Gooch's dad

Doctor X, it isn't up to me to do research to support YOUR assertion. If you can't support your claim, then just say so.

Cheers,

Kelly

Doctor X

Nor is it for me to spoonfeed information to those unwilling to exercise a modicum of responsibility for their knowledge.

Does the individual then argue that historicity does not imply the existence of a god-man?

Let us ask proponents of the god-man: Magus, Jim, Mike . . . Pres. Bush, the Pope, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, that cab driver in Hoboken. . . . What do they feel "historicity" implies.

Maybe I am not clear enough . . . implies . . . okay, how about this: IMPLI[color=dark-blue]E[/color][color=dark red]S[/color]

I am afraid I consider myself a traditionalist that I recognize the possible existence of a "god-man" as rather extraordinary. I also listen to bands who musicians can actually play their instruments. I have been known to use the word "neat" as an exclamation.

Now do I wish to IMPL[color=dark-blue]Y[/color] that the existence of a historical Junior PROVE[color=dark-blue]S[/color] the existence of a "god-man?"

As forementioned, I do not wish to spoonfeed the obvious, but a slightly attentive reading of my previous post would indicate otherwise.

--J.D.

Gooch's dad

I don't much care what you think is implied by claiming that Jesus, a 1st century Jewish preacher existed. All I'm claiming is that he very likely existed.

It isn't my problem what other people claim about Jesus based on the Christian stories. That isn't the topic of this thread. The topic is whether Jesus, a 1st century Jewish preacher who was likely crucified by the Romans for insurrection, lived or not. It is not an extraordinary claim to say he did exist.

I didn't say anything about a "god-man". If you think claiming that Jesus the man existed MUST mean that Jesus the god-man existed, then you have yet to support that claim.

Look at the date I joined IIDB, Doctor X. I'm not wet behind the ears. I know the standard arguments that get tossed around here. I'm not Magus55, and I'm not Mike(ATL). I'm Kelly, an atheist who has a decent understanding of what historical inquiry means.

And you have an assertion that is still hanging there with no visible means of support. Might want to take care of that, hmmm?

Cheers,

Kelly

Toto

Please consult the BCH sticky thread on Recommended Reading & Reference. Scroll down to near the bottom where you see Historicity of Jesus. Read any or all of the threads there.

Whether you say there is proof that Jesus existed depends on 1) how you define Jesus - Josephus lists 27 guys named Jesus - and 2) what kind of a standard of proof you need.

The problem as I see it is there are two conflicting searches going on. One started in the Enlightenment, where Deists tried to extract what they could from what they saw as the wreck of Christianity, and looked for a human, non-divine Galilean moral preacher who could serve as a historical model. Yes, there are a few references that are not absolutely clearly forgeries that refer to some guy named Jesus or at least to his brother. Did this Jesus preach in Galilee and get crucified in Jerusalem? Can't prove it. Do we know what he actually said? Probably not. You can't really prove that he existed in the face of a real skeptic, but there is enough evidence to say that he could have, but that's about all.

The other search is Christians trying desperately to show that their religion is not based on pure fantasy and forgery. So you have scholars like Meier and Crossan who are adept at massaging the evidence to show that it is reasonable (or at least not delusional) to believe that there was a Jesus at the beginning of Christianity. That's about all that they can show, and the case is not very strong. And you have to wonder - if Jesus was the divine son of a Deity, why did he leave so little impression on his contemporaries? Why do the Christians have to repeat that he was just a backwater Galilean preacher who would not be expected to leave a mark on secular history?

In the face of this lack of evidence, it is most reasonable to be a Jesus agnostic. Or maybe a Jesus-apatheist - please tell me why I should care if Jesus existed.

Doctor X

Then there is this wonderful function known as Ignore.

We should all be so fortunate.

On the contrary, "let us review the catechism" [No Flesh and Blood references!--Ed.]:

. . . not to imply anything about scumdog's beliefs, but I am sure that "Christ" is not a surname.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I refer the individual to the answer I gave previously.

I refer the individual to the answer I gave previously . . . it even has C[color=dark-blue]O[/color]L[color=dark-blue]O[/color]R.

"We are amaz'd." [No Shakespeare!--Ed.]

I would be happy to be shown where I . . . most ironic . . . implied such.

Unfortunately, the protest to his injur'd merit suggests otherwise.

I'M SPARTICUS!!! [Stop that.--Ed.]

If an unkind man I would respond "ipse dixit;" however, I will note instead, en passant, that "a decent understanding of what historical inquiry means" would have revealed the intent in my response to Vinnie. I am sure if Vinnie has an objection or question he would be happy to raise either.

The individual is refered to the answers I given previously. That he fails to read the posts remains his error. If an unkind man, I would note that he has not supported the contrary as asked. So much for consistency.

--J.D.

offa

Gooch's dad

"I'm Kelly, an atheist who has a decent understanding of what historical inquiry means."

Offa, in reply

I too am an atheist and I know Jesus existed. He was born in 7 b.c.e. and was a one year old Child in 6 A.D. when the census occurred. He was crucified and died a spiritual death in 33 A.D. He was revived and lived until c. 68 A.D. He was "the Word" in John. Be patient, I too have been around for a while and they keep barking up the wrong tree because of their fundamentalism.

thanks, offa

rlogan

Gooch - the OP refers to the existence of Jesus Christ. that is more than a name. It is a title. The OP did not ask if a simple preacher named Jesus existed.

Pick any common name of the time and there probably was a preacher by that name. But we're talking about the Christ.

The Josephus entries are indeed key - and the problem is that at least the first one is generally agreed to have been forged. (Let's not be coy and call it "interpolation").

That is not an isolated incident. More the rule than the exception where Jesus Christ is concerned. While Kirby favors the existence of a more minimal Josephus entry - reasonable people can and do disagree on it. Peter is not adamant about this - it is more the direction he is "leaning".

Excuses abound, but it should strike one as odd that the most influential "person" of all time has left no solid proof of existence.

Doctor X

I may regret this, but:

. . . that would make him 13 years old rather than one year old in 6 C.E.

Of course, I have not considered the cryopods. . . .

--J.D.

Gooch's dad

Doctor X, let me get this straight. You want to try to support this assertion:

And your only attempt to do so, so far, is to point out that the OP contains "Jesus Christ" rather than just "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth".

Huh? So if someone later claims that I am a god-man...then I don't actually exist right now? Cool...didn't know that!

So if someone claims to have been healed by Mother Theresa after she died (which someone has claimed) and that claim of healing can't be demonstrated...then Mother Theresa really didn't exist?

Just to be completely clear--how do LATER claims about Jesus, by people who didn't even know him (i.e. the writers of the gospels) somehow make Jesus suddenly not exist?

Sorry, buddy, I think your assertion linking Jesus-the-man inseparably to Jesus-the-god-man is still quite unsupported.

Cheers!

Kelly

Toto

{MOD HAT ON}

Please maintain a bit more decorum in this Upper Forum.

Scumdog - this topic has been discussed before, as you might be able to tell. You seem to be new to it.

If you want to read through some of the resources available, you might find answers to some of your questions. There is no double standard - the people who doubt Jesus' existence also doubt Confucius' existence. But you can get deeply into questions of historiography, and it might take you a while to sort things out.

I will let you read what you want and come back with questions. I will ask the rest of you to avoid the sniping at each other and the overly colorful language. Otherwise ~~ it may get shut down.

Thank you.

Toto
moderator, BC&H