GodInUs
Member
He's not understood with the natural mind, but ONLY through the Spirit
-
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!
Was Jesus Real?
- Thread starter Jesus from the Ghetto
- Start date
He's not understood with the natural mind, but ONLY through the Spirit
I think there are two possibilities and one certainty:
- Certain: The person of Jesus as portrayed by Christianity is not real.
- Most likely (Bart Ehrman's view): A person, perhaps named Jesus, became a disciple of John the Baptist who was an apocalyptic preacher. Jesus was accidentally crucified and his followers either started having visions of his coming back to life, or an imposter appeared (and soon disappeared).
- Unlikely (Richard Carrier's view): There was no person, but people started having visions and constructed Christianity from elements existing at the time.
lukethethird
unknown member
Yes, because only a crank would deny the Son of God a place in history.
Last edited:
Apologes
Active Member
Dunno about that but a crank would certainly put words in my mouth like that.
Correct on each score apart from two matters: Bart Ehrman's view should be "virtually certain" rather than most likely and the majority of scholars would deny that the crucifixion was an accident.
As Professor Helen K Bond explains in a recent study:
E.P. Sanders and the ‘Trial’ of Jesus in: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Volume 13 Issue 2-3 Year 2015
A comparison with the case of Jesus ben Ananias is particularly instructive: appearing at the feast of Tabernacles in 62 ce and repeatedly prophesying against the Temple, ben Ananias was arrested by the Jewish leaders and passed over to the Roman procurator, Albinus, who after hearing him concluded that he was mad, flogged him and let him go (War 6.300–309).25
Jesus of Nazareth, in comparison, was much more dangerous: he had a following, talked about a kingdom, and had performed a physical action in the Temple. Both men were heard at the highest level by Jewish and Roman authorities, though the reasons for the harsher sentence in the case of Jesus of Nazareth are clear.
The fact that Josephus, looking back from the late first century, had anything to say about Jesus at all suggests that he was a significant figure,28 comparable perhaps to John the Baptist or Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus of Nazareth, in comparison, was much more dangerous: he had a following, talked about a kingdom, and had performed a physical action in the Temple. Both men were heard at the highest level by Jewish and Roman authorities, though the reasons for the harsher sentence in the case of Jesus of Nazareth are clear.
The fact that Josephus, looking back from the late first century, had anything to say about Jesus at all suggests that he was a significant figure,28 comparable perhaps to John the Baptist or Jesus ben Ananias.
The authorities must have had good reason to consider Jesus dangerous, since other prophetic figures threatening the Temple were not crucified (an extreme punishment reserved only for slaves, brigands and rebels against the empire).
lukethethird
unknown member
Yes, well, crank is my middle name.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Christians have a hard time separating the mythical Jesus from the historical Jesus.
lukethethird
unknown member
What needs separating?
Audie
Veteran Member
All that is known is the mythical part.