• 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!

The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
I don't think it is a blatant lie. Because if you really didn't care, you would actually take the time to read what has been posted here, instead of just repeating ideas that really are being voiced. Case in point, we haven't been talking about God manifested in human form. That simply is not what we are talking about. I'm sure most who have really debated in this thread would admit that Jesus is fully human, and not divine.

You don't think determining what I am thinking and misrepresenting my views is a lie? Admittedly you do seem to struggle the concept so I will assume it was an innocent mistake :facepalm:
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Perhaps what lacks credibility is your understanding of the evidence.



I don't think I set the bar that high :confused:

Nefertiti, Ramesses, Tut Ankh Amun and Khufu existed.
The woolly mammoth, sabre tooth tiger and Tyrannosaurus Rex existed.

God and Jesus? The evidence just isn't good enough or I would believe it.

I am interested only in supporting evidence that is extremely strong or irrefutable. I am not prepared to compromise. Any evidence has to convince me, not someone with a bible in their hand already, after all it is me who has to believe it afterwards.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Nope. That's not actually what the current consensus is.

OK. You might be right. I am not going to argue the case as that is probably subjective too without an anonymoust poll of all scholars.



wiki says about historical Jesus

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era (admittedly mainly Christians themselves) generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. Many historians believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.

You can see scholars generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago.

That sounds promising until....

What an ancient historian means by the words "probably" or "likely" is not what a scientist means by the word.

If the question were the existence of any arbitrary first-century Judean who was not otherwise special, historians could provide the evidence, with weight, and give a nuanced answer. However, Jesus is the entire beginning and endpoint of Christian theology, and his life being exactly as detailed in the Gospels is a critical point for most believers. The politics against any discovery of fact contradicting this is vast.

So when I said in my earlier post to JS something to the effect of it being easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns this just bears out my point.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You can see scholars generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago.

That sounds promising until....
What an ancient historian means by the words "probably" or "likely" is not what a scientist means by the word.
So when I said in my earlier post to JS something to the effect of it being easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns this just bears out my point.
:banghead3

History is not science. History makes no claim to be science.

When the consensus of historical scholarship says that the historicity of Jesus is probable or likely, it means exactly that: that historicity is the most reasonable inference given what we know. You are free to discount this consensus and "stick to your guns" on one of three grounds:
  • bias-driven childish obstinancy,
  • the belief that most of the historians focusing on this era are wrong in claiming historicity as the best inference, or
  • the belief that all provision historical claims not scientifically proven should be discarded.
The first is childish, the second (given your credentials) ludicrous, and the third absurd. You choose.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
OK. You might be right. I am not going to argue the case as that is probably subjective too without an anonymoust poll of all scholars.



wiki says about historical Jesus



You can see scholars generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago.

That sounds promising until....



So when I said in my earlier post to JS something to the effect of it being easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns this just bears out my point.

Going with the flow of information you mean? Yes, I can see how going against that flow would take an extraordinary level of obstinacy. :yes:

I'm not sure if there's any virtue in sticking to your guns once it's been shown that you're firing blanks.
 

vepurusg

Member
Going with the flow of information you mean? Yes, I can see how going against that flow would take an extraordinary level of obstinacy. :yes:

I'm not sure if there's any virtue in sticking to your guns once it's been shown that you're firing blanks.


I'm baffled. Aren't you Staff on this forum?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm baffled. Aren't you Staff on this forum?

Oh goody: we have another new comer who's going to show up and immediately tell everybody, including staff, how they should conduct themselves here.

Welcome to RF.
 

beenie

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
**Staff Advisory**

The Staff has removed several posts from this thread that were replies to a post which violated the rules. We do so to keep the flow of the thread on track. If you notice your post is deleted, that is the reason, not that you did anything wrong.

Please keep the rules in mind when posting, particularly Rule 1 and Rule 3. Thank you.
 
Top