Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fairness, historicism IS the majority viewpoint in academia, and mythicism the minority position. But the context is that most of the folks in ancient history, biblical archaeology, and related fields are beholden to church-connected funding. Also historians have a pretty low bar to what constitutes a consensus. Rather than "what can proven or likely to be true" it is more "what is least likely to be untrue based on whatever sparse evidence there is". As such ... who is the majority opinion here doesn't carry much weight.
It is also true that most historians are not historians in the relevant field. The number of mythicists or doubters of a historical Jesus appears to be larger in the group of relevant historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Erhman is no longer a Biblical literalist / inerrantist (in fact he's an agnostic) and while IIRC he leans toward a historic Jesus, at the same time, he does not believe in Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man(tm).
Apparently Ehrman does accept Paul says Jesus was an angel in Galatians 4:14, and angels are not historical. I presume Ehrman believes the mythical attributes were added to a historical Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
All that said, I agree, without citations (or personal credentials and research in a relevant field), anyone is just spouting speculation and opinion.
Although I am neither a qualified historian, nor have I written any papers on history, I do understand Koine Greek, and I have read many of the writings of the early Christian fathers up to Eusebius. I can also detect plagiarism in texts such as the gospels. Even then, a large number of my arguments are speculation, because we simply can never tell what the texts meant, or whether they were later amended. For example, when Paul says he met the brother of the lord, was he referring to a literal brother or simply a fellow Christian? It could be either, as he did call other Christians brothers and sisters.
Look, what you referring to as "Jesus" is a fiction character.
Reason being simple. There is not a single direct Jesus authored piece. Outside of the apocrypha Essenian Gospel of Jesus, which is attributed to him but considered a much later creation. And, of course, The Gospel of Mary.
What I am saying is - "Jesus" is a mutual character of the fours, quite contradictory, stories, called gospels and, additional stories from men, who never met or saw him, just had an opinion about him.
Hence, he is fiction character, just like Peter Pen.
Until you find HIS AND HIS DIRECT words, it is someone's opinion about him. Prove me wrong. Or, until you will have DIRECT God's word about him, not humans interpretation of what God said.
I'm sorry, but argument "Bible is direct god's word" does not apply, as no matter, how you look at it, scriptures were WRITTEN by men or, orally spread by MEN and that makes them man-made. About the only direct God's written words, the ten commandments given by God to Moses, said Moses destroyed.
As of now, there is not a single direct word of God or Jesus to use as sacred undoubtful text or guide. Everything else product of human mind and hand. Inspired by God, or not, that is subject to argument. And, as such, can not be taken as direct proof.
Look, what you referring to as "Jesus" is a fiction character.
Reason being simple. There is not a single direct Jesus authored piece. Outside of the apocrypha Essenian Gospel of Jesus, which is attributed to him but considered a much later creation. And, of course, The Gospel of Mary.
What I am saying is - "Jesus" is a mutual character of the fours, quite contradictory, stories, called gospels and, additional stories from men, who never met or saw him, just had an opinion about him.
Hence, he is fiction character, just like Peter Pen.
Until you find HIS AND HIS DIRECT words, it is someone's opinion about him. Prove me wrong. Or, until you will have DIRECT God's word about him, not humans interpretation of what God said.
I'm sorry, but argument "Bible is direct god's word" does not apply, as no matter, how you look at it, scriptures were WRITTEN by men or, orally spread by MEN and that makes them man-made. About the only direct God's written words, the ten commandments given by God to Moses, said Moses destroyed.
As of now, there is not a single direct word of God or Jesus to use as sacred undoubtful text or guide. Everything else product of human mind and hand. Inspired by God, or not, that is subject to argument. And, as such, can not be taken as direct proof.
I pretty much agree.
And I'll say to those who disagree what I have said over and over: Forget about proving what you cannot prove. Focus on the teachings, regardless of who wrote or said them...the principles...are they wise or not wise. Same for Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims. Focus on the principles.
If you're a godist and here to prove to us that Jesus was real and was god...then you might as well lay down on the floor, kick and scream, writhe and foam at the mouth in frustration, because a simple person on this forum has pretty much zero chance of showing us non-believers that you are right about all the 'facts' you spout. Ain't gonna happen. Now, if you want to debate principles...that's another matter.
Look, what you referring to as "Jesus" is a fiction character.
Reason being simple. There is not a single direct Jesus authored piece. Outside of the apocrypha Essenian Gospel of Jesus, which is attributed to him but considered a much later creation. And, of course, The Gospel of Mary.
What I am saying is - "Jesus" is a mutual character of the fours, quite contradictory, stories, called gospels and, additional stories from men, who never met or saw him, just had an opinion about him.
Hence, he is fiction character, just like Peter Pen.
Until you find HIS AND HIS DIRECT words, it is someone's opinion about him. Prove me wrong. Or, until you will have DIRECT God's word about him, not humans interpretation of what God said.
I'm sorry, but argument "Bible is direct god's word" does not apply, as no matter, how you look at it, scriptures were WRITTEN by men or, orally spread by MEN and that makes them man-made. About the only direct God's written words, the ten commandments given by God to Moses, said Moses destroyed.
As of now, there is not a single direct word of God or Jesus to use as sacred undoubtful text or guide. Everything else product of human mind and hand. Inspired by God, or not, that is subject to argument. And, as such, can not be taken as direct proof.
Do you apply that same criteria to other historical figures?
Do you apply that same criteria to other historical figures?
Depends on the historical figure. While some folks are troubled by the fact that Jesus did write anything...
I am more troubled by the fact that we have a guy who when he died...
It suddenly got dark, the curtain in the temple split from bottom to top, there were earthquakes and rocks splitting open, and there were zombies coming out of their graves...
And nobody bothered to note what the date was.
Never mind the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. No dates for any of these extraordinary events.
Instead these events are celebrated by a holiday named after a fertility goddess with a touch of astronomy thrown into the mix as opposed to a solid date.
Do you apply that same criteria to other historical figures?
To be honest, there is solid scientific evidence that around 1100 years were added to the history, we are being taught, as official and, multiple "historical" figures were multiplied across various regions, under various names.
So yes, not the same criteria yet, I simply do not trust anything that comes out of official "science" and "historiography". I know how my Motherland history was re - written many times and never with good intent.
Now, I know, "Jesus" existed, as he was predicted and described in much more solid scriptures, than Bible. But he had little to none to do with "Jesus" of the NT.
Let me explain the "REAL" truth about Jesus of Nazareth:
There is absolutely NO historical evidence for Jesus Christ.
"There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”
There is absolutely NO secular historical evidence for any of the apostles.
Would-be believers have to start with this salient fact before they contemplate making a commitment to a man-god figure who likely did not exist. Scholars will agree that someone likely existed upon which the legend of Jesus as it appears in the gospels is based, but he certainly had no supernatural powers nor was he the supernatural son of the Biblical god. Scholars believers he was some sort of shaman or apocalyptic preachers who ran afoul of the Romans and was crucified and left to rot on the cross. Anything more than that is pure speculation because we have no secular historical records that mention a Jesus who was crucified. It's all supposition, so think carefully before you choose to commit your life to a person who was most likely mythical.
There's a very good reason why the numbers of Christianity are dropping like a stone: reliable evidence for their god simply does not exist. The gospels are not recognized as historical records. Rather they are testaments of faith.
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
One can argue more about the question of his divinity, and the evidence for his resurrection.
The fact he was crucified is not such a big deal , it was a fairly common form of public execution at the time.
The bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of his claims of being the Messiah and the chosen one, and hence Christianity.
I’ve often questioned the validity of some of the OT stories, as you may have read.
There are often no historical or scientific records to support them.
Jesus as a historical figure I don’t think can be disputed.
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
The first references in Paul say he was an angel made out of the material the Jewish god was made of, that he took on human form, lost his super powers, and that this was revealed in scripture, and that Jesus spoke through the prophets. Even the descriptions of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews come from the OT, and says Jesus was a priest in the heavenly temple not built by human hands, unlike the temple in Jerusalem that had human priests.
It is not until the later gospels that we get a 'historical' Jesus doing strange miracles and saying things that historically make no sense, but do as allegory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
