Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not here to carry water for theists or atheists, but... serious critics of a particular philosophy or theology kinda have to be substantially familiar with the relevant subject matter, don't you think?
Bit of a facetious question / topic. Why would we know know about it? It is a culturally and historically relevant document. Is there some specific reason you expect us to remain ignorant of it's content? As if not being one of you means I would not want to read your documents? Hell I am not even American and I seem to know more about the American Constitution and it's contents than most Americans I have met. Again - why would I not? I do not need to be American to read that document any more than I need to be theist to read a bible.
The better question would be - in my experience - why so few theists seem to know much about the Bible. I have met few who own one or have read one.
Maybe it is a nutty and crazy expectation I have of theists - but speaking for myself if I actually believed there was a god who created the universe and was in control of my eternal well being - and that there was a document explaining to me what this god wants of me - I would read it. Again and again and again. Study it closer than I study anything in my entire life.
Yet most theists in my experience can not even be bothered to read it even once. Makes me wonder to be honest if any of the theists who claim to believe in a god - actually at all do. Or is it all just a long standing conformist cultural pretence the majority of them are posturing.
I don't get it...some are out and out scholars it seems!
Whassup with that? And you know who you are.
I was raised a Greek Orthodox Christian, so learnt the NT in it's original language.
After I became an atheist, I was still interested in who Jesus actually was. So I looked at what the early Christians themselves wrote. And what alleged texts from none Christians said. It became a hobby for me.
But the more I read, the more I saw the problems with the traditional history, and looked at the works of historians of Christianity to see if they saw the same problems, and came to the same conclusions I had found. Some did, others made points that made me revise my position.
I find it interesting to try and make the picture puzzle even though many pieces are missing.
I was raised a Greek Orthodox Christian, so learnt the NT in it's original language.
After I became an atheist, I was still interested in who Jesus actually was. So I looked at what the early Christians themselves wrote. And what alleged texts from none Christians said. It became a hobby for me.
But the more I read, the more I saw the problems with the traditional history, and looked at the works of historians of Christianity to see if they saw the same problems, and came to the same conclusions I had found. Some did, others made points that made me revise my position.
I find it interesting to try and make the picture puzzle even though many pieces are missing.
Are you convinced than an historical Jesus even actually existed? And if so, why?
I don't get it...some are out and out scholars it seems!
Whassup with that? And you know who you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
I'm not here to carry water for theists or atheists, but... serious critics of a particular philosophy or theology kinda have to be substantially familiar with the relevant subject matter, don't you think?
That's good enough. If we are going to make a case for religion not being influential, we have to make a very, very good case for why it is not credible. We have to know what we are talking about to do that, especially after 1,000 years plus of religion coming up with the best arguments they can.
Are you convinced than an historical Jesus even actually existed? And if so, why?
I'm not.
I think there was most likely some preacher yea.
But they did not have the internet back then or even a functional news media or postal system. Much of what we know of this preacher is likely to be Chinese whispered a lot - and much of it misattributed. There was likely a lot of preachers at the time. And the words and actions of some - when whispered through the culture - were likely attributed to the wrong names. Hell this even happens in today's internet culture where you hear words or a meme and ask who said them and the person does not know - so you say something like "Oh was it X" and they go "Oh yea it probably was" even if it wasn't.
Further a lot of the stories around Jesus - like being born of a virgin and being crucified between thieves and so on - were all myths and stories in play before his time anyway.
Further again a lot of the OT made predictions about the Messiah which any Messiah plying their trade would have been aware of - as would any audience. After all if you want to pass yourself off as a Messiah - and the text claims the messiah is going to write into town on the back of a donkey - then you are not going to be long in the business if you do not make sure you ride into town on a donkey are you? So many of the stories of these preachers likely got modified consciously or unconsciously to fit with established narratives and expectations of this type.
So I would say "Jesus" is actually an amalgamation of a lot preachers who were plying their trade at the time - coupled with the plagiarism of myths and stories that were in play at the time - all fed through the lens of Chinese Whispers. But I would also expect that much of it was centred around one particularly vocal and successful and known preacher at the time who was indeed a real person.
Do I care - or have any evidence to back such expectations other than knowledge of how these things generally work? No to both for sure. Do I think whoever the guy was that he was anything more than human - or anything more than just another preacher of many just like Bono or Lady Gaga are just one singer of many who happen to be more successful than other ones? Not a bit of it. There is zero reason to think any human being in the history of our culture was anything more than a human being like any other.
Are you convinced than an historical Jesus even actually existed? And if so, why?
I'm not.
I used to. But then I read the NT without the gospels and Acts and it made more sense if Jesus did not exist. Especially Hebrews, which has Jesus as a heavenly being being used to contrast the temple practices on earth.
Even Paul and Revelations say Jesus was an angel.
Of course this heavenly angel could have been a mythological embellishment on a historical person, but I see that as a possibility without evidence for this view.
Superficial knowledge doesn't equate to true knowledge. It's almost like rote memory of textual pieces out of any context.
I would equate it to someone understanding a musical instrument from it's materials to the point that he could build a similar one, but being tone deaf.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you know who you are. 
