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.
Yes, but how would that effect whether or not there was such a man? If after you die, people say that you were God Incarnate, would we then conclude that you never existed? That makes no sense.
No, you make no sense.
If people are saying that he is God Incarnate, then they don't believe in Jesus the normal man who had a bunch of followers, it means that they believe in Jesus AS God Incarnate.
The historical fact of his existence DOES NOT confirm that the Jesus who existed was who they believe he was... which is the whole point of this thread, and the whole point of believing in him in the first place.
It's like saying 'well, Zeus the God who threw thunderbolts from Mt Olympus didn't exist... but there was this king who was named Zeus and got drunk, climbed to the top of the mountain and took a leak around that time'... as if it somehow proves that Greek Mythology is real.
This isn't difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Plus you do realize that (mainstream) Christians believe that when God came to Earth in human form, as Jesus, his body was a normal human body, right? Like if he were sitting next to you and you could do any scientific test you wanted, you would conclude that this is a normal human being.
Which is why there is little point in verifying whether or not he really existed, because those qualities could be projected into literally anyone or anything alive, dead or inanimate. I could make the same claim for Charles Manson, Hitler, Kim Jong Il or a frozen dog turd. Believing something that cannot be proven doesn't automatically make it more real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
No, you are incorrect. Mainstream Christians do not take this literally. They do think he came back from the dead and talked to the disciples in spirit form (which of course, no scientific experiment could ever prove or disprove), but the part about his body disappearing, raising Lazarus from the dead, curing people of diseases etc., that is understood to be allegory. A story meant to teach you a spiritual truth. I recommend discussing this with the nearest priest you can find who is a member of the Society of Jesus, that is to say, the "Jesuit" order, instead of basing your understanding of Christianity on what is taught to children in Sunday School. I don't even consider myself a Christian -- I see myself as a Deist -- but even I know that they don't take it literally in the sense that you're implying. This is 2015, dude, not 1615. We know the universe is billions of years old, men evolved form lower forms of life, etc.
It's pretty obvious that you aren't a Christian, otherwise you would understand that your ignorance of other denomination's beliefs doesn't mean they aren't mainstream. Furthermore, your 'rational' version of Christianity is mostly just wishful thinking. You seem to be cherry-picking your favorite aspects of what seems to be Catholicism, mixing them with what you personally believe, and then claiming it's a 'mainstream' denomination that in reality doesn't even exist.
Every source I've found says 'Son Of God' very clearly. Whether this is meant literally, allegorically, or simply as a title, it is obvious that in the eyes of Christianity Jesus wasn't just some ordinary guy, wasn't just some ordinary cult leader, and wasn't just a political figure crucified for crimes against the state.
Regardless of the specific qualities that different denominations believe Jesus possessed, it is certain that Christians do not regard Jesus as not merely a 'great' or influential person in the vein of Gandhi or Tony Robbins, but someone who had divine properties and whose words were worth following not (only) because of their inherent worth, but because they were backed by divine presence.
I'm repeating myself at this point, but it's apparently necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
I have mentioned it before but a good book on this subject is Brother Astronomer, written by a Jesuit brother who has a PhD in planetary science from the University of Arizona and a BS in the subject from MIT:
He explains that yes, he believes that Jesus was God Incarnate, part of the Trinity, God walking on the Earth. However, being a scientist, he also believes in the big bang and human evolution. So he knows that the part about curing people of diseases etc is all allegory. He also says this is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; it is what they tell the Jesuits to teach people at Catholic schools. This Jesuit Brother works at the Vatican Observatory where they do mainstream secular astronomy. The Vatican Observatory, for example, has discovered planets orbiting other stars. The Roman Catholic CHurch also paid for him to travel to Antarctica and be part of the team that found the Mars meteorite which was briefly suspected to contain fossilized Martian life. The Roman Catholic Church apparently funds a a lot of secular scientific research.
Yes, SOME Christians take it literally. Like Jerry Fallwell and the 700 club and Bush 43 and Rick Santorum. But the mainstream interprets this as allegory. Just as MOST Jews don't think the Ark of the Covenant would turn your face to liquid if you opened it. And most Muslims do not think terrorism is right or that anyone gets 700 virgins when they die. Some take it literally, the vast majority do not.
What does supporting science have to do with whether or not Jesus was who these people think he is?
Yes, surprise surprise, the Jews don't consider Raiders of the Lost Ark to be a religious text and not all Muslims are terrorists-- that doesn't mean that their core beliefs are any more aligned with the modern understanding of the world than those of Christians. Your comparison is like saying 'Christians don't think Kirk Cameron is a prophet, so they couldn't possibly believe that Bible stories are anything but allegory.'
Before you rush to the defense of Christians everywhere, you should probably try to figure out if what you're saying is true or if you're just making stuff up so you can make certain arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Yeah....that's the religious myths they taught you as a kid, dude. That's not what the adults believe.
I wish that were true... really, I do.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-27-2015 at 02:34 PM..
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,069,460 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
No, you make no sense.
If people are saying that he is God Incarnate, then they don't believe in Jesus the normal man who had a bunch of followers, it means that they believe in Jesus AS God Incarnate.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
If you believe that Jesus was God Incarnate, that would mean you believe there was a normal man named Jesus of Nazereth who happened to be created directly by God in order for God to live on earth as a human. The historical record of such a person would be that of a normal human.
If you're a historian researching Jesus, you're just trying to verify that there was such a person and that he was crucified by the Romans. The miracles, being a manifestation of God, healing the sick etc., that's all matter of faith and not something a historian is concerned with. Historians deal in researching fact.
Quote:
The historical fact of his existence DOES NOT confirm that the Jesus who existed was who they believe he was
Nor could it ever, dude. All history would show is that such a man existed. The rest is a matter of faith not provable or disprovable by science or any objective test. This has nothing to do with the concept of the historical Jesus.
Quote:
Believing something that cannot be proven doesn't automatically make it more real.
Nor does it automatically make it less real. It's just faith/opinion/subjective.
Quote:
It's pretty obvious that you aren't a Christian, otherwise you would understand that your ignorance of other denomination's beliefs doesn't mean they aren't mainstream. Furthermore, your 'rational' version of Christianity is mostly just wishful thinking.
Nope. They come from Jesuit priests. Read the book I showed you. It is by a Jesuit. And no I'm not a Christian, I'm a Deist. Like Ben Franklin.
Quote:
Every source I've found says 'Son Of God' very clearly. Whether this is meant literally, allegorically, or simply as a title, it is obvious that in the eyes of Christianity Jesus wasn't just some ordinary guy,
Argh.....you still don't understand. Look this is just common sense.
Let's say that 100 years from now, people think you were God Incarnate. They pray to God in your name. How would this change the historical record of you? The historical record would still say that you were just a normal guy at the time. If someone looked up the record of you, it wouldn't say "scientific tests were done on this person and he was found to be supernatural in nature." Furthermore, people thinking of you as God Incarnate after you die does not mean you never existed. It has no bearing on whether you exist or not.
Again, the effort to find a "historical Jesus" is not an effort to prove that Jesus was God Incarnate. It is an effort to discover what can be discovered about the actual Jesus of Nazereth and what history tells us about that human being, without regard for myth. No scientific or historical test can ever prove or disprove that Jesus was God Incarnate.
Quote:
Yes, surprise surprise, the Jews don't consider Raiders of the Lost Ark to be a religious text and not all Muslims are terrorists-- that doesn't mean that their core beliefs are any more aligned with the modern understanding of the world than those of Christians.
You're taking what is taught to children and assuming that is mainstream religious thinking, and you are completely wrong about that. And yes, the Bible does say that if the Ark were opened and you looked inside, terrible things would happen to you. Not just Indiana Jones, it actually says that in the Bible. But no mainstream religious person thinks that if you unearthed the Ark of the Covenant and opened it that anything usual would happen. It is likely just a normal box.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,069,460 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell
There is a pretty good statement of what the vast majority of Christian sects believe: the Nicene Creed.
Yeah and there's nothing in the nicene creed that would suggest anything would be unusual in the historic record about Jesus of Nazereth. It says he was God Incarnate and came to die for our sins and give us eternal life etc. So if we find that there was in fact a Jesus of Nazareth, that finding is compatible with the Nicean Creed.
Again the concept of "the historical Jesus" is just the concept that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, did something to upset the Romans, and was crucified as a result. It is NOT an effort to verify that Jesus was God Incarnate or that he performed miracles. That part is a matter of faith, not history or science.
I don't see why the great powers aspect requires you to conclude that it wasn't one person. Just because there are myths about you doesn't mean you don't exist.
The only claim historians would investigate is "a normal man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the Middle East 2000 years ago. He tried to say he was King of the Jews and therefore was crucified by the Romans."
Why is that so hard to accept? The ancient Egyptians believed their Pharaohs were incarnations of God (or their polytheistic interpretation thereof), but no one suggests as a result that the Pharaohs didn't exist.
I've read enough about Christ and others that existed first as oral history passed on through many mouths and likely each with their own slant and reason for passing on what they did. Christ's existence now is based on people accepting one man who's white and not Middle Eastern and it's one of many things that lead me to not believe he was just one man but more likely a blended mixture of men. In that respect, he was turned into someone who doubtfully existed as a white guy with long blonde hair. That in and of itself is not feasible to me.
I'm Jewish so telling me he was Jewish crucified for the power and gain of the Romans is a no-brainer. But I understand that was needed because you didn't know that about me.
I agree that historians are constantly attempting to figure out who this man was and if he existed. I said I believe as one man he didn't exist but the concept that a man named whatever did. So, the concept of this man existed but through many great orators not just one.
Pharoah's tombs are being unearthed and discovered. That's proof. Nothing has been definitely discovered about the man or men called Jesus Christ. I thought the Shroud of Turin's authenticity died with the confirmation that the age of the shroud showed the carbon testing made it not old enough to be that of Christ. But it's back being questioned. There simply is no proof . The religion is based on faith going back a couple thousand years of changes and additions and a creation of how many flavored bibles are there?
If this is going to be a history forum topic, what else is there to say, without delving into
a belief or non-belief thread, of which there are SO MANY already on City Data; it's probably
best just to say in response to the original post, who asked "why are historians so "anti-christ-myth"
- the answer is that "christ" was believed by enough people to alter history in an unprecedented fashion.
Historians, that is, true historians, are in virtually unanimous opinion that He did exist. They know
how difficult it is to alter history in real time. Populations did not react that way to mere scribbled
novels, as some would have you believe.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,069,460 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceOut001
n that respect, he was turned into someone who doubtfully existed as a white guy with long blonde hair. That in and of itself is not feasible to me.
But that's a straw man argument. Jesus of Nazereth would have looked like a Jewish man of middle eastern descent, because that's what he was. You have to separate someone's art work from what a rational person would think he looked like if they thought about it. We both know Moses wouldn't have been white either, yet he was played by Charleton Heston, lol.
Moses is a good analogy; just because Moses, normal person, existed, doesn't mean all the firstborn children of Egypt died or that if you find the Staff of Moses and raise it during a battle, your side will win. We may someday unearth the Ark of the Covenant, but I doubt that opening it up will kill the person who opened it, as the Bible says. Similarly, because Jesus of Nazareth existed doesn't mean there was anything supernatural about him. Maybe he was God Incarnate, maybe he wasn't, but either way, Jesus of Nazareth, normal person, probably did exist.
Quote:
I'm Jewish so telling me he was Jewish crucified for the power and gain of the Romans is a no-brainer.
Well, it's also what the Gospels say, and it seems plausible.
Quote:
Pharoah's tombs are being unearthed and discovered. That's proof. Nothing has been definitely discovered about the man or men called Jesus Christ.
We have the Gospels (written by independent authors (although a Christian would say they were inspired by God)) and a few Jewish and Greek sources, some of which have already been identified in the thread.
That's more proof than we have of Socrates (we only know of Socrates because Plato et al wrote about him), and you would probably admit he likely existed.
Quote:
I thought the Shroud of Turin's authenticity died with the confirmation that the age of the shroud showed the carbon testing made it not old enough to be that of Christ. But it's back being questioned.
News to me, I too thought the Shroud had been discredited?
Last edited by neutrino78x; 02-28-2015 at 09:54 PM..
In my opinion just a general principle here as the topic moves along.
There are documents and works done by individuals writing ( they have been identified and discussed here) EXIST to show beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual 'Jesus' or 'Chrestus' did indeed take part in some events and had others pay attention to his behavior during the first century. Really there doesn't seem to be anything that actually denies his existence.
Theological speculation on Jesus as Messiah, God, Redeemer, etc etc is an entirely different study. What could help though is primarily if myth adherents can round up some scrolls or anything else that would positively point to the situation that Jesus never 'walked the earth'.
Would be interesting if a scroll came up lambasting Tacitus' reference to a 'Chrestus'' and accusing him of being a teller of 'tales'....;-)...
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,069,460 times
Reputation: 2158
I agree 100% with travric in post 138 above. That is exactly what I've been trying to say.
The concept of "historical Jesus" is the idea of what Jesus of Nazereth was in strictly objective terms. Such as whether he existed at least as a normal person and whether he was really crucified.
Some people on here are confusing that with theological issues, like was he really God Incarnate (the Christian view), was he just a man (the Deist and atheist view), was he a prophet (the Muslim view), etc. Obviously, the theological issues can't be proven/disproved in any kind of scientific sense. More to the point, theological issues are beyond the scope of the concept of "historical Jesus". Merely saying that Jesus of Nazareth existed is not some kind of endorsement of any religion.
btw travric, good mention of Tacitus. I had not heard of him before this. Looking it up, I see that his mention of Jesus of Nazareth is considered a credible non-Christian source for the existence and crucifixion of Jesus. I will read more about it.
And some more on a historical Jesus and it refers to a pagan named Celsus (some may know of him) who did not agree with Christian teachings. But he noted that Jesus was a central figure in the religion that pitted itself against paganism. Again like Porphyry he never thought Jesus was a figment of someone's imagination. He knew was a living being who had a profound affect on the society he lived in within the Roman Empire.
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.
I don't even consider myself a Christian -- I see myself as a Deist -- but even I know that they don't take it literally in the sense that you're implying. This is 2015, dude, not 1615. We know the universe is billions of years old, men evolved form lower forms of life, etc.
