ... Yet there is not one scrap of actual historical evidence in support of a historical Jesus.
All history is fiction. We agree that Jesus was fictional, but for different reasons. You say Jesus was not a character in the story that you call history, and what i call fiction. How many characters, of all the players on the world stage 2000 years ago, have the historical credentials that you require for them to be bona fide historical figures? Likely, 99% of the world's population did not exist historically, according to your requirements. You are requiring that Jesus be included in the 1% of historical figures that have sufficient documentation to convince you that they existed historically. Why do you think Jesus should be included in the 1% of historical figures that are sufficiently documented according to your requirements? What, exactly, are your requirements again? Admittedly, the legend of Jesus may not reflect what Jesus actually represented anymore than the legend of Santa Claus reflects the man *Nicholas of Bari* (St. Nick). Fallacious legends do not mean that the initial catalyst (the historical persona) did not appear on the world stage. Jesus, like Socrates, did not leave many texts penned of his own hand. We know of Socrates chiefly through his students Plato and Xenophon. We may also know of Socrates through Aristophanes, whose play, "The Clouds" is said (by Plato) to have been a slander that led to the trial and execution of Socrates. Assuming Plato and Xenophon represented Socrates while Aristophanes misrepresented, we have historical precedence for literary controversy over a historical figure, who, coincidentally, was also a teacher of sorts. Like Socrates, Jesus' teachings were controversial. Explosive is a better adjective to describe what was fundamentally theological nitro glycerine. And like Socrates, literature that both represented and misrepresented was generated to caricature what Jesus was all about. Over time, fanatics giving allegiance to misrepresentation literature attacked what literature was more representative, or what disagreed with their theological positions. Suppose the believers of Aristophanes version of Socrates went out and burned every last text deriving from Plato and Xenophon. This is parable to what happened with the legend of Jesus. Evidence of textual persecution is coming forth, for example, with the finding of the Gospel of Thomas, buried for it's own protection, somewhere in an Egyptian desert. What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert? Besides the Gospel of Thomas, scholars believe that the historically victorious versions of the legend of Jesus (the synoptic gospels) are somehow rooted in a source document ("Q") that cannot be found. Possibly, it reflected the tone of the Gospel of Thomas too much to be included in the evolving documentation which was becoming more and more hearsay as the earliest most original documents were being more and more expunged from the historical record. The net effect is that we have stories of Jesus that are so ambiguous, fictional, and far removed that we are tempted to question the very catalyst (historical persona) of those legends, whether such a person existed or not. Do you really think that there were not any fanatical theological book burners in those days? And are you really expecting the highest standard of historical documentation to survive a hot climate of ideological warfare, a climate for which we have much evidence? Are you expecting that this warfare was fought fairly? Is it fair, for example, for literary adversaries to insert interpolations into other authors works in order to support a fanatical agenda? Certainly not. And yet, study of history suggests this was not only done, but done audaciously, extensively, and with impunity (they either got away with it or they almost got away with it). Jesus was a teacher who did not leave much of a physical footprint. This would be typical of any teacher who did not pen his own texts. Not all teachers penned their own texts. So let's not expect his footprint to measure up with figures who physically altered the landscape either through construction, destruction, or the survival of textual authorship. What Jesus taught was ideologically explosive. As a result, much of what we would consider evidence may have been destroyed. We have evidence that religious fanatics were not above textual destruction. Book burning was not so much an exception but a recurring practice by regional (religio) authorities, and would haunt any kind of controversial authorship. What Jesus taught was so explosive that his own existence has come into question. Ironically, what he taught questioned the existence of his own life...questioned the very foundation of the world. Perhaps those who question his existence are closer to the truth than those who insist upon his place in history. Perhaps not. Those who question his historicity stand on the same ground as those who do not...and call it "reality". Each in his own way fabricates a legend built on a lie.
I am not sure if you agree with Elisabeth but she is clearly dyslexic. I don't see anywhere in what you posted written that Jews killed Jesus. So i don't get her comment.
All history is fiction. You must be aware how absurd a statement that is. making it totaly hypocritical of you to then try and use pseudo reasoning based on ideas about non-fictional history. Self-contradiction always did appear to be your forte. Although we might agree Jesus is fictional, unlike yourself, I certainly would not be anyway content with the absurd reasoning you offer for it. Evidence of textual persecution is coming forth, for example, with the finding of the Gospel of Thomas, buried for it's own protection, somewhere in an Egyptian desert. What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert? Evidence of "textual persecution".... lol What other reason? Dropped. Lost..... Arthur Conan Doyle losing original scribbles of his famous stories and the arch bishop of Canterbury finding them some 2000 years later buried in his garden, just as with Jesus, would not make Sherlock Holmes non-fictional. No worries dude. No Jesus. No comeback
Only the truth is true. Truth is not the memory of a series of unfortunate events. Truth is a Being that never changes. History is like a dream of this Being. Dreams are fictions. Understanding how the dream functions does not make it a fact. The dream functions as a Self-contradiction. It is good at it. In order to dismiss Jesus from your field of so-called facts, you'd have to engage in not a little absurdity of your own. The absurdity of your assertions is like someone who saw a crater and shrapnel and dead people and dismissed the possibility that a bomb went off...while thinking himself a forensics expert. Textual preferences are like sexual preferences. Are you hereby stating that in the records of history, authors and/or their texts have not been persecuted? Are you stating that there is no chance that any documents testifying of Jesus were expunged from the record or that an attempt was made on their life to destroy them? So you are comparing a small library of books of similar orientation (contra orthodoxy) contained in a clay jar and buried in a remote place to someone who loses his notes? If so, you would not make a very good detective. If this is how you think, your comments on the non-role of Jesus in the fiction of history lack credibility.
Yes sure it's a reasonable comparison. You think your reference sounds any more credible for making a fictional character real? You must be joking. Nomad camel herders do remote. They would lose stuff remote In my comparison Conan Doyle is said to have left an original library of his work in a chest in a cellar and forgot about it. My example is quite pertinent to yours and makes the point that Sherlock like Jesus is obviously not made non-fictional because those writings are later discovered. May I suggest you just stick to your nonsensical hippy talk dude. Itâs stupid enough.