Historical Jesus

[buddhist]

General I would say that historical accuracy is much more important in Judaism/Christianity/Islam than in Taoism/Hinduis/Buddhism.

This is true, in my experience - because the Abrahamic religions hinges on blind belief in alleged historical truths we cannot directly and personally know for ourselves.

On the other hand, Taoism, Hinduism, and early/Theravada Buddhism are based on observation of and conformity with reality that is present in the here and now which we can know for ourselves.

 

[Lyndon]

God's talking to you right now, except you're probably not listening!!

 

[Lyndon]

This is true, in my experience - because the Abrahamic religions hinges on blind belief in alleged historical truths we cannot directly and personally know for ourselves.

On the other hand, Taoism, Hinduism, and early/Theravada Buddhism are based on observation of and conformity with reality that is present in the here and now which we can know for ourselves.

That's a load of poppycock!! Buddhism has the same issues of believability that Christianity does, except the Buddha's story wasn't written down for 500 years.

In Buddhism the thing that is hard to believe is that enlightenment exists and is attainable, this is no less of a big deal than believing that Jesus is divine, or worthy of worship.

 

[George-ananda]

Not a God claimant.
A Youtube with some never before seen thing that cannot be known about or videoed.
Say, a spot in Mongolia where if you cut 20 meters down through rock you will find a complete fossil of a never before seen species. Something that can be ascertained.
And a voice over that tells everybody the most necessary information, the same voice over no matter what language is spoken by the viewer says the same thing.

Now that would be a really useful Miracle.
Tom

Oh, then that is the old world-wide miracle. It will quickly get dismissed as a hoax. I remember the world-wide Hindu Milk Miracle which I believe was real but quickly got labeled a hoax.

But anyway, God does nothing to compel belief but does give us signs that support belief. Forcing everyone to believe a certain way is not God's plan and there is probably wisdom in this.

 

[columbus]

Oh, then that is the old world-wide miracle. It will quickly get dismissed as a hoax. I remember the world-wide Hindu Milk Miracle which I believe was real but quickly got labeled a hoax.

I don't remember that.
What can you think of that could be displayed in a video that nobody could possibly have a video of? Something that couldn't be labeled a hoax?
Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

God's talking to you right now, except you're probably not listening!!

I used to hear voices too. There's medication for that.

 

[columbus]

But anyway, God does nothing to compel belief but does give us signs that support belief. Forcing everyone to believe a certain way is not God's plan and there is probably wisdom in this.

No, He does not. That's why almost, if not all, people are so wrong about most everything.

Giving everybody enough information to make the right choices about what God thinks is important is not forcing them to do anything. No more so than telling me which of three boxes has a million dollars in it and which will blow up if I touch it and which is empty. I am not free to choose the money and avoid the disaster if I don't have the information.
Tom

 

[columbus]

God's talking to you right now, except you're probably not listening!!

The problem is that God babbles and mutters and often gets drowned out completely by His self-appointed human spokespersons.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

I don't remember that.
What can you think of that could be displayed in a video that nobody could possibly have a video of? Something that couldn't be labeled a hoax?
Tom

Probably nothing with all the technology out there.

 

[Cephus]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

The problem is, you don't have Josephus or Tacitus or Paul because neither of them lived during the time that Jesus supposedly lived. At best, anything they have to say is second-hand information. We simply have no independent contemporary accounts of Jesus from anyone who saw him directly. As such, we have to be skeptical about the second, third and fourth hand accounts that, strangely enough, look an awful lot like Christian forgery.

 

[columbus]

Probably nothing with all the technology out there.

You're normally more creative than that when looking for reasons to believe. You believe in a "Milk Miracle", that everybody else thinks a hoax and I have never even heard of. But you can't think of some information that can be transmitted visually, but is hoax proof?
C'mon. What about my idea about the fossil?
Tom

 

[David T]

The earliest of modern sciences made a statement on how they saw the proof!!! Its called the Nicene creed or string theory of a multiverse Dr who science fiction fantasy. Church has been trying to overcome this scientific facts of its day total clap trap science which well is normal.
.


I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Milton Platt]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

I think the three authors that "mention" him were just uncritically writing down what someone told them.
Someone at some time has "mentioned" most all of the gods in a book.

 

[pearl]

History is history. Now is now. What is of concern is how the history affects today's behaviour, if at all. Otherwise, its quite irrelevant.

Good point. The thing to keep in mind is that history can never be brought to the present, so, what we are left with is a hypothesis. It can be most probable, but never positive.

 

[pearl]

What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

This is what keeps the exegetes busy.

 

[pearl]

Does anyone remember the 'Jesus Seminar' back in the 70's. I think the final conclusion is that the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith cannot be separated quite so easily.

 

[JakofHearts]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

To try and keep this short, we have more evidence for the person Jesus of Nazareth than any other major figures in all antiquity.

Very rarely will you have 4 biographies of the same person, as well as many references of him in these early letters from Paul, references from Roman extra-biblical literature, and Jewish references to Jesus. The idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is an idea that no serious historian entertains. It's by these left wing fringe elements of Jesus mythicism that they propagate these baseless accusations, really no scholar takes seriously. If you don't believe me, take it from a NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman who is a non-Christian, and from Richard Dawkins, a known atheist.

However, the NT shows so many things that cannot possibly be scientifically explained due to the nature of them, i.e. Jesus' miracles and His death and resurrection. There is good evidence for the resurrection if one is to seriously seek, but ultimately, it comes down to faith as being a Christian. We see this in the case of Thomas who wouldn't believe unless he could touch the nail prints in Jesus' hands and thrust his hands into his side. (John 20:27-29)

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

It is good to know your faith inside and out, but Jesus does place high regard for a person who didn't need proof to believe in Him but only through faith. And Jesus commends them as truly blessed.

What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

Your third question is based on whether the NT documents had been altered during the 2000 years from the original. The answer is quite simply no. The Bible we have today is essentially exactly what was read by the early church Christians. We have writings of antiquity which were copied and recopied across the centuries, right up to the time of the invention of the printing press in the west in the 15th century.
There is a science called Textual Criticism which examines the documents to see whether they have been altered through the copying and the recopying, and which corrects the documents on the basis of better texts. This is a highly technical field, and the results of it are what interest us, not the means of what those results contained, but the results of textual criticism applied to the NT documents is very simple. The NT documents are the best attested documents of the ancient world. That is to say that there is the least difficulty going back to the original content of those documents compared to any of the documents of antiquity.

There is the least textual alterations and damage compared to other documents of antiquity. In general the distance between the first complete texts we have of a classical writer and the original writing, ranges from 900-1,000 years. We don't know what happened in that period, and we simply assume that the document we have simply represents the documents as it was originally written.
Whereas in the case of the NT, there are documents that is to say - fragments, lectionary readings, quotations in the like that carry us from the complete text that are immensely closer to the original writings show no alterations.

The NT we have today is essentially what was read by the early church Christians, and it is by faith on whether to believe it was said by Jesus or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not a Christian anymore, but when I was, the primary doctrine of my faith really did revolve around Jesus rising bodily from the dead. If you don't believe that happened literally, it seems a challenge to consider yourself a Christian.

As the evidence is pretty nonexistent, and the gospel claims are contradictory, I stopped believing in this core doctrine a long time ago.

Christianity is dying to self to be in communion with others by ones sacrifice to help others and bring others to do the same.

If I believed jesus actually rose from the dead, that does nothing anymore than demons possessing me. What it Taught me (which religious texts are for teaching) is when you sacrifice yourself and change your ways, you are "raised from the dead (dead/sin/self)" too and born again to a new life which is he blood/life/OT of christ.

The literal belief doesnt make it more true internally than symbollically. Christianity goes beyond that. But many stick to literal version. Reading the bible is not all literal. Its message oriented with application.

 

[columbus]

To try and keep this short, we have more evidence for the person Jesus of Nazareth than any other major figures in all antiquity.

This statement is so obviously and demonstrably false that nothing else you claim has any credibility at all.
Alexander the Great left behind a huge empire. And you think that a few stories indistinguishable from many other such legends constitute better evidence.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

You're normally more creative than that when looking for reasons to believe. You believe in a "Milk Miracle", that everybody else thinks a hoax and I have never even heard of. But you can't think of some information that can be transmitted visually, but is hoax proof?
C'mon. What about my idea about the fossil?
Tom

Here it is.......Jesus Statue opening eyes

Note from the article.....more than 20 paranormal experts and priests as well as special effects designers have spent many weeks dissecting and analyzing the close to one-minute video. At the end of this laborious process of analysis, there has been no proof or suggestion that the clip had been changed or altered in any way, he claims.

I'm sure the dismissals will come pouring in if I started a thread on this with no evidence to back the dismissal. That is my point about any video evidence being insufficient.