Jump to content

Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

I think you are attempting to read too far into the motives of different scholars in assessing their work rather than reviewing the work head on. Richard Carrier for example doesn't claim Jesus never existed. Rather he claims that the evidence that Jesus did is strong. I personally don't see any reason why someone saying "I don't know" would be viewed as being angry.  As for Ehrman he has moved on the issue over time as his own religious beliefs have changed. His beliefs and not merely the evidence clearly has shaped his views. I doubt even he would deny that. 

3

So whats your hypothesis ten?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Suits me. Your expectation of a pat on the back, for the lamest of argument is tiresome. And claiming a consensus for it, as justification is laughable. What it says is, I can't justify it with my own

Eise often backs up his claims with an imaginary consensus. He often claims to know what many/most/all scholars/historians/scientists think. If this is a scienceforum then his comments in this thread

That's a lie. Did you watch his videos?

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So whats your hypothesis ten?

That those who'd claim Jesus absolutely did or didn't exist are overstating their evidence. Obviously no one came back from the dead, walked on water, and etc. So we know much of the story of Jesus is fiction. Where (whom) that fiction came from and where the line was drawn between fiction and reality isn't something I know the answer to. Jesus having been a real life person or not a real life person seem equally as likely to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That those who'd claim Jesus absolutely did or didn't exist are overstating their evidence. Obviously no one came back from the dead, walked on water, and etc. So we know much of the story of Jesus is fiction. Where (whom) that fiction came from and where the line was drawn between fiction and reality isn't something I know the answer to. Jesus having been a real life person or not a real life person seem equally as likely to me. 

Were they referring to a person (whose name may have been Jesus), or something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Were they referring to a person (whose name may have been Jesus), or something else?

I don't know. With the current information available I don't see how that could be determined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eise said:

That is a strong interpretation of the psychology of Paul. Fact is that the epistles are letters to churches that Paul initiated. He was traveling through the Mediterranean countries, starting Christian communities everywhere where he could. When some problems arose in one of those, he wrote his letters, addressing these problems. So the Paulean epistles are totally different from the gospels: the gospels were written (from hearsay) to record the life of Jesus; Paul's epistles are literately letters with no intention to describe the life of Jesus.  And who knows, maybe he had a (pre-)version of the gospel of Marc in his backpack? Marc was also written 30 years after Jesus' death, so it could be possible. 

It's not meant to be, it's my opinion of the psychology of ANYBODY. I simply can't believe that Paul or anybody would have composed those letters, only 25 years after the supposed dramas of the execution and rising from the dead of Jesus, and hardly put a word in about any of it. That REALLY is stretching my credulity too far. The religion is about Jesus. All about him rising from the dead. If it happened today, would the pope be writing an important letter with hardly a mention of it? It's just not possible. He should have been FULL of it. And Paul claiming to have met Peter and James, can hardly claim ignorance. 

Don't get me wrong, Eise, I'm not convinced fully either way, and am writing as devil's advocate really.
I do appreciate your posts, and that's the whole idea, to bounce facts and opinions off each other.

If you put yourself in Paul's shoes, how could you write such a letter, and not include a load of stuff about the real Jesus? Especially if he had just recently met with Peter, the sidekick of Jesus, and James, the actual BROTHER of the man. 
Where are the mentions of his parents, their parents, his home village, his occupation, his marital status, his words of wisdom etc etc ? Why is Paul relying on words spoken in a vision, when Peter and James would have repeated hours and hours of the ACTUAL words that Jesus spoke while he was alive?
If it was all true, Paul would have been saying, "Jesus said this, Jesus did that, his parents did this and that, etc etc." 

There is also a massive contradiction in Paul's attitude to resurrection. Paul is clearly strongly making the point, that resurrection means that a SPIRITUAL body is what rises again, and the old dead body just rots away. And yet Peter and James would presumably have full information on the empty tomb and the physical appearances of Jesus in the flesh. It's not just a detail, rising from the dead is what the whole religion is based on. Why would there be an empty tomb, if Jesus just rose spiritually? So Paul was clearly not aware of the empty tomb story. How could that be, if Jesus was a real man, and he had recently spoken to Peter and James?

So I do agree that Paul's epistles are the best, in fact the only real evidence for either side of the argument. But as I see it, it's between on one side, just a few words, that could easily have had a slightly different meaning, or been added later, versus on the other side, the entire text of the letters, and what they should be be including but aren't. I just can't buy the argument, that they could have been written that way, in the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ten oz said:

I don't know. With the current information available I don't see how that could be determined. 

Do you doubt Joseph Smith (possible aka) started the Mormons? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Joseph Smith was a real person. Numerous peers contemporary to his life wrote of him, art of his likeness contemporary to him was produced, news papers wrote of him in real time, Smith himself wrote things, his tomb exists, and etc. Loads of evidence that Smith was a real flesh and blood human. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I believe Joseph Smith was a real person. Numerous peers contemporary to his life wrote of him, art of his likeness contemporary to him was produced, news papers wrote of him in real time, Smith himself wrote things, his tomb exists, and etc. Loads of evidence that Smith was a real flesh and blood human. 

Sounds familiar, how long do you think that will last? More to the point it's certainly possible that wasn't his name at the get-go, but even more to the point, it's a religion and it started with a real human.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sounds familiar, how long do you think that will last? More to the point it's certainly possible that wasn't his name at the get-go, but even more to the point, it's a religion and it started with a real human.

Thousands of years from now if people don't have access to the evidence of Joseph Smith's existence I currently have access to than it would be totally appropriate for them to have doubts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sounds familiar, how long do you think that will last? More to the point it's certainly possible that wasn't his name at the get-go, but even more to the point, it's a religion and it started with a real human.

All religions start with real humans. But they don't have to be ABOUT real humans. People used to worship the Sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Thousands of years from now if people don't have access to the evidence of Joseph Smith's existence I currently have access to than it would be totally appropriate for them to have doubts. 

About his name or humanity?

Just now, mistermack said:

People used to worship the Sun.

We got better...

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It would be appropriate for people to doubt anything they didn't have evidence for. 

Indeed, history shows many thousands of God's, none of which have been found, so, it seems they're extremely rare, humans on the other hand...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, history shows many thousands of God's, none of which have been found, so, it seems they're extremely rare, humans on the other hand...

Not all humans of legend are real. There no defacto answer here based on tradition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But as far as | know all gods aren't and all humans are...

Depends on what you mean by "all Humans". Are both Huck Finn and Tom Blankenship real or was just Tom Blankenship?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 1:50 AM, mistermack said:

Was there a REAL person, at the heart of the Christian religion?

There are many miracles ascribed to Jesus. A lot of the NT is scientifically impossible. It's pretty clear why they wrote it. There was no real person at the heart of the Christian religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

There are many miracles ascribed to Jesus. A lot of the NT is scientifically impossible. It's pretty clear why they wrote it. There was no real person at the heart of the Christian religion.

Wow, so you of all people are saying God did it?

LOL your neg reps have become a badge of honour, It...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wow, so you of all people are saying God did it?

No. Again, many of the NT is scientifically impossible.  And It's impossible to know which of the scientific possible stories are fiction or non-fiction.

We also don't know if those stories are about one person. There were perhaps many interesting characters that did some cool stuff, they then pretended one person did the cool stuff and called it 'Jesus'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Wow, so you of all people are saying God did it?

LOL your neg reps have become a badge of honour, It...

You are being bizarrely irrational in this thread.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you are failing brilliantly.

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

There are many miracles ascribed to Jesus. A lot of the NT is scientifically impossible. It's pretty clear why they wrote it. There was no real person at the heart of the Christian religion.

The last sentence doesn't follow from the previous ones. 

There are many possible reasons for stories of miracles, none of which prove or disprove the existence of the historical Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Strange said:

There are many possible reasons for stories of miracles, none of which prove or disprove the existence of the historical Jesus.

'nough said. To discredit ancient texts as unreliable for any historical purpose, because miracles or visions are described in them, is a methodological hammer. A text has a history, and to try to find the hints in and about it, combined with other texts, might lead to some valuable conclusions. Really, read Ehrman, and see how and why most historians come to the conclusion that Jesus existed. You do not have to believe in even one single miracle or the contents of whatever vision, to come to such a conclusion. But therefore you must understand the methodology historians use. 

I propose to discuss Ehrman's book, as soon as those that are interested want to continue the discussion on the question if Jesus really existed.

Edited by Eise
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eise said:

You do not have to believe in even one single miracle or the contents of whatever vision, to come to such a conclusion.

You don't have to believe in them to believe in God or Jesus, either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

You don't have to believe in them to believe in God or Jesus, either. 

Right. I do not believe in God, and so it is already impossible to believe that Jesus was his son. 

Remembers me of something Wolfgang Pauli said about Paul Dirac, who was know as a quite militant atheist:

"There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.