Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-08-2009, 07:28 PM

Do you think the statements about Jesus in the canonical Gospels are historically accurate?

Just your opinion, and any comments you feel disposed to make.

aa5874 · 09-08-2009, 08:32 PM

Jesus was a 1st century fiction character that was plausible in antiquity. Marcion even claimed, quite successfully, that he was some kind of docetic entity or Phantom or something that only appeared to be human but was without birth and no earthly parents.

Jesus was just a story believed to be true and historicised by the Church with fiction characters like Saul/Paul who, remarkably a supposed contemporary, did not ever claim to see Jesus until he was in a resurrected state.

Saul/Paul claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a fictitious state.

Marcion must have been right, Jesus could only be seen in the spirit world

This is a writer called Tertullian in On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

Over 150 years after the supposed death of Jesus, Christians or Jesus believers were still not sure of the nature or existence of the flesh of Jesus except that he was divine.

Jesus was just a plausible story of antiquity.

Doug Shaver · 09-09-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you think the statements about Jesus in the canonical Gospels are historically accurate?

Just your opinion, and any comments you feel disposed to make.

I think the canonical gospels are works of fiction. There is no history in them.

Juststeve · 09-09-2009, 10:02 AM

I think the Gospels contain information about a real guy with a thick layer of myth on top. At this time I am unable to recover anything remarkable about him in which I have confidence.

Steve

Toto · 09-09-2009, 10:42 AM

I do not think that the gospels were intended to be historically accurate. They are works of theology.

But I decline to encourage any more polls.

Splarnst · 09-09-2009, 11:23 AM

I want to vote: I dunno.

aa5874 · 09-09-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I do not think that the gospels were intended to be historically accurate. They are works of theology.

But I decline to encourage any more polls.

The Church considered the Gospels as historical, even the author of gLuke made reference to eyewitnesses. See Luke 1.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the canonised Gospels were written to be believed as historical facts.

Jesus the God/man, the son of a virgin called Mary, was declared to be on earth, in the region of Judaea, with thousands of followers, and in the presence of known historical figures like Pilate and Herod.

bacht · 09-09-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I do not think that the gospels were intended to be historically accurate. They are works of theology.

But I decline to encourage any more polls.

The Church considered the Gospels as historical, even the author of gLuke made reference to eyewitnesses. See Luke 1.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the canonised Gospels were written to be believed as historical facts.

Jesus the God/man, the son of a virgin called Mary, was declared to be on earth, in the region of Judaea, with thousands of followers, and in the presence of known historical figures like Pilate and Herod.

Right, by the time the gospels were written the HJ was uppermost. Before that who knows? It's hard to find an HJ in Revelation or the epistles (sure there are ambiguous hints but no full-blown bio)

jaguar · 09-09-2009, 01:56 PM

they all are correct. if one part of the bible was wrong or inaccurate, then the whole thing has to be put up to question.

spamandham · 09-09-2009, 02:07 PM

The poll is rather limited, but it seems unlikely to me that anything in the gospels regarding Jesus is historically accurate. Although it is possible there is a historical person upon which the Christ myth grew, I don't think anything about that person remains in the gospels (if there was such a person at all). The gospels appear to me to be wholey constructed from messianic expectations in the Old Testament.

View Poll Results: Do you think the statements the Gospels make about Jesus are historically accurate?
All of them are historically accurate.	4	6.25%
Some of them are historically accurate and some of them are not.	23	35.94%
None of them are historically accurate.	37	57.81%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

09-08-2009, 07:28 PM	#1
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	All, some, or none? Do you think the statements about Jesus in the canonical Gospels are historically accurate? Just your opinion, and any comments you feel disposed to make.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2009, 10:02 AM	#4
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	I think the Gospels contain information about a real guy with a thick layer of myth on top. At this time I am unable to recover anything remarkable about him in which I have confidence. Steve

09-09-2009, 10:42 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I do not think that the gospels were intended to be historically accurate. They are works of theology. But I decline to encourage any more polls.

09-09-2009, 11:23 AM	#6
Splarnst Contributor Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 13,161	I want to vote: I dunno.

09-09-2009, 01:56 PM	#9
jaguar Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: USA Posts: 241	they all are correct. if one part of the bible was wrong or inaccurate, then the whole thing has to be put up to question.

09-09-2009, 02:07 PM	#10
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	The poll is rather limited, but it seems unlikely to me that anything in the gospels regarding Jesus is historically accurate. Although it is possible there is a historical person upon which the Christ myth grew, I don't think anything about that person remains in the gospels (if there was such a person at all). The gospels appear to me to be wholey constructed from messianic expectations in the Old Testament.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.