> Sheesh. It's so hard to discuss so many faulty and illogical
> statements at once.
> First, I don't read the Bible as fact or history, just as a
> compilation of writings composed over a period of years by
> many people in many places.
But you have asked (not sure if you did in your original post in this thread) on previous occaisions if anyone thinks that Jesus actually exised...
I don't think the Bible was intended as a history book in the sense of how we think of history books today. It is, though, IMHO, primarily a record of man's spiritual journey through an inhospitable world.
> Secondly, I don't consider the Bible authoritative on
> anything. I'm not at all convinced that Jesus as we know him
> was a real person, though it's possible that he's an amalgam
> of various religious, mythological, and even perhaps real
> people... a personage who evolved with the telling, the
> composing, and the dialogues and discussions of many groups,
> from grass roots sects to high church councils.
I believe that he probably did exist. From various records, we know that there was a religious sect growing rapidly approximately 30 years and onwards after the reported death of Jesus. Several sources documented this, including Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, etc.
What's amazing is that the people in this Christian sect, refered to by these sources, were claiming that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem within people's lifetime!
Do you think such a sect would continue growing if someone came forward and said he'd been a temple guard or a roman soldier all through that period and had never heard of this Jesus character?
However, the main point is that there is not a single piece of evidence from this period saying that there was a sect which believed in the a man that didn't even exist, comments that surely such a fast growing religion would attract if there was any doubt of his very existence!
The lack of contemporary evidence disclaining either his existence or his reported words is pretty strong evidence in itself!
> Thirdly, I've done a search, and everything I'm finding
> supports my idea as stated in the first post... that Jesus is
> something of a composite of older or other religious figures
> such as Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc., and something of a
> Jewish-Roman creation.
Why don't you produce your research for scrutiny? I'd love to see what you've come up with that makes you feel so certain.
> About haloes... did I ever say or imply that the word halo
> was used in the Bible? Sheesh.
No, I didn't say you did either! But I was only covering all angles. I don't know why you have a problem with that. However, you did say that you could see something of Horus and Mithra in the depictions of Christ. What makes you think that then?
> I'm starting to feel a bit spammed and disrespected by your
> incessant, difficult to discuss, posts. I would like others
> to feel comfortable discussing these issues as well.
How am I stopping others from discussing these issues? Again you don't say... but what's new?
I am also not spamming you. That is an ad hominem attack on me because you don't want to have your views challenged.
I'll leave it to others to work out why you have difficulty replying to my posts but the answer is pretty obvious to me!
> Also, I don't respect Holding as a source at all. He's too
> biased as an evangelical bible thumping Christian.
Holding is not a Bible thumping Christian. If that's the best you can do to discredit a sincere researcher, it's a pretty tacky attempt, unless of course you can show that he's a Bible thumper but you never give anything to back up your claims, do you!
Holdings article is well referenced and well written article, unless, for a change, you can show otherwise.