Yeah and my post is still valid. If Jesus is a total fabrication but the fabricated message is effective in producing a high quality of life, then one could say that it was a message sent by God.
Jesus does not need to be real. None of it needs to have happened.
History is about “details”. They’re called " historical facts". The video was correct when it stated that historical facts are always more or less probable and never absolute. So it is with the Bible as history. So, to dismiss it absolutely as a purveyor of historical fact would be a historical mistake. After all, the video admits the Bible is very old and far more contemporaneous with the events it posits than we are. Professional historians continue to study it as a valuable historical document. I accept the video as an explanation for why you don’t believe in the historicity of Jesus. Thanks for sharing.
I don't see how that's a relevant difference. Belief in Ceasar has a lower standard of evidence because nobody much cares about it either way? Alright. Are you biting the bullet and agreeing wih me that on your standard, nobody knows anything about ancient history in the same way that you think nobody knows much of anything about Jesus? Because I'm ok with general historical skepticism. I'm not ok with claiming that knowledge of Jesus is in some way deficient compared to other events of the time period we typical speak of as being real.
Just to make it clear, I don’t care if some of you will claim there was a guy named Jesus who told some ludicrous stories and got crucified. Perhaps he existed, perhaps he didn’t. I don’t know and I don’t care.
What I do care is the added religious aspects to it, that he was the son of God, speaking his word, performed miracles etc.
Yeah, nobody knows much about ancient history because records were not kept or records have been lost. That’s not really a big deal in most cases.
I don’t think the history of religious founders are critical.
What is important is the message and the life principles therein the NT.
IMO, I think the spiritual message presented by Jesus in the NT is quite [not very] sufficient to stand on its own feet regardless of whether there is a real Jesus or not. For those who insist Jesus is a real person they should just accept it by faith rather than try to prove it by historical evidence.
Eh if he was real, religious folk wouldn’t be constantly trying to fake his existence with “historical” items that they create to perform fraud.
Buddha’s message is better, more clear and he doesn’t speak nonsense about being “God’s” son.
No. People may wish to make Jesus’ historicity more certain than it is. But, the truth or falsity of the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person is independent of the arguments made for or against it.
Hello Atheris,
I saw the video. Pretty good. I could not make the face of the cartoon Christian apologist. Who is it?
Most of this stuff is old and known by many Christians. In fact, for me, a Christian that is unaware of this objections is not worth the name. These are faith crushing arguments that must be faced. Bart Ehrman lost his faith researching the historical Jesus.
The problem is actually worse than stated. The historical Jesus is problematic only to the extent that fantastic miracles are attributed to him, but if all of that is left out, then it is conceivable that a historical man, born of natural circumstances, lived in the first century, challenging the religious elite and the Roman government that sustained them, provoking his own death. He was then one of many failed messiahs.
The problem comes theologically, in the contradiction of grace and works, the same contradiction argued between Paul and James. The centuries that followed showed a divided Christendom that speaks loudly against “Christianity”. Christianity was not founded by Jesus, quite frankly, but by those that used their power to streamline the Church into a “whole”, even if incoherent.
But here is my thing. Even when we accept all of this we are still left with that object: Jesus. The story of Gautama is filled with fantastic accounts which, if you are like me, add NOTHING to the message itself. So what if Jesus was just a normal dude that had the balls to face the mighty Roman empire under the belief that his “Father” would intercede to save the life of the righteous man? Is his message meaningless? I don’t think so.
Buddhism is not dependent on the fantastic accounts of Buddha. He is, to a great extent, worshipped, but the basis of the religion is in the message. For me this is the case with Jesus. Even if I don’t believe in many of the gospel’s account, I believe in the man and his message.
I’ll be honest; there is no single message. The message depends on what people bring already with them. It is only violence that has caused the illusion of a single message and meaning. What you see on ILP is part of this phenomenon. Very few here stick to the message of dogma or even give primacy to Christianity. It is not what you say on Sunday that counts, or your knowledge of all the verses of the Quran, but the life you lead that makes you a transparent film through which what is wonderful and good shines through. Those that live and die by their Bible miss out on so much wisdom that the human spirit has produced. Those religions of the Book have created an artificial reality where man is no longer able to go into the “desert” (whatever isolation) to burn, to distill, to be still and be consumed by what is trying to speak through you.
This is the situation Paul found himself in. He was a persecutor of Christians, and probably, very apt at debating them and showing them how wrong they were. The NT is fraught with contradictions, but what brought Paul to his knees was not the persuasion of Christian, but an “encounter” with Jesus. I believe that the encounter is a metaphor for the process he had to go through. Whatever it was, it is clear that it changed him.
I believe that Bart Ehrman is going to a similar process, and it is something that everyone should go through. It begins with a tearing of the comfortable robes that hide our nakedness (metaphorically speaking) and after, the collection of suitable material to use as an apparel. What is that one needs to live? Leaving all behind, and through cruelty, raising oneself to the height of what must be done in order to survive, one creates even one’s eternal labyrinth, though most build a new value. Either way, what comes about is to be respected if only for it’s honesty: “I believe and I can do no other”. What does one believe? Does it matter? The need is pre-rational. That need, that will (call it Grace) invents suitable narratives, or further and deeper chasms.
Is belief then the only real thing? God-- just a function of this need as easily quelched by other “gods”, like “Fatherland”. Maybe, and specially if “god” serves a purpose FOR man. But what if belief reveals a truth about existence? What if that need is a sign of a truth about being and even the source of it all, call by any other name “God”? I’m not here to settle the question, but to raise it to the awareness of every reader.
He claims that he lost his faith in God over the problem of evil. But, he still defends the proposition that Jesus was an historical person.
Yes. He even has a book about that. I think that only a minority of educated people actually doubt the existence of Jesus. That he walked on water may not be a historical account, but an account of people’s faith in him, Jesus.
The evidence is there for anybody to look at. But, like all history, it’s a matter of more or less. So, people make up their own minds for their own reasons. The existential or religious import of making a decision about Christ places the historicity of Jesus under a scrutiny that few putative historical facts are ever subjected to. The fact the Augustus Caesar was supposed to be the Son of God born of a virgin, seldom provokes people to question his historical existence.
he was a jewish guy…all kinds of stories are made up about him…I like jesus Christ superstar
most of the stuff I don’t believe at all…it is made up for various reasons…
What evidence? Where
Want to know why there is a black Jesus, a white Jesus, and many others? Because he wasn’t a real objective being. There are no facts regarding him being any nationality or even existing. Idea’s work because they can be represented in more than one way for more than one person. Which was the entire IDEA the whole time.
It’s like Batman… “anyone can be Batman because it’s an idea.” Well anyone can perceive ‘Jesus’ the way they want, because Jesus Christ is nothing more than an idea to be tinkered with.
You don’t get fucking unity with ONE. So if Jesus did exist, and he WAS actually white… You would have the Caucasian religious people saying “Oh, we’re this and that because Jesus was white!” Same goes to any color of skin and nationality. Humans… so petty and easy to mind fuck, honestly.
Also, people still think Socrates was made up. And he has even more hearsay than Jesus does.
Just don’t get why people debate the same topics over and over and over again, when nothing new ever comes from it. No one will ever prove the existence of these people because they’re long gone. So why waste time trying to prove them when time can be spent on the future.
You’re telling a fantasy story based on your wild guesses when wild guesses aren’t necessary. People debate the existence of Jesus over and over again with roughly the same reasons and frequency with which the reality of the Moon landing is debated over and over again: people who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about, or who have a vested interest in distortion, just raise the issue.
You have decided, out of your own imagination and lack of info, that the person of Jesus didn’t exist. Then, since so many people think he did, you need a theory as to why, and you pull that out of your imagination and lack of info as well. Then, because you can’t convince other people of the truth of things by basically admitting that you are making stuff up to fill your ignorance, you adopt a particular argument style in which the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about doesn’t hinder you. Result? An argument against the existence of a historical figure that doesn’t cite one solitary fact or bit of evidence about historical matters- you wouldn’t do that if you had any other choice, but you DON’T have any other choice, so you make a convincing argument for the position you desire with what little you have to work with.
What’s this ‘Jesus was white’ business anyway? Who are you interacting with on a daily basis such that this is important? Do you test your arguments primarily against white supremacists or children?
art I think you need to go look for it…it is not hard evidence and don’t ask me to define hard
More evidence of the Moon Landing than there is for Jesus. Let’s take a trip or rover to the moon, let’s see the flag there or not. What are you going to do to prove Jesus huh? You going to travel back into the past? No, you can’t do shit to prove it.
I don’t need to convince others. Yeah, I don’t know what I am talking about. Which is why you all claim Jesus existed as a physical man yet have no historical evidence what so ever right? Tacitus and the writings of the other two are not historical evidence, that’s hearsay. Same as Socrates and guess what, since you’re so smart and know it all while I don’t, Socrates is debated on not existing as well. I don’t need historical evidence to prove he didn’t exist because there would be no evidence there to show he never existed. Which there is none to show that he existed in the first place, so what is there to disprove really? You’re all the ones trying to prove the existence of him with no evidence, even go so far as to create fake things and commit fraud to get people on side.
Obviously it does matter, since Jesus “historically” was in the middle east and has his portrait painted as being white, yet is in the Middle East? I don’t care the nationality of him because I don’t believe him to have ever physically existed. Not Jesus “God’s” son.
If fucking hearsay was evidence there’d be dragons and the like. Shit there is even hard fucking evidence of Dinosaurs, x10 older. Yet none for such a divine holy man with such great influence? MAKES SENSE. But yeah, I obviously don’t know what I am talking about.
Let’s also not forget, the majority believe a lot of things and have gotten proved wrong many times. Yet the majority belief is correct. This makes you a fool if you believe that.
There is nothing to look for. Because hearsay is so called “evidence”. Which is why people are still discussing his existence and timeline right? Because hearsay is evidence? No. There is 0 evidence, regardless of it being hard or not.
What evidence? Where
[/quote]
art I think you need to go look for it…it is not hard evidence and don’t ask me to define hard
[/quote]
There is nothing to look for. Because hearsay is so called “evidence”. Which is why people are still discussing his existence and timeline right? Because hearsay is evidence? No. There is 0 evidence, regardless of it being hard or not.
[/quote]
have you ever looked at Karen Armstrong…you might learn something from her…