• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So?

Profanz

Muse
Profanz
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
932
Has it been determined yet if Jesus actually existed? What is the historical evidence? Who cares if he was the son of god? Was he ever even really here?
 
Profanz said:
Has it been determined yet if Jesus actually existed? What is the historical evidence? Who cares if he was the son of god? Was he ever even really here?
Click to expand...
Much of this is currently being slugged out by mighty polemicists in the "Why didn't Jesus write anything down" thread, which I recommend to you.
 
Well, of course there was a real guy called Jesus Christ, but his real name was Bill Cosby ;)

 
Last edited:
I can summarize it for you : nobody knows for sure. There are good argument either way. But who cares ? Even if he existed, he was a human, probably mentally ill if he really thought he was speaking to Yhwh (or a scammer), and died that day when executed, unless youa re christian in which case you have faith he resurected etc...

So non existence is only a problem if you are christian, but existence is not damaging on anybody's belief.
 
Aepervius said:
So non existence is only a problem if you are christian, but existence is not damaging on anybody's belief.
Click to expand...
Why should Jesus' non-existence be a problem to a Christian? Just take the passages figuratively.

For example, God in his love for us gave us this story of his self-sacrifice (I'm not joking here -- I think this is reasonable for a person of deep faith) in order to provide us redemption, but He is all-powerful and therefore it is not necessary that it actually happened in history. Our belief is enough, and qualifying that belief that way doesn't harm it.

I dare say 20% or so of Buddhists I meet don't think Gautama really existed, at least not as he appears in the Buddha story. They still go to Temple and practice mindfulness and Buddhist ethics and so on. Other Buddhists when told of this non-belief are okay with it -- they say it doesn't really matter what happened historically when one is dealing with one's own path.
 
Non existence is a problem because for many christian sect a lot of the *basis* work of the religion hinge on the christ existing and being a savior. Transubstantitation, sins , saving , if the guy did not exists all of that is utter pointless. Christianity is not mainly based on philosophy (like buddhism) but on worship of certain figures and facts. Mary. Christ. Intercessory prayer. And so forth.

Remove Mary, Remove Christ and you can throw most of the NT in the fire. You eliminate catholicism for example.

Contrast with buddhism where you can adhere to the religion, without having a living buddha, transubstantiation and itnercessory prayer to a non existant christ make *no* sense whatsoever. Heck why do you think it is called christianism.

Oh yeah you might as well renamed it paulinism, as discussed in this threads, or even Yhwhism.
 
RandFan said:
I don't know. Ehrman, an atheist and author of Misquoting Jesus seem to think so and makes a fairly compelling argument.

Bart Ehrman on the Existence of a Historical Jesus
Click to expand...


Well, yes, but see the extensive discussion of Ehrman's book in the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)" thread linked above, which concluded that he seems to make a distinction between the historical Jesus that he says existed and a divine Jesus.
 
Profanz said:
Has it been determined yet if Jesus actually existed? What is the historical evidence? Who cares if he was the son of god? Was he ever even really here?
Click to expand...

Great post! You should try to apply this kind of critical thinking to the 9/11 forum.
 
Mojo said:
Well, yes, but see the extensive discussion of Ehrman's book in the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)" thread linked above, which concluded that he seems to make a distinction between the historical Jesus that he says existed and a divine Jesus.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. That is correct.
 
deaman said:
Whether jesus existed or not, will you be a different person than you are?
Click to expand...
The problem I have with this kind of hypothetical is that there is no way to know. There's too many assumptions that must be made. I damn sure know that had I lived during the time of Jesus knowing what I know now, I would have been morally obligated to prevent human sacrifice. What is immoral cannot be made moral by fiat. Omnipotence and omniscience doesn't give any entity the right to sit idle while a human being (son of god or not) to suffer and die. And the plan that his son be killed to pay for people's crimes is absurd and saying that omnipotent god had no other choice is silly beyond comprehension.
 
I don't believe in jesus, god or gods.....

RandFan said:
The problem I have with this kind of hypothetical is that there is no way to know. There's too many assumptions that must be made. I damn sure know that had I lived during the time of Jesus knowing what I know now, I would have been morally obligated to prevent human sacrifice. What is immoral cannot be made moral by fiat. Omnipotence and omniscience doesn't give any entity the right to sit idle while a human being (son of god or not) to suffer and die. And the plan that his son be killed to pay for people's crimes is absurd and saying that omnipotent god had no other choice is silly beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you would not be any different, even if you did believe in such myth's.
 
RandFan said:
I don't know. Ehrman, an atheist and author of Misquoting Jesus seem to think so and makes a fairly compelling argument.

Bart Ehrman on the Existence of a Historical Jesus
Click to expand...

What argument was that? His recent book was absolutely dismal scholarship, especially when dealing with his treatment of Doherty

His stance probably could have been guessed by those who heard Ehrman on the Infidelguy show years ago, but normally we see much, MUCH better scholarship from Ehrman

His book gives no argument for a historical Jesus

The article you link only offers an appeal to authority, an appeal to the bible, and an argument from ignorance
 
deaman said:
I'm going to assume you would not be any different, even if you did believe in such myth's.
Click to expand...
I wish you had used the term "believe" in your original post.

When I believed in such myths I went to church weekly, served a mission, actively proselytized on a part time basis for years after my mission, volunteered as Sunday School teacher, met regularly with other members in their homes to discuss religious matters, prayed daily, read scriptures daily, believed in dualism, accepted my church's stance against gays and lesbians, believed the Book of Mormon was the word of god, paid tithing.

Other than that and a hundred other things I'm exactly the same.
 
pipelineaudio said:
What argument was that? His recent book was absolutely dismal scholarship, especially when dealing with his treatment of Doherty

His stance probably could have been guessed by those who heard Ehrman on the Infidelguy show years ago, but normally we see much, MUCH better scholarship from Ehrman

His book gives no argument for a historical Jesus

The article you link only offers an appeal to authority, an appeal to the bible, and an argument from ignorance
Click to expand...
We can disagree.
 
pipelineaudio said:
... His stance probably could have been guessed by those who heard Ehrman on the Infidelguy show years ago, but normally we see much, MUCH better scholarship from Ehrman

His book gives no argument for a historical Jesus

The article you link only offers an appeal to authority, an appeal to the bible, and an argument from ignorance
Click to expand...
Ehrman's response to Richard Carrier is worth a read. http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
 
RandFan said:
I wish you had used the term "believe" in your original post.

When I believed in such myths I went to church weekly, served a mission, actively proselytized on a part time basis for years after my mission, volunteered as Sunday School teacher, met regularly with other members in their homes to discuss religious matters, prayed daily, read scriptures daily, believed in dualism, accepted my church's stance against gays and lesbians, believed the Book of Mormon was the word of god, paid tithing.

Other than that and a hundred other things I'm exactly the same.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious and interesting, as I am also ex-mormon, and you could be writing about my own experience with the church. Almost right down the line.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
The problem I have with this kind of hypothetical is that there is no way to know. There's too many assumptions that must be made. I damn sure know that had I lived during the time of Jesus knowing what I know now, I would have been morally obligated to prevent human sacrifice. What is immoral cannot be made moral by fiat. Omnipotence and omniscience doesn't give any entity the right to sit idle while a human being (son of god or not) to suffer and die. And the plan that his son be killed to pay for people's crimes is absurd and saying that omnipotent god had no other choice is silly beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's one thing that depends on what you know NOW. The Romans at the time were also against human sacrifice, and had been so for quite some time.

Plus, look at the attitudes Christians had regarding Jesus's execution. Even though they supposedly believed that Jesus WANTED to die, and that he HAD to die or nobody would be saved... they still rabidly condemned Judas and the Jews for the execution. I don't think even in the first few centuries of our era it was palatable to execute an innocent, even if he wanted to be executed.
 
Craig B said:
Ehrman's response to Richard Carrier is worth a read. http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
Click to expand...

And then there's Carrier's response to that. Actually Ehrman just made more hash of what actually exists as historical evidence and what doesn't. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of Ehrman's qualifications as a historian.

And, as I was saying in the other thread, Ehrman got his Ph.D. from a theological seminar, and it's in bible studies, not in history. While I respect the hell out his expertise and work in tracking down and studying all those Bible manuscripts and all, or the secular approach to it, if he wants to play a bigger authority on ancient history than the guy with a Ph.D. in ancient history, he just isn't. He's about as big an authority on ancient history as I am. And I ain't.

I'm sorry, but studying Bible manuscripts is to being a historian, well, just what studying all the Star Trek scripts is to being a physicist. If you want to know if a warp drive is possible (and apparently it might be), you ask a real physicist, not go to Memory Alpha. And if you want to know exactly what was the situation in the 1st century CE, you ask a historian, not the bible studies guys.

Now, of course, if he wants to present his arguments and show how it adds up to the conclusion, I'm still of the opinion that he doesn't need a fancy title to do so. Sure, you don't need a title to be right. But he kinda can also stop doing an argument from authority in every other interview or speech, when he's just not an authority on the relevant domain. The relevant domain for what happened in the 1st century CE is history, not bible studies. Not any more than Cthulhu mythos scholarship is the relevant domain for being an authority on what happened in the 20's-30's, and whether actually some Scandinavian sailor awoke Cthulhu in risen R'lyeh. I mean for example Price (yeah, the same with Mythical Jesus) is possibly the leading scholar of Cthulhu mythos, but THAT wouldn't qualify him as an authority on the history of that time period.
 
Last edited:
deaman said:
That's hilarious and interesting, as I am also ex-mormon, and you could be writing about my own experience with the church. Almost right down the line.
Click to expand...
And it all stemmed from your childhood indoctrination.

I spent several years of my childhood in Moab, before we moved to Grand Junction (Colorado). So, most of my friends were Mormons. However, my family were all Jehovah's Witnesses, and I guess so was I. I was certainly indoctrinated enough, although my resistance started early and I was no end of problem for my family.

Now I live in Vietnam and all my friends are Buddhists, although generally of the atheist sort. There are Roman Catholics here, but they are not very friendly or likeable, at least compared to the Catholics in the states, who seem more tolerant and less dogmatic.

Why are most Vietnamese Buddhist, most Indians Hindu, most Malaysians Muslim, most Filipinos, Roman Catholic, most Greeks, Greek Orthodox, most Utahans, Salt Lake City Mormons, most Mississippians, Southern Baptist and most Minnesotans, Lutheran?

The answer is so obvious and so much an accident of birth that it is astonishing that nevertheless each of these people think their religion is true universally, beyond their local culture.

The feelings people who escaped their childhood indoctrination, especially if it was from a sectarian group, always tends to be one of a considerable anger. This is anger at what was done to them, at the lies they were fed before their minds were mature enough to make reasonable assessments, and at the time they ended up wasting.

Of course it is wasted anger; it does me no good and can harm me.
 
Frank Merton said:
Why should Jesus' non-existence be a problem to a Christian? Just take the passages figuratively.

For example, God in his love for us gave us this story of his self-sacrifice (I'm not joking here -- I think this is reasonable for a person of deep faith) in order to provide us redemption, but He is all-powerful and therefore it is not necessary that it actually happened in history. Our belief is enough, and qualifying that belief that way doesn't harm it. ...
Click to expand...
Aepervius said:
Non existence is a problem because for many christian sect a lot of the *basis* work of the religion hinge on the christ existing and being a savior. Transubstantitation, sins , saving , if the guy did not exists all of that is utter pointless. ...
Click to expand...

I think Frank isn't really saying that Jesus' non-existence is not a problem, but rather it is a problem that has an easy solution for a person of sufficient faith.


I once joined an afternoon of bible reading and studying with a group of very faithful christian young adults (denomination: Church of Christ - the Anderson, Indiana variety). They read a passage from a letter by Peter (German translation, don't ask me which). That passage said something along the lines of "you have to suffer like Christ did to make it to the kingdom". Strangely, I, the only agnostic (at the time) present, was the only one to notice that this went against a core belief of this group of christians, namely that Jesus suffered and died on the cross in our stead so that we don't have to suffer like he did, and only need faith. But, with the Bible being supposedly inerrant, even translations, because, ya know, the Holy Dove inspires everyone who types a Bible manuscript, these young folks bent over backwards, smoothly, effortlessly, to explain the discrepancy.
Till one of them, a student of theology and thus of koine Greek, flung out his Greek text, and found that indeed the German translation was erroneous!
At which point the group bent over backwards smoothly once more to explain how the German text wasn't inerrant after all (I don't recall, but quite possibly it was declared the work of satan, but hallelujah, since they were all so string in faith and prayer, the Holy Dove had sent the student of Greek into their midst to defeat the work of the evil one).
So there - Christians don't have a hard time doing 180° reversals twice an hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom