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.
The problem with Christian Bible scholars is that they have a vested interest in showing claims to be true.
Which claims? The claim that the Jesus story is based on a historical person? It's not only Christian Bible scholars who believe there was a historical Jesus. Classical scholars, as well as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. scholars believe there was a historical Jesus. As far as I know, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris do not deny there was a historical Jesus, they just don't believe the claims made about him. If you want to be taken seriously, you will not deny what accepted scholarship has found (I will use the broken record approach if I have to! ). Maybe people were absent from school when the historical method was discussed. If you're going to throw out the historicity of Jesus, you'll have to throw out a lot of other history accepted as factual as well. Apparently some atheists have a "vested interest" in some historical revisionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
To an atheist, the existence of a historical Jesus is entirely moot, as the miracles this Jesus performs are impossible and not factual: inventions of early Christians to fit the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
We can (and do) debate all day long about historical Jesus, but there is a very real problem about the lack of evidence supporting that position. There is some writing about early Christians (Tacticus comes to mind, as well as the Talmud), but nothing concrete about the death of a man named Jesus.
The *only* information we have about Jesus' life comes from the Gospels, written 40+ years after the supposed death of Jesus. Paul writes about a very different Jesus than the Gospels do, and for the obvious reason that the Gospel Jesus had not yet been invented. An honest atheist will realize that the question of historical Jesus living has no bearing on the supposed claims made of that Jesus.
On the question of a historical Jesus, there are no serious historians arguing that he didn't exist, regardless of what kind of death he had. On the issue of the claims made about Jesus in the Gospels or by later tradition (the "Christ of faith"), you don't have to be an atheist to believe they are not literally true. Many (if not most) theologians agree, for instance, that Jesus himself never even claimed to be the messiah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And you should cite the bolded as belonging to Wiki.
They are my own words after a quick read through some Wikipedia articles and Amazon. No doubt there is some overlap.
Let me be clear that I don't care what others here believe or don't believe, I'm just trying to get people on the same page by affirming that history matters, that there are established methods to determine the historicity of people and events, and that these methods have been rigorously applied by multitudes of historians of all stripes. Unless we can agree on that, then we really have no basis for a discussion here. Make up everything as you go along.
Which claims? The claim that the Jesus story is based on a historical person? It's not only Christian Bible scholars who believe there was a historical Jesus. Classical scholars, as well as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. scholars believe there was a historical Jesus.
Feel free to cite those.
Quote:
As far as I know, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris do not deny there was a historical Jesus, they just don't believe the claims made about him.
Which as I've said is all that really matters. Again, cite that these famous atheists accept Historical Jesus.
Quote:
If you want to be taken seriously, you will not deny what accepted scholarship has found (I will use the broken record approach if I have to! ). Maybe people were absent from school when the historical method was discussed. If you're going to throw out the historicity of Jesus, you'll have to throw out a lot of other history accepted as factual as well. Apparently some atheists have a "vested interest" in some historical revisionism.
The actual existence of Jesus doesn't really matter, it's the claims made about him that do. Christian biblical scholars have a vested interest in showing that Jesus existed because it shows that Jesus could have (and for many, did) perform miracles. An atheist doesn't care either way because the miracles attributed, the claims, are not possible and not supported by anything 1. outside of the bible, 2. modern knowledge.
Quote:
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Commentary not necessary.
Quote:
On the question of a historical Jesus, there are no serious historians arguing that he didn't exist, regardless of what kind of death he had. On the issue of the claims made about Jesus in the Gospels or by later tradition (the "Christ of faith"), you don't have to be an atheist to believe they are not literally true. Many (if not most) theologians agree, for instance, that Jesus himself never even claimed to be the messiah.
I'd like to see the list of atheists who care. The existence of Jesus doesn't mean anything to Christianity's "truth." The only people who care about Jesus actually existing are those that have to show he existed and performed the miracles he did. Being an invented story-book character, a character based on a real person, or being a real person doesn't matter. Granted, if it can be shown that Jesus never did exist, it would be crucifying evidence against Christianity (until they come up with some other nonsense workaround).
Quote:
They are my own words after a quick read through some Wikipedia articles and Amazon. No doubt there is some overlap.
some straight up plagiarism.
Quote:
Let me be clear that I don't care what others here believe or don't believe, I'm just trying to get people on the same page by affirming that history matters, that there are established methods to determine the historicity of people and events, and that these methods have been rigorously applied by multitudes of historians of all stripes. Unless we can agree on that, then we really have no basis for a discussion here. Make up everything as you go along.
Are you going to deny that no evidence actually exists for Jesus' existence? Everything we know of Jesus comes from the Gospels, written 40+ years after his death (in a time when people lived to just 30 years of age), and at a time when the Christian church was coming of its own. Extra-biblical sources are ambiguous, describing "Christians" but not Christ, and likewise, come from well after the death of Jesus.
The only person to have lived and died with Jesus to the best of my knowledge was Paul, himself so scant on the details of Jesus' life one has to wonder if he lived at all.
But, being an honest atheist, I realize that the existence or non-existence of Jesus is a meaningless argument, one I have for fun. The miracles prescribed to Jesus are physical impossibilities. Albert Schweitzer pointed out that the histories of Jesus reflected the bias of the Historians studying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "The Quest for Historical Jesus:A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede" by Albert Schweitzer
Chapter 20...
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.
Sizzly: I'll try to be polite again, but until yesterday you were ignorant of the difference between Jesus as a historical person and the Christ of faith. Now you want me to believe that since yesterday you've acquired sufficient expertise in history to find reason to doubt what is accepted by professional historians with Ph.D.s, at universities across the country and around the world. I'm just not convinced.
Konraden: This thread is about whether Jesus was a fabrication or a real person. If you are ignorant of the historical method, or are taking deliberate liberties with it, fine, but at least be transparent about it. With statements like "the actual existence of Jesus doesn't really matter" and "no evidence actually exists for Jesus' existence," you are essentially saying you don't agree that history matters, therefore I cannot have a conversation with you. If "atheists don't care" about it, then neither do I care what you have to say about it.
"essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence."
Konraden: This thread is about whether Jesus was a fabrication or a real person. If you are ignorant of the historical method, or are taking deliberate liberties with it, fine, but at least be transparent about it. With statements like "the actual existence of Jesus doesn't really matter" and "no evidence actually exists for Jesus' existence," you are essentially saying you don't agree that history matters,
Not once did I say "history doesn't matter." I stated that the existence of Jesus is not the concern of Atheists because we have no vested interest in showing this character to be real or not.
Quote:
therefore I cannot have a conversation with you. If "atheists don't care" about it, then neither do I care what you have to say about it.
Like I said, I have this argument for entertainment.
"essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence."
Aside from you using wiki, have you actually looked at the sources used? Gospel, Josephus, Tacticus, Talmud, etc, all written well after the supposed death of Jesus. No contemporary writings are used, and neither is Paul, the only person from the Bible that actually lived and worked in the same place and same time. There are no writings from Jesus either.
There is a significant dearth of corroborating verifiable evidence.
Now, personally, I don't really believe that Jesus existed as a person, not as described by the Gospels, (born of Nazareth, etc). However, I don't really care if he existed or not, because the problems with Christianity do not center around the existence of Jesus, but rather, what it is that Jesus supposedly did.
Interesting.
What is the difference between the "historical Jesus" and the "mythological Jesus"? Why is there a difference?
Please explain, I would like to hear your views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
Sizzly: I'll try to be polite again, but until yesterday you were ignorant of the difference between Jesus as a historical person and the Christ of faith. Now you want me to believe that since yesterday you've acquired sufficient expertise in history to find reason to doubt what is accepted by professional historians with Ph.D.s, at universities across the country and around the world. I'm just not convinced.
aries63: Hmmm... this sounds like you are calling me ignorant.
Nowhere in my post does it say that I was ignorant of the difference.
I wanted to hear your thoughts on the subject. I would still like to know why you think there is a difference. I am not saying there is no difference, because there clearly is, but why do you think they are so different?
I am looking for your opinion.
Please show support for your statement about the beliefs of professional historians around the world. If they all agreed there would be no debate, would there?
That's way too logical my friend and leaves no room for discussion. Little, if no room for priests to have their sermons ("Just read the book" would be all they'd need). Little room for controversy. No reason for multiple religions. In short, a real constriction on the industry that is religion.
I was just curious how many other non-believers here believe, as I do, that Jesus Christ may be just a myth.
A myth is usually not considered a harmful thing, and in that light I think that JC really needs to be upgraded from 'myth' to 'hoax' a much more damaging and dangerous thing.
How much pain and suffering, wars, hatred, etc. would not have occurred if not for the belief in this hoax?
I don't know of any historical sources that verify the Bible's account of Jesus. He's likely a mythical figure. If he existed and performed the supernatural feats attributed to him, surely the scribes of the time would have made some mention of it.
They didn't...
The life of Jesus as portrayed in the bible is one of miracles and controversy. Amazing that no one except biblical figures bothered to take notice of all this activity.
Not once did I say "history doesn't matter." I stated that the existence of Jesus is not the concern of Atheists because we have no vested interest in showing this character to be real or not.
Like I said, I have this argument for entertainment.
Aside from you using wiki, have you actually looked at the sources used? Gospel, Josephus, Tacticus, Talmud, etc, all written well after the supposed death of Jesus. No contemporary writings are used, and neither is Paul, the only person from the Bible that actually lived and worked in the same place and same time. There are no writings from Jesus either.
There is a significant dearth of corroborating verifiable evidence.
Now, personally, I don't really believe that Jesus existed as a person, not as described by the Gospels, (born of Nazareth, etc). However, I don't really care if he existed or not, because the problems with Christianity do not center around the existence of Jesus, but rather, what it is that Jesus supposedly did.
I think this is the point. Although the historicity of Jesus debate is strictly about whether there was a real person upon whom the gospels and eventually the Churches were based, the real argument tends to be about whether the Jesus as depicted in the gospels is substantially true enough to be a feasible basis for religious faith.
Arguing about whether there was a jewish teacher who pissed the Roman authorities off enough to be made an easter decoration is of academic interest. That doesn't mean of no interest but it is not germane to the religious belief argument.
Historicity is actually going to be about Jesus as Christian figure, not Jesus as wandering Jew. Arguments about the 'real' Jesus are going to be aimed at showing that Jesus was not a Christian, not in the interests of historical research but as part of disproving the Bible and Christianity.
I think that we have to be clear that is what the debate is really about.
I think this is the point. Although the historicity of Jesus debate is strictly about whether there was a real person upon whom the gospels and eventually the Churches were based, the real argument tends to be about whether the Jesus as depicted in the gospels is substantially true enough to be a feasible basis for religious faith.
Arguing about whether there was a jewish teacher who pissed the Roman authorities off enough to be made an easter decoration is of academic interest. That doesn't mean of no interest but it is not germane to the religious belief argument.
Historicity is actually going to be about Jesus as Christian figure, not Jesus as wandering Jew. Arguments about the 'real' Jesus are going to be aimed at showing that Jesus was not a Christian, not in the interests of historical research but as part of disproving the Bible and Christianity.
I think that we have to be clear that is what the debate is really about.
I'm happy to see we agree.
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.
). Maybe people were absent from school when the historical method was discussed. If you're going to throw out the historicity of Jesus, you'll have to throw out a lot of other history accepted as factual as well. Apparently some atheists have a "vested interest" in some historical revisionism.
and leaves no room for discussion. Little, if no room for priests to have their sermons ("Just read the book" would be all they'd need). Little room for controversy. No reason for multiple religions. In short, a real constriction on the industry that is religion.
Exactly!
