Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I tend to think Jesus was a Roman invention as proposed by Joseph Atwill, a Biblical Scholar.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historicity of Jesus
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I believe that it's the same as with the Wuhan virus. One big joke of WHO to try to get proof after 2 years, let alone after 2000 years. Like the Chinese, the Church had too many years to distort the Truth.
There is only 1 way to know the Truth
What way is that?
That's a good question. To me, if being a Christian has to do with how you live your life through the lens of love and compassion to your fellow man, and not to do with compliance to church dogma, then I'd say the bottom line beyond which you are no longer a Christian, would be behaving outside of love.
Whether someone thinks Jesus' dead flesh reanimated literally, or that the resurrection is a symbolic expression of spiritual rebirth, seems more like window dressings of a variety of beliefs, with little to do with actual Christian faith. People's ideas about God change all the time. It's who they are they makes them be a child of God or not.
Thanks for the video.Here's an interesting video I found on the historicity of Jesus. I'm kind of ignorant in this particular case (it's something I never looked into too deeply), so I'm kind of curious to know what you guys think. If you are more knowledgeable in this field of study, would you agree with what this guy on the internet seems to conclude?
I'm going to put this on the religious debate forum to promote free discussion.Argue away!
It's far too long to take point by point but in general the case against an historical Jesus rests on these grounds ─
There is no contemporary mention of Jesus, no eyewitness account of Jesus (in the NT or elsewhere), an historical Jesus is not necessary to account for Paul or for Mark, hence the rest, the NT is full of fictions, we have very little information about the origins of Christianity, and all that Josephus and the Roman writers show is that the Christians believed there was such a man, not that there was such a man.
The two most common arguments in favor of an historical Jesus are, first, Paul's mention of going to Jerusalem and spending a fortnight with "Cephas", taken to be Peter, and Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου, 'Iakōbon tou adelphon tou kuriou' 'James the brother of the lord'. The problem there is that Paul also called others 'brothers of the lord' so this mention doesn't have the kind of finality needed to settle the issue.
And second the argument from authority, that just about everyone who's made an academic study thinks there was an historical Jesus. Arguments from authority aren't evidence, of course.
There's no clincher either way. I'm content to think of it as 50-50. But in my opinion the two strongest arguments for an historical Jesus are first the way he fights bitterly with his family, not least his mother (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26) on what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment", and Ehrman's point that none of the earliest critics of Christianity ever used the non-existence of Jesus as an argument.
But those aren't definitive either.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Ask Jesus
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Ask Jesus
I understandOh, yah. No thanks, I'm good.
, the solution might be problematic. Having a talk with Jesus 2000 years after He died is a lot more challenging than the 3 days after He died back in the daysJustanatheist
Well-Known Member
Number? E mail address?Ask Jesus
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
How so?
Probably if they "got" him they would have joined him...
firedragon
Veteran Member
Atwill makes a fundamental error. He doesn't understand that New Testament errors prove that it was not the work of the Romans. I will cut and paste an old post if you like.
One of the biggest evidences that this theory of some of the Mythicists is wrong is the fact that the census of Quirinius did not take place as placed in the Gospel of Luke, and Rome would not make such a blunder because it would be detrimental to their what ever strategy, if they are to write this gospel on purpose.
The second chapter of Luke speaks of the census of Quirinius in order to place Jesus and his birth in Bethlehem as "long time ago in Bethlehem", the beautiful carol sings out. Now as per Luke, as anyone would already know this is the birth of Jesus, and it was the rule of Herod the so called child killer. This guy according to Roman history lived around 3 BC. And the census actually took place 9 years after Herod. in 6 AD.
"A census directed by the Syrian legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius marked the new order in A.D. 6" - The Cambridge Ancient History
This is a huge blunder in terms of history.
Some Mythicists have made the claim that Jesus was a Flavian invention, and that the canonical gospels, being written in Greek, not Aramaic, and by educated writers etc etc has all the flavours of a complete creation of Rome. But, think about it. If Rome created the Gospel of Luke, knowing their own history, would they make such a stupendous blunder? If educated writers, paid by the Roman Empire are creating fiction and calling it gospel accounts, will not they do a better job at trying to make it more authentic by getting their own facts right?
Do any Mythicists who have this idea of a roman conspiracy have any counter theory?
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
That I understand, it’s the “more advanced” part I don’t get.
You and me both. That's probably why we're still Jewish.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I could give it to you, but I should not do that
As there is this RF Rule #8 teaching me to not attempt to convert others away from their convictions (and giving such personal info as telephone number can easily be seen as falling under RF Rule #8). And besides that, you are an Atheist, so God does not exist for you. My Master taught us, that Atheism is fine too (@Aupmanyav follows the path of Atheism, being Hindu)
And my Master even is more strict with Rule #8 then RF. He taught us "even if you find out that your teacher is not good, no need to change your conviction. Just make sure that you don't make his mistakes, so you just act better than him; no need to change your (non)faith"
Well, this will probably turn you off, but I respect a lot of high quality psychic sources and believe I have heard Jesus relate his thoughts to modern people. Those things are included in my overall opinion. Jesus was going beyond duality (God and creation are two) and moving towards non-duality (God and creation are not-two).
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Or you simply do not know how to talk to Jesus.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
True. I agree with you
We, normal people, can only understand as much as our Spiritual development permits
Only when we grow Spiritually, will we be able to understand more,
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Talking to Jesus is easy, all can do that
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Last edited: