thief of fire

43 of the last 97 threads are about an historical Jesus. With this post we will go to 50/50, and the only thing preventing us slipping into an overwhelming majority of HJ threads is Stephan Huller.

Why is this issue so important? Why should anyone (non Christians) care?

Kapyong

Gday,

Because people are fascinated by controversies about important subjects - especially when it appears the majority view maybe wrong.

The vast majority of people think Jesus existed, but there is a fair chance he didn't - and he is one of the most significant figures in history - apparently.

It's a hot topic because it may mean a huge chapter of history is wrong.


K.

thief of fire

But we haven't established it is important yet

Agreed, a great crowd puller

Yes. I've never met anyone who thought he didn't except on the web.

Ok.

OK but why does that make it important? History might hardly be right about lots of things, but that doesn't make those things important

MrMacSon

Truth matters.

Especially truth of the basis for one of the major influences, if not the major influence, on western and European societies over the last 2,000 years.

Especially as there does not seem to have been proper investigation of that basis.

MrMacSon

Re: Importance.

Many people live their lives and influence others lives on the basis of a fixed doctrine and on the basis of preparing for an alleged afterlife.

The doctrinal aspects influence a number of aspects of discourse, such as views about science and science teaching; aspects of segregation along religious lines; etc

sotto voce

Most if not all of these HJ threads are started by those opposed to a historical Jesus; and they do not agree on the basis of opposition to HJ. New apparent objections are to be found daily. This is by no means a new phenomenon— it is many decades old. So the conclusion to be drawn is that acceptance of HJ remains, despite busy opposition, and despite opposition by a wide range of objections, some of them being remarkable for the fragility of their factual and/or logical basis. In other words, there seems to be a degree of ingenuity, if not desperation, about the debate. The word 'seems' occurs very often, along with statements in the first person, when simple, objective facts should be their own argument. It's not the stuff of real scholarship, anyway. Observing a contrast between common views opposing HJ, and the cool treatment of scholarship, is hard to avoid.

Then there is the contrast between the approach to canonical works and the works of those whose authorship was not considered canonical by anyone, even though there has been ample opportunity to canonise them, even though they are designated as Christian. The former are subjected to minute scrutiny, but the latter are waved through as genuinely Christian, without scrutiny, without any debate at all. It's a remarkable phenomenon in its own right, that could be a study in itself. The fact that these unauthorised authors actually, and obviously, support anti-Christian positions lends support to the view that HJ is actually believed, no matter what is said about it.

Iskander

Another seeker of the truth!! And yet the only arguments deniers provide are the demand that pre historic events be confirmed by certificates of authenticity and fingerprints


It is an ideological war then? The wish to replace one well tested and tried influence in Western society by screeching deniers. I much rather prefer to integrate Christianity into a secular commonwealth where religion is a harmless hobby for those that find the private need for it.

Edited documents are not the proof of non existence, but on the contrary they are the proof of an evolving existing entity or thing, just as the modified 2nd edition of a book is not a forgery and indicates the existence of a successful first edition, even when the original first edition book can no longer be found.


Deniers have nothing to say of any value against the western society that couldn’t be translated into political activity in our democratic society and they seek refuge in the defensive position of repeating a few simple words time and time again; fraud, lies, fingerprints... the more enterprising of this lot say much the same in a complicated manner and thus they become pontificating scholars.

thief of fire

Were any of these "doctrines" unique to christianity?

thief of fire

So is this about "western society"?

Logical

Is there a strategic importance for atheists to deny that Jesus ever existed?

Suppose that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. That wouldn't prove anything and wouldn't change anything in the theism vs. atheism debate. In that sense, the battle is a waste of time.

I also think it makes the atheists sound desperate and grasping for straws. Disputing the walking on water incident or the resurrection (extraordinary claims) is an easy way to put a Christian on the defensive. Those are ridiculous and hard to justify claims. But disputing that a man existed (an ordinary claim) strikes most people as unreasonable, I think; a lazy person's way of rejecting Christianity, implying that Christianity would be hard to refute otherwise (which is far from the truth).