Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sharon45 · 03-14-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekl

I think the basis for the original confusion might have been over the term "believe" and what that means. Eg. for some people, to 'believe in Jesus' means to believe that Jesus is the messiah, son of god, all that stuff - the Christian dogma Jesus. But the phrase can also mean believing that Jesus, an historical figure in whatever way, did in fact exist. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that so many people 'believe' in Jesus while not being Christian.

Yes, but the supernatural jesus is what most people think of. The other one(whatever that may be), if even that, isn't that important. Hardly anyone would care or talk about that jesus. It is hard enough to get infomation about those that were much more popular at their own time than him.

Lógos Sokratikós · 03-14-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is the lamest sort of argumentum ad absentia. Letters from Romans? Are you serious? Do you think we have letters from Romans about every single person who was crucified? Why would we?

The way I see it, you're right. And you're wrong. You're wrong because in history (and science in general) you can't lay down as a fact that Papa Smurf existed just because there's a TV show saying he did -if you catch my drift.

If it is allowed you to say Jesus existed, It is allowed for me to say say Papa Smurf existed.

Lógos Sokratikós · 03-14-2005, 07:31 PM

Maybe the gospels were losely based on someone (or some two for that matter) who did exist, but burried under all that myth and contradictions, so much, that you can't possibly know what parts... so much as to make it a worthless effort to even guess at it, a real waste of time.

Godfather · 03-16-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jswayze

A recent Gallup poll indicates 93% of us believe Jesus did indeed live and breathe. That's a little confounding since my understanding is that some 15% of us are "non-believers", so I have come to this site to investigate the claim of the poll and to my bewilderment it does appear a good many of you do seem to accept the historicity of Jesus. Of all people, how can you believe in such? 2000 years of intense searching has failed to unveil the slightest scrap of evidence of such a person or anyone resembling such a person, so I find myself somewhat dismayed to find people at this exceptional site have bought into our cultural upbringing to the extent of not questioning this rather fundamental issue.

Where can I look up these statistics?

Jayhawker Soule · 03-16-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

History is not amenable to what you think is important and I think your extropolations are way off base. The existence of a Historical Jesus does not in any way translate to any sort of necessary acceptance of the Bible as "truth." I've already said the gospels are not historical truth. All it would mean is that a real person was mythicised into a figure of devotion or worship. It has happened many times in human history. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

Precisely.

Ulrich · 03-16-2005, 01:01 PM

My take on this is very close to the one jswayze has espoused. Even though there may have been a person in history that the Jesus myth was based on, I doubt that the information contained in the NT about Jesus represents the possible historical figure in any meaningful way. The Gospels are simply too inconsistent (both internally and externally) for them to be eyewitness, or even second or third hand accounts. Add to that the fact that they were written decades after the purported events happened, and it is obvious (to me) that they are building on a mythological structure that pre-existed them. The Pauline epistles may be closer in time to the purported date of the event, but when examined closely, rather than giving us a more clear picture of HJ, they actually appear to endorse a spiritual, rather than physical, Christ figure.

This taken together with a total lack of reference in non-christian literature (I do not lend credit to the Testimonium Flavium, and Tacitus is too far removed to be counted if it is not an interpolation), puts me firmly in the Mythical Jesus camp even though I do acknowledge that there is a very small chance that a historic personage existed that the myth is based on.

jswayze · 03-26-2005, 01:30 PM

I want to point out a recent book by Tom Harpur called "The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light" which does an infinitely better job than I have of discussing the very real dangers created by literal belief in the Bible...or the Qur'an or the Talmud, for that matter. Harpur is anything but an atheist, but he is a realist and realizes the god search is a spiritual journey.

Speaking of "atheist", I resent that label. I'm not the one who chooses to create gods or religions, so don't label me. Call me "Ordinary Jim" and I will label you a "protheist" if you choose to throw your god and religion in my face. - just a little commentary there.

"Godfather" asked where he could find the original statistics I quoted. It turns out it was a Newsweek poll, not Gallup. Actually, the site has quite a few interesting statistics. You can find it at http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm.

Vorkosigan · 03-26-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

I don't see that it matters much if Jesus was real or imagined: what cannot be denied is that something gave rise to Christianity and while I think Paul is a key figure, I'd be astonished if he simply made the whole thing up.
I find it reasonable to to think that there was an oral tradition relating to a radical preacher who belonged to a movement, or may even have led it, which was reconstructing the Jewish god.

I agree there was an oral tradition. Paul tells us so, essentially, in his complaint that "some of you are from Christ, and some Paul, and some Apollos." The question is whether any of the extant material in the Gospels and elsewhere stems from that tradition.

Crucifiction · 03-26-2005, 04:18 PM

My opinion is that it hardly matters if there was some Jewish rabbi somewhere that got into some shit with the Romans and got his ass killed. The story of Jesus may have been based on a real person{s} somewhere at some point in time, but the absurd embellishments, sheer mythologies, and contradictions in the Gospel accounts so removes the MJ from the HJ that they may as well be two seperate "people".

Tubby Lardmore · 03-26-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind

Maybe the gospels were losely based on someone (or some two for that matter) who did exist, but burried under all that myth and contradictions, so much, that you can't possibly know what parts... so much as to make it a worthless effort to even guess at it, a real waste of time.

Like TheOpenMind, I have long suspected that the gospels are based on at least two men. The Sermon on the Mount was likely not delivered by the same person who threw the moneylenders out of the temple, though the latter could be the person who burned a fig tree because it didn't have any fruit on it when he passed by and was hungry.

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

03-14-2005, 07:31 PM	#23
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	Maybe the gospels were losely based on someone (or some two for that matter) who did exist, but burried under all that myth and contradictions, so much, that you can't possibly know what parts... so much as to make it a worthless effort to even guess at it, a real waste of time.

03-16-2005, 01:01 PM	#26
Ulrich Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St Louis Metro East Posts: 1,046	My take on this is very close to the one jswayze has espoused. Even though there may have been a person in history that the Jesus myth was based on, I doubt that the information contained in the NT about Jesus represents the possible historical figure in any meaningful way. The Gospels are simply too inconsistent (both internally and externally) for them to be eyewitness, or even second or third hand accounts. Add to that the fact that they were written decades after the purported events happened, and it is obvious (to me) that they are building on a mythological structure that pre-existed them. The Pauline epistles may be closer in time to the purported date of the event, but when examined closely, rather than giving us a more clear picture of HJ, they actually appear to endorse a spiritual, rather than physical, Christ figure. This taken together with a total lack of reference in non-christian literature (I do not lend credit to the Testimonium Flavium, and Tacitus is too far removed to be counted if it is not an interpolation), puts me firmly in the Mythical Jesus camp even though I do acknowledge that there is a very small chance that a historic personage existed that the myth is based on.

03-26-2005, 01:30 PM	#27
jswayze New Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 4	I want to point out a recent book by Tom Harpur called "The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light" which does an infinitely better job than I have of discussing the very real dangers created by literal belief in the Bible...or the Qur'an or the Talmud, for that matter. Harpur is anything but an atheist, but he is a realist and realizes the god search is a spiritual journey. Speaking of "atheist", I resent that label. I'm not the one who chooses to create gods or religions, so don't label me. Call me "Ordinary Jim" and I will label you a "protheist" if you choose to throw your god and religion in my face. - just a little commentary there. "Godfather" asked where he could find the original statistics I quoted. It turns out it was a Newsweek poll, not Gallup. Actually, the site has quite a few interesting statistics. You can find it at http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm.

03-26-2005, 04:18 PM	#29
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	My opinion is that it hardly matters if there was some Jewish rabbi somewhere that got into some shit with the Romans and got his ass killed. The story of Jesus may have been based on a real person{s} somewhere at some point in time, but the absurd embellishments, sheer mythologies, and contradictions in the Gospel accounts so removes the MJ from the HJ that they may as well be two seperate "people".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.