Theo the Logian

Micheal,
You can't be an atheist if Jesus existed?
That's almost what you imply. I don't see why his mere existence is so threatening to your worldview. I don't believe the Koran, but I believe Mohammed existed.
What is your definition of a "scholar" ?
Why are western scholars excluded ? If you count Islamic scholars, I think they view Jesus as a real person and a prophet but not devine. They consider the Bible as a Holy book.
India is a pretty avanced non-western civilisation, and I have talked to some MD's from there who are Hindu, they hold to Jesus being a real person and even try to draw paralels between his teachings and Hinduism.
I would assume being college educated intellectual people they would have been exposed to these multitudes of non western scholars that deny Jesus existence as an historical person.
I think the only people that deny he existed are American atheists, who were, raised in strict fundamentalist homes. They are the only ones familiar enough with the Bible to feel threatened by the implications of his existence.
I think denying his mere existence as an actual person is an attempt to cut the whole thing off at the knees and hold all those threatening claims he made at bay.

[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: Theo the Logian ]

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Theo the Logian:
Micheal,
You can't be an atheist if Jesus existed?
That's almost what you imply. I don't see why his mere existence is so threatening to your worldview.

I don't recall saying that. I was responding to Bede's claims about scholars. The existence of a figure under the legend has no bearing on my beliefs, as I have said in this forum many times.

I doubt Toto feels threatened by the existence or non-existence of Jesus either. But I am sure that you Christians feel threatened by any hint of that, so it is no wonder you are jumping in with both feet here, instead of answering the questions posed to you in other threads in other forums. Stop projecting, Theo.

I don't believe the Koran, but I believe Mohammed existed.

Me too. And?

What is your definition of a "scholar" ?

Summary form: someone who uses scholarly methodologies to solve problems the problems that interest them.

Why are western scholars excluded ?

Don't be silly. I never said they were excluded. I asked Bede for some evidence that virtually all scholars -- scholars of myth, far eastern scholars, etc, believed that Jesus was a real person. So far Bede hasn't put forth any.

I think the only people that deny he existed are American atheists, who were, raised in strict fundamentalist homes.

ROTFLMAO. I was raised in a liberal Catholic home.

BTW, what do you mean "don't believe he existed?" I believe the gospels are stories that record very little factual data at all. In that sense, I believe the Jesus of the gospels did not exist. I assume there's a person under all the legends, but we know almost nothing about him or her.

They are the only ones familiar enough with the Bible to feel threatened by the implications of his existence.

Yes, certainly Christians would never feel threatened by implications of his non-existence. ROTFLMAO.

I think denying his mere existence as an actual person is an attempt to cut the whole thing off at the knees and hold all those threatening claims he made at bay.

Which threatening claims were those? That mental illness is caused by demons? That blindness can be cured by magic saliva? That fig trees should be expected to bear fruit out of season? That the kingdom of god would come in Jesus' lifetime? That those who don't believe in that kingdom should be slain? That Jesus' own parents thought he was a nut?

Gosh, I really feel threatened by failed prophecies and scientific nonsense.

Michael

Theo the Logian

Michael,
You have taken the time to compile a list of things out of the gospels that can be construed as being ridiculous. A list, probably committed to memory, kept at the ready as "ammo". This implies that you take the claims of Christ seriously. Seriously enough to make an effort to discredit his teachings.
So, I look at it as rationalization. I am pretty sure that is how many Christians look at it, but I lack the tact of many of them.
The underlying principle, here, that I believe you find threatening to your worldview, is that IF there was such a person, both human and devine, and therefore our creator, that represented the epitome of all that is good, and made himself a sacrifice for us to ensure our salvation. If their was such a person
the logical conclusion would be to follow him.
It would take more cojones than most people have to say, "yeah, I believe the Bible, I believe in Christ, I believe in Heaven and Hell, and I don't want to follow Christ because I want to be my own Boss.
I have a lot of respect for people like that.
But they are rare.
On the other end of the spectrum there are people that are Atheists who are more consistent with themselves than your "the existence of Christ as an historical person" denying ilk, and see good within Christianity. That to me would seem to be the most rational conclusion to draw from Christianity, If there truly were no God.
I mean it obviously is an institution that serves some positive function for our society or it wouldn't have survived so long and contributed so much to western civilization.
In there rationality, even if Jesus did not exist, how could attempting to emulate, a person who represents the essence of good, be a bad thing ?
If there is no God, than any goodness these followers of His can generate, by trying to emulate him, is generated by the inherent goodness of mankind. A humanist idea, if I ever heard one.
Picking through passages of mud and spittle to try to portray Christ in a ridiculous light is an attempt to avoid the obvious question: "Why don't you follow Him?"

[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: Theo the Logian ]

brighid

Okay - can we get back to the original question - about dating the birth of Christ! Christians - how do you do it, what evidence do you use to support it, etc? Is that such a difficult question to answer?

Brighid

brighid

Why don’t “we” follow him?? For the same reason I didn’t follow David Koresh, Jim Jones or any other alleged prophet of some god and the same reason I don’t emulate Bozo the Clown or Newt Gingrich. There are people far more worthy of admiration and emulation that Jesus Christ. I find Ghandi and the Dalai Lama preferable. There is certainly no compelling evidence that I should believe in Jesus and although I do find some of the qualities portrayed about him to be admirable, I find it incomprehensible that a divine being would require exclusive membership to his club and only his “good” servants (few and far between) will get final admission to the country club at the top of the cloud. I find that reasonable for a mortal king to desire loyal allegiance of his subjects and for purposes of control to threaten harsh punishment, excommunication from the kingdom, even long and drawn out forms of torture as means to scare his lowly subjects into servitude and devotion. Coercion and tyranny – such admirable traits in a divine ruler! Sign me up …

Brighid

Bede

Jesus was probably born around 5BC. The evidence about his birth is late and contradictory and has little historical value. It seems highly likely, considering all the available sources, that he was born towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great and possible he was born in Bethlehem although the consensus of scholars says Nazereth is more likely.

Historically, that's it.

The standard work on the question is Raymond Brown's 'Birth of the Messiah' which you'll find in any good library.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Mike Rosoft

The problem is that Matthew and Luke contradict each other about the date of Jesus' birth. Matthew says that Jesus was born when Herod was a king of Judea. (Herod died 4 BCE.) Luke says that he was born when Quirinius was a governor of Syria. (Quirinius became governor in 6 CE.)

There is an article by Richard Carrier about this problem at Internet Infidels' Library.


Mike Rosoft

Theo the Logian

Brighid,
What about the Dalai Lama do you find so admirable?

brighid

I admire his gentleness, his even handedness, his expression of compassion, his lack of prosyletization, his true caring for the entire human world, not just that of Buddhists, his ability to see the value in the secular and work with it (not against it), his ability too see the necessity for population control, his desire to save the environment and his work toward world peace without the use of force, coercion and violence and his respect for all paths in this life, the fact that he will not endorse political parties, his instance on democracy and freedom, that he discourages blind faith and fanaticism, “The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.”, and these are a few things that I admire about the Dalai Lama. I find him to be a far superior model of emulation than other spiritual leaders, including Jesus Christ and the tenants of Christianity as taught by tradition and action.
http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/millennium-message.html
http://motherjones.com/mother_jones/ND97/thurman.html


brighid

brighid

Ah - his stance on gay rights - "In a warm, relaxed meeting, the Dalai Lama sought to clarify his understanding of traditional Buddhist texts concerning sexuality and empathized with participants' concerns and frustrations about the unfairness of the prohibitions for gays and lesbians. Traditional Buddhist teaching prohibits certain sexual activities for practicing Buddhists, including homosexual acts for men (and by implication, he said, for women). He expressed his willingness to consider the possibility that some of these teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historical context. He stressed that he does not have the authority to unilaterally reinterpret Buddhist scriptures, but urged those present to build a consensus among other Buddhist traditions and communities to collectively change the understanding of the text for contemporary society. His Holiness expressed interest in the insights of modern scientific research and its value in developing new understandings of these texts" http://www.iglhrc.org/news/press/pr_970611.html