1. 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!

Featured History and Jesus

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Riders, Aug 14, 2018.

  1. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,342
    Ratings:
    +1,269
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen
    I would not have put this up here,I'm trying to debate less. So I won't fight anyone on this however I wanted to respond to this. On a couple of videos I saw on youtube and several Christians have said something to this effect is

    " Jesus having lived as a real person who was crucified can be proved in that every historian who has ever lived has always said there is absolute proof or more proof that Jesus lived then any other figure. So not only do historians all agree he existed and was who he said he was,they all say there is absolute proof every historian.

    Well just by coincidence I have been talking to a historian. A Native American guy or he said he was tried to scam me and gave me this Native American history site as proof of who he was.

    It did not set right with me but I liked the web sight, It has a bunch of stuff about the wild west on it, supposedly the guy who runs it is a historian and we chatted it up on line, just curiosity asking him about the web sight.

    I did ask him as a historian do you believe there is proof Jesus existed. I did not say if I were christian or not and he was really nice.

    Officially his response was There is no proof Jesus ever lived, and I believe if he were real or if he was who he said he was Jews would have converted in biblical times, most if not all Jews would be Jesus followers.

    The fact that Jews say he never existed says a whole lot, Jewish people have kept good really good historical records from that time, why did they not convert back then?

    I thought that was really intelligent so I just had to share it as a possible debate. ILL try not to cut anyone up yall can debate me chop up my thread whatever you want. I'm going to be really nice.

    I
     
  2. Dell

    Dell Asteroid insurance?

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    273
    Ratings:
    +110
    Religion:
    Atheist

    Bart Ehrman is a historian and scholar of manuscript text. He has a lot of resources on the historical Jesus and Christianity.
     
  3. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,342
    Ratings:
    +1,269
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen
    Yes I've heard of him I already know hes written books on what he calls as proof. I don't agree with him but I will take a look at the video anyways thanks..
     
  4. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,027
    Ratings:
    +4,822
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    There are some provisos as what historians believe concerning the existence, and life of Jesus.

    First it is not proven that the Jesus of Christianity existed. Most historians are reasonably certain Jesus existed and was crucified for [inciting] rebellion against Rome. Not all historians are convinced. There were a number of rebel messianic leaders around the time that advocated the over throw of Roman rule, and a few lead rebel armies, which ended in disaster. Some consider the possibility that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite Messiah.

    Second, the problem comes is the claim that the Jesus Christ the Christian Messianic figure existed as described in the New Testament. Historians consider this a religious claim set in history, and not necessarily historically factual.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,027
    Ratings:
    +4,822
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Careful, Bart Ehrman does not claim his works are 'proof' of any sort concerning his view of the historical Jesus Christ.

    Like most secular historians Bart Ehrman considers Jesus a historical person, but not necessarily the Messiah son of God of the Bible. He considers the claim of Christians concerning Jesus Christ to be a religious claim set in history.
     
    #5 shunyadragon, Aug 14, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,524
    Ratings:
    +8,205
    Religion:
    none
    Traditionally Jews didn't argued that Jesus never existed, they argued that he was not the Messiah. This is often presented as evidence that he did exist as a historical figure. That early opponents didn't question his existence is evidence that they believed he was a real person.

    Obviously this does not mean that the Gospels are therefore an accurate representation of his life though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,019
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What this 'says' is that you fabricate your facts -- apparently without being aware of it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    Even from a sceptical point of view, the wholesale denial of Jesus as a historical figure seems daft to me. Parsimony would suggest that a historical figure (to whatever extent that figure approaches what is presented in the Gospels) is more likely than a convoluted fiction cooked up out of thin air. I mean, we even have the writings of people for whom the Apostles and their direct successors were still within living memory.

    But honestly, if you're actively seeking to be convinced that Jesus never existed then none of that matters. No one is going to be able to "prove" to you otherwise.
     
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,027
    Ratings:
    +4,822
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Even the extreme skeptics do not think the stories of Jesus are 'out of thin air.' Most consider the Jesus Christ a composite Messiah out of a period when the were a number making the claim.

    This is a maybe, except for Paul's letters, the gospels pretty much date after 50 AD. Many skeptics believe the Messianic Jesus of the Bible is based more on Paul than a factual history.

    But honestly, if you're actively seeking to be convinced that Jesus never existed then none of that matters. No one is going to be able to "prove" to you otherwise.[/QUOTE]
     
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    13,923
    Ratings:
    +9,597
    Religion:
    None
    I am pretty sure Jesus existed, as @shunyadragon mentioned, not as the jesus of the NT but an anarchist fighting Roman occupation and he was crucified for his crimes against the legitimate government.

    And ive seen what is said to be his dads gravestone so dad was not a god who, according to legend, tend to avoid dying and being buried.

    1200px-Römerhalle,_Bad_Kreuznach_-_Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera_tombstone.JPG
    Is this the gravestone of a god?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,342
    Ratings:
    +1,269
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen

    I believe a group of folks who were Messiahs existed weather or not someone specifically named Jesus I don't know. My friend believes the Messiahs existed there could've been someone named Jesus but not one single messiah whom the Jews turned too or thatwas resurrected.


    However I believe you are all wrong to say no Historians no people of education believe he did not exits because the school of thought that goes with the Pagan Christ, quite a few believe that way and that says the Christ figure was completely fabricated by the Pagans.

    So it sounds like y'all are saying I'm completely alone to think that way, no there are experts who agree with the Pagan Christ theory.

    However that being said my friend may or may not believe in a specific Jesus I don't think he knows if the person existed so much as the person of the new testament did not exist or Jews would have accepted him.

    Does it matter if you believe a guy by the name of Jesus existed if he was not crucified and raised from the dead? Its kind of silly to fight over the point being he does not believe the Jesus of the new testament existed same with historian.

    I really don't care if they believed a guy named Jesus existed who could have been involved with the messiah movement,
     
  12. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    Firstly, why should anyone care about what you friend thinks? Who is this person?

    Secondly, parsimony. A wandering Jewish preacher named Jesus who gained a following and was executed by Rome isn't an extraordinary claim. That's the question we're dealing with, nothing else.

    These people fall in roughly two categories. New Age/Neo Pagan quacks and or atheist ideologues with axes to grind. Credible historians of relevant expertise are by in large not sympathetic. Much like your quip about the Jews denying an historical Jesus, the notion that there's significant and credible support for mythicism among credible scholars is a "fact" almost entirely of your own imagining.

    You're not alone, just that those who agree with you aren't actually experts.

    Finally, this argument that the Jews could have only accepted Jesus if he were real is flawed to the point of being laughable.
     
    #12 Musing Bassist, Aug 15, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  13. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    982
    Ratings:
    +397
    Religion:
    Xian
    Poisoning the well, what else you got?

    Anything on the historical Jesus by any chance?
     
  14. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    There's little to poison. Mythicism is a bandwagon.

    This may be a good start.
    Christ myth theory - Wikipedia
     
  15. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    982
    Ratings:
    +397
    Religion:
    Xian
    OK, read it, poisoning the well is all they got too, I see where you get it from, but nothing on the historical Jesus, I see why you have nothing.

    As a Christian who is familiar with the story I would really like something on the historical Jesus.

    That article was strong on hollow proclamations of historicity and complete disdain for doubters. A lot of the Christ Myth Theory is just as bad, but I don't see historical evidence rising to the occasion for an historical Jesus. Does anyone know any more than the Christ mythicist proponents, I'd say no, not so far, not by a long shot.
     
    #15 lukethethird, Aug 15, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  16. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    If you were honest about that desire, you'd read their work before so casually dismissing them as having "nothing". Nevertheless, if you going to dismiss the consensus of mainstream scholarly opinion on the matter then you'd better have some darn good arguments (and qualifications) to back that dismissal up.

    The article is not a direct work on the historical Jesus, it is about the Christ myth theory and its credibility. Mainstream scholars reject it in no uncertain terms.

    Now, if you want substantive details on why the scholars think what they do, then you are going to have use the sources cited in the article and read the materials in question. (You know, books). Wikipedia is a starting point, not a substantive source in and of itself. So you can either get reading or continue in your lazy accusations of fallacious thinking on my part.
     
    #16 Musing Bassist, Aug 16, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  17. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    982
    Ratings:
    +397
    Religion:
    Xian
    From reading that article it becomes apparent that the Christ myth theorists get to their point while the historical Jesus campers are preoccupied with poisoning the well. That "good place to start" article gives the impression that a good place to start would be by reading about Christ Myth Theory.
     
  18. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    That's one of the beauties of sophistry, the point is much easier to make because you don't have to prove anything. You just need slick sounding arguments.

    It's very easy to doubt. But the fact that doubt is easy to enunciate doesn't make that doubt credible. To make a positive case for anything is much harder to do. And if you expect Wikipedia or a person on an internet forum to make that case then you're being silly. If this is really about the merits of the scholarly opinion then you're going to have to read the relevant books that detail that opinion.
     
  19. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,342
    Ratings:
    +1,269
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen
    Well to me the fact that Christmas and Easter are Pagan holidays built around Pagan myth as well, is some proof that Christianity was started as a Pagan Myth.

    Wiki also points to Helena Jews as the way Christians started but says Greece could have used myth in part of the Jesus story.

    I think the Helena jews have credibility .But Christians have said that Greek Helena Jews are not Pagan but I have read articles that claim Greek Pagan beliefs for Helena Jews so.
     
  20. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist In Hac Lacrimarum Valle

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,461
    Ratings:
    +1,098
    Religion:
    Traditionalist Catholicism (Personal Ordinariate)
    It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

    For one, even if for argument we accept Christmas and Easter as pagan accretions that does not imply that Christianity and its doctrines are pagan derived. It would only mean that certain feasts celebrated by Christians have pagan roots and influences. Which is not by the way, in and of itself a bad thing necessarily. I'll explain later.

    But the bigger point to make is that the claim that Christmas is an appropriated version of Sol Invictus is questionable. There's no proof that the Roman celebration of said feast actually predates Christmas. It's more likely that the date of Christmas was chosen to fall exactly nine months after the Annunciation, which was reckoned to have occurred on March 25th. With this in mind, that various pagan groups had winter solstice celebrations roughly coinciding with Christmas is not all that meaningful.

    As for Easter, it's even more dubious. The whole argument is based on the supposed connection between the word Easter and the name Eostre. The trouble, is that there is very scant evidence that such a deity was ever worshiped. The only historical mention of her comes from an English monk named Bede. Secondly, even if we were to accept Bede as correct on this it only works in German and English. Most European languages use some word derived from Passover. Basically, just because one word vaguely sounds like another, be it Eostre or Ishtar, it does not at all mean that there is a connection between them.

    Now it is true that as various peoples Christianized they retained certain cultural artifacts of pagan origin. For example, the English days of the week are references to Germanic deities. Christmas trees may have origins in Germanic winter celebrations. The alphabet itself was obviously retained by Christians as were many of the great philosophical and literary works of antiquity. But none of this is a problem unless one makes the typically Protestant error of assuming that anything of pagan origin is by that fact alone incompatible with Christianity. It's not. The Church as it is said, rejects nothing authentically good. Christmas trees and Easter eggs, far from being insidious forms of pagan worship, are in fact harmless cultural artifacts. And there is nothing wrong with that. It in no way detracts from the Christian nature of the culture and the said feasts in question.

    Again, the whole charge is a polemical bandwagon.
     
    #20 Musing Bassist, Aug 16, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...