Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 09-09-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

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.

...a pretty pathetic and transparent argument from consequences

avi · 09-09-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

and that is one significant difference, compared with the myths of Achilles and probably Hector as well. We don't even know for sure, the dates of the Trojan war, let alone the names of any historical figures from that era, living in that location. Even the relevant layer, from the excavation at Hisarlik is uncertain: some hypothesize layer VII B1, but how do we know for sure?
avi

Shake · 09-09-2009, 04:15 PM

I believe it's possible that there was a man named Jesus alive at the time who might have had a small following. Beyond that, I have serious doubts.

aa5874 · 09-09-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shake

I believe it's possible that there was a man named Jesus alive at the time who might have had a small following. Beyond that, I have serious doubts.

Now that you have expressed your belief, please provide the source of antiquity that can corroborate or augment the case for such a belief.

It is also possible that the story of Jesus was constructed from multiple characters in addition to legendary fables.

Now, the Church writers and the authors of the NT claimed Jesus had thousands of people following him, based on your belief, then the authors have very little credibility.

So, there could have been no Jesus and the Church and the authors of the NT could have said that there was a Jesus. The Church really don't care about the historical veracity of their writings only that you believe Jesus did exist.

Marcion was right, Jesus only seemed real but he was not. He had no earthly parents and was not of this world. He is from a mythical place where all myths reside. Heaven.

J-D · 09-09-2009, 09:22 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.

I think the authors probably did intend them to be read in that way, but I don't think you're justified in being so categorical about it. It is possible in principle (although I don't incline to this view) that the original writers did not intend them to be taken as historical accounts and that this view of them was imposed later.

Your point about Luke is an excellent one (and thank you for that)--the initial verses do strongly signal that that Gospel was written with the intention of being taken as a historical account. But even if that's true of Luke, it doesn't automatically follow that the same is true of Matthew, Mark, and John (although, for what it's worth, I repeat that I think it probably is).

J-D · 09-09-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

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.

Everything should be open to question. That doesn't mean everything is inaccurate. Every statement in the Bible is open to question. That doesn't necessarily mean every statement in the Bible is automatically inaccurate.

J-D · 09-09-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The poll is rather limited,

Sorry, I should have included an 'I am unsure' option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

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.

aa5874 · 09-10-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

I think the authors probably did intend them to be read in that way, but I don't think you're justified in being so categorical about it. It is possible in principle (although I don't incline to this view) that the original writers did not intend them to be taken as historical accounts and that this view of them was imposed later.

Your point about Luke is an excellent one (and thank you for that)--the initial verses do strongly signal that that Gospel was written with the intention of being taken as a historical account. But even if that's true of Luke, it doesn't automatically follow that the same is true of Matthew, Mark, and John (although, for what it's worth, I repeat that I think it probably is).

But, I did not ever claim it was automatic.

The information was provided by the Church. It was the Church writers that vehemently claimed that the Gospels were true.

Look at the preface of De Principiis. The author claimed Jesus was truly the creator of the world and was God who became a man while still being a God who truly resurrected and went to heaven.

There is simply no information anywhere from the Church to suggest that the supposed historical accounts with respect to Jesus should be discarded or had no veracity.

Minimalist · 09-10-2009, 10:55 AM

I voted None.

mountainman · 09-10-2009, 05:25 PM

ditto

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

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

09-09-2009, 04:15 PM	#13
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	I believe it's possible that there was a man named Jesus alive at the time who might have had a small following. Beyond that, I have serious doubts.

09-10-2009, 10:55 AM	#19
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	I voted None.

09-10-2009, 05:25 PM	#20
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	ditto

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.