Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 124 of 124

Thread: Was Jesus a real person?

  1. #101  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In fact the Epistles are even more evidence than the gospels in this regard as some are written by Peter, James and John - people who knew Jesus personally.
    That's debateable.
    Caesar was further removed from the original source but you would not argue his non-existence. A modern example of documents in modern times could be viewed with Karl Marx, he is dead but I'm fairly certain he existed from his works.
    Because there are other, corroborating sources for both. This isn't quite the case for "Jesus".
    but it sounds like many of you guys have a rather biased perspective from being Atheists rather than a true approach through evidence (I realise as a Christian I have a biased perspective but I am trying not to let my personal beliefs cloud my judgement of the evidence).
    And yet...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In fact the Epistles are even more evidence than the gospels in this regard as some are written by Peter, James and John - people who knew Jesus personally.
    That's debateable.
    What exactly is debatable? Could you be specific?, the authorship of the epistles? the date?

    Caesar was further removed from the original source but you would not argue his non-existence. A modern example of documents in modern times could be viewed with Karl Marx, he is dead but I'm fairly certain he existed from his works.
    Because there are other, corroborating sources for both. This isn't quite the case for "Jesus".
    Well the graphic above in the thread has mentioned lots of indirect evidence if you classify that as evidence, I mean the early church itself is quite a large piece of indirect evidence itself, although I grant neither actually refer to Jesus (well except the Talmud)

    but it sounds like many of you guys have a rather biased perspective from being Atheists rather than a true approach through evidence (I realise as a Christian I have a biased perspective but I am trying not to let my personal beliefs cloud my judgement of the evidence).
    And yet...
    And yet what? I would appreciate a bit of expansion to your statement rather than a self-entitled and arrogant response - I assume you mean that you feel my personal beliefs have clouded by perspective and yet have not been specific at all, which part of the evidence is clouded?, the dates I mention?, the treatment of the bible as a historical source like any other source?, the fact I am answering at all?, could you clarify please? (beyond the extent of the options I have provided).

    *Apologises, I have replied to all your points however I have used the wrong quoting mechanism as I've never used this form of replying before, please excuse the messiness of the post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I am a Christian, not a creationist or evangelical, I have degree in the Ancient World and I am soon to start a Masters in Political Science (I thought some of my own background would be useful to know in this context).
    I've read through this whole thread and I'm astounded at the scientific arrogance of some who have posted.
    Note that this is an evidence based forum. There is no historical evidence for Jesus. But if you have any evidence independent of the Bible then you can post it here. Your ideas would be more welcome on a Christian forum.

    The bible is a viable source like any other ancient compilation of documents, its simply a matter of how you read it and what you look for, I appreciate Science is very black and white in its a approach but you have to view the source differently that simply saying it is or it isn't a source.
    The further you go back in history the less reliable it becomes, especially if it is based on hearsay. None of the gospel writers (whoever they were) had ever met Jesus.

    For example, Caesar's Gallic Wars are accounts from Caesar about his wars in Gaul. However, they are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of his wars, they do tell us Caesar fought wars in Gaul, they do tell us Caesar likely won in Gaul in the end, they do tell us Roman attitudes towards non-Roman people groups. The specifics of this perspectives are questionable but you can still gain a great deal of information.
    Irrelevant to your argument.

    The gospels are the primary sources for Jesus. They were all written between circa. 90 - 130 AD. The Epistles, written by Paul, Peter, James etc are further secondary accounts of Jesus. They were all written between circa. 70 - 150 AD. We can see from the sources that Jesus and the early Church are the central aspects of the sources. Therefore it is highly likely they existed. In fact the Epistles are even more evidence than the gospels in this regard as some are written by Peter, James and John - people who knew Jesus personally. Whether Jesus was all that is claimed by these sources is debatable (obviously). More to the point, these documents, in historical terms, are perfectly acceptable as source material when compared to other documents.
    Science and religion can never be compatible. One is based on natural events. the other on supernatural events.

    Further the Dead Sea Scrolls are based off the four gospels, which are more like hearsay as sources as they were written significantly later than the other documents. Caesar was further removed from the original source but you would not argue his non-existence. A modern example of documents in modern times could be viewed with Karl Marx, he is dead but I'm fairly certain he existed from his works.
    That's a good one. From Jesus and Caesar to a comparison to Karl Marx.

    The only reason I see that this whole thread exists is because basically of the claims Jesus made and about him within the New Testament, which are unbelievable to many. I understand that many who would argue against his existence don't believe his claims or deeds. That's fair enough, but it sounds like many of you guys have a rather biased perspective from being Atheists rather than a true approach through evidence (I realise as a Christian I have a biased perspective but I am trying not to let my personal beliefs cloud my judgement of the evidence).
    Christians are mainly gullible to anything they are told. A few days ago I was watching how a Greek Orthodox priest enters Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem and emerges with the Holy Fire. According to the faithful there is no trickery here, and the flame will not burn you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    What exactly is debatable? Could you be specific?, the authorship of the epistles? the date?
    You could try looking at the provided link.
    Well the graphic above in the thread has mentioned lots of indirect evidence if you classify that as evidence,
    I don't.
    And yet what? I would appreciate a bit of expansion to your statement rather than a self-entitled and arrogant response - I assume you mean that you feel my personal beliefs have clouded by perspective and yet have not been specific at all
    How about the fact that the "evidence" is, at best, disputed.
    the treatment of the bible as a historical source like any other source?
    Given the known egregious errors contained therein the Bible is decidely not a "historical" source. It's a mish-mash of mythology, history and fantasy.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    [QUOTE=ox;626031]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I am a Christian, not a creationist or evangelical, I have degree in the Ancient World and I am soon to start a Masters in Political Science (I thought some of my own background would be useful to know in this context).
    I've read through this whole thread and I'm astounded at the scientific arrogance of some who have posted.

    Note that this is an evidence based forum. There is no historical evidence for Jesus. But if you have any evidence independent of the Bible then you can post it here. Your ideas would be more welcome on a Christian forum.
    Why does it have to been independent of the Bible? That sounds more like you're picking and choosing your evidence. Evidence is evidence is evidence, the New Testament is a combination of biographical and epistolary source material, what makes it exempt? Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I am beyond dissecting it to figure out how accurate it is.
    If you're saying healing the blind with spit and prayer is impossible so therefore the source is inaccurate; great, well done, generally that is not normal medical practice when dealing with a blind person nor capable by an ordinary person.
    In relation to the source itself, could it have been made up, possibly, could it still refer to an actual person and extolling his virtues (insomuch as healing a blind man), well yes. The belief of whether Jesus actually did those things is clearly a separate issue and topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    The bible is a viable source like any other ancient compilation of documents, its simply a matter of how you read it and what you look for, I appreciate Science is very black and white in its a approach but you have to view the source differently that simply saying it is or it isn't a source.

    The further you go back in history the less reliable it becomes, especially if it is based on hearsay. None of the gospel writers (whoever they were) had ever met Jesus.
    How do you know? Jesus probably knew many people other than the apostles, and, from the accounts, from different walks of life, any of them could have known Jesus to a lesser extent. The manuscripts we have I believe are dated as early 90 AD however there may well have been earlier ones. Yes to an extent that is speculation, but by the nature of the texts, I believe it is still understood that the originals were likely closer to Jesus' time. For example, there is speculation that there should be a 'fifth' gospel that is lost.
    I am well aware the answer of what there might be is not evidence, my point is simply stating the current evidence, although through second hand which is pretty impressive for an ancient source on its own, is perfectly adequate to determine the existence of Jesus, indeed most scholars agree that much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    For example, Caesar's Gallic Wars are accounts from Caesar about his wars in Gaul. However, they are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of his wars, they do tell us Caesar fought wars in Gaul, they do tell us Caesar likely won in Gaul in the end, they do tell us Roman attitudes towards non-Roman people groups. The specifics of this perspectives are questionable but you can still gain a great deal of information.

    Irrelevant to your argument.
    How so? the point was that you approach sources differently depending on what question you are trying to answer. This was a contemporary to Jesus' time example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    The gospels are the primary sources for Jesus. They were all written between circa. 90 - 130 AD. The Epistles, written by Paul, Peter, James etc are further secondary accounts of Jesus. They were all written between circa. 70 - 150 AD. We can see from the sources that Jesus and the early Church are the central aspects of the sources. Therefore it is highly likely they existed. In fact the Epistles are even more evidence than the gospels in this regard as some are written by Peter, James and John - people who knew Jesus personally. Whether Jesus was all that is claimed by these sources is debatable (obviously). More to the point, these documents, in historical terms, are perfectly acceptable as source material when compared to other documents.

    Science and religion can never be compatible. One is based on natural events. the other on supernatural events.
    Not true, Science and religion seek different answers from different questions, if it is that incompatible, why does this thread exist? (still my main bemusement). May I point out that much of the basic scientific advances relating to the natural world have been advanced by Christianity through the Catholic Church (and Islam during the Umayyad Caliphate, although that is more off the top of my head than fully understood, i suspect it was not limited to the Caliphate).

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Further the Dead Sea Scrolls are based off the four gospels, which are more like hearsay as sources as they were written significantly later than the other documents. Caesar was further removed from the original source but you would not argue his non-existence. A modern example of documents in modern times could be viewed with Karl Marx, he is dead but I'm fairly certain he existed from his works.

    That's a good one. From Jesus and Caesar to a comparison to Karl Marx.
    I chose Karl Marx fleetingly, I would have thought that was obvious. My point prior to Karl Marx is still relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    The only reason I see that this whole thread exists is because basically of the claims Jesus made and about him within the New Testament, which are unbelievable to many. I understand that many who would argue against his existence don't believe his claims or deeds. That's fair enough, but it sounds like many of you guys have a rather biased perspective from being Atheists rather than a true approach through evidence (I realise as a Christian I have a biased perspective but I am trying not to let my personal beliefs cloud my judgement of the evidence).

    Christians are mainly gullible to anything they are told. A few days ago I was watching how a Greek Orthodox priest enters Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem and emerges with the Holy Fire. According to the faithful there is no trickery here, and the flame will not burn you.
    I've met many Atheists who are gullible or superstitious or both, what's your point? I suppose you wouldn't really pay attention to Christianity's history much, only the bits that are bloody or strange (and from your perspective I suppose that is most of it anyway). Much of Church history is often diluted with stories of deception or trickery. I cannot speak for this instance or other Christians but you could send me the link to this story and I could view it myself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;626032]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    What exactly is debatable? Could you be specific?, the authorship of the epistles? the date?
    You could try looking at the provided link.[quote]

    I didn't realise you had attached a link, but really Wikipedia? I'd have thought something more substantial like an academic journal or articles outlining the various arguments either way, the only sources outlined in Wikipedia are predominately from Bart Ehrman, which is not exactly an unbiased perspective on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Well the graphic above in the thread has mentioned lots of indirect evidence if you classify that as evidence,
    I don't.
    Why? inferred evidence is equally as valid, you're just picking and choosing what evidence you feel is valid, hardly encompassing on the topic at hand; you obviously don't just 'read between the lines' for the sake of it, but you can gain information logically based on statements made by any author.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    And yet what? I would appreciate a bit of expansion to your statement rather than a self-entitled and arrogant response - I assume you mean that you feel my personal beliefs have clouded by perspective and yet have not been specific at all
    How about the fact that the "evidence" is, at best, disputed.
    Well I realise it is disputed, by the nature of disputed it means either you think it is or it isn't. You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge a basic fact of a persons existence through source analysis though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    the treatment of the bible as a historical source like any other source?
    Given the known egregious errors contained therein the Bible is decidely not a "historical" source. It's a mish-mash of mythology, history and fantasy.
    What errors? I have cited examples, explained how to examine ancient sources, used dates, authorship (even taking into account disputes), used indirect and inferred evidence, you've neither disproved my points satisfactorily nor explained anything, rather a bunch of statements with minimal backup, an assumed sense of self-entitled arrogance and quite frankly sloppy scholarship.
    Any text from ancient times is a historical source, you can gain tons of information from source material without believing every aspect written within it (see Caesar example). What is the sources' (the New Testament to be clear) purpose if you feel it is a psuedo-mythological-fantastical-history? What would be the point of a "made-up" character? Many of the apostles died for this con, including Paul. You can hardly say for power or manipulation when Christianity was effectively a unpopular Jewish sect with minimal following at the time of its 'conception'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I didn't realise you had attached a link, but really Wikipedia? I'd have thought something more substantial like an academic journal or articles outlining the various arguments either way
    Presumably, reading this, you're unaware of Wiki's reliabilty on academic subjets.
    the only sources outlined in Wikipedia are predominately from Bart Ehrman
    Predominantly? 13 out of 164 (one of which is as a secondary author).
    Why? inferred evidence is equally as valid
    Because the majority of those "sources" are secondaty, and relied on hearsay.
    Well I realise it is disputed, by the nature of disputed it means either you think it is or it isn't. You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge a basic fact of a persons existence through source analysis though.
    And given the lack of corroboration of that "source"1 then why should we count it as valid? Science doesn't take a single source as evidence for anything.
    What errors?
    The flood.
    Jericho's walls.
    Exodus.
    Etc.
    Many of the apostles died for this con, including Paul.
    So what?
    His - and anyone else's belief - doesn't mean that what he believed was factual.

    1 Which, once again, has already been shown to be flawed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;626039]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I didn't realise you had attached a link, but really Wikipedia? I'd have thought something more substantial like an academic journal or articles outlining the various arguments either way
    Presumably, reading this, you're unaware of Wiki's reliabilty on academic subjets.
    I am aware of its reliability but I am also aware it is generally not encompassing enough and does not go into great depth, I prefer specific, balanced articles from a wide range of perspectives, I have found Wikipedia misleading, particularly when I initially did my essays for my Undergraduate; it is useful for some basic facts but nothing more. Considering your insistence on reliable evidence, I'm not very impressed at the evidence you have provided as yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    the only sources outlined in Wikipedia are predominately from Bart Ehrman
    Predominantly? 13 out of 164 (one of which is as a secondary author).
    Well actually the relevant citations were 68 to 79, of which Ehrman was cited once (I say cited but there needs to be a citation expanded) but I take your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Why? inferred evidence is equally as valid
    Because the majority of those "sources" are secondaty, and relied on hearsay.
    Well sort of, they may have been secondary but they were very close secondary sources in terms of date, that does not mean they are disregarded. All ancient sources get there accounts from what we would class as 'hearsay' to some extent, some less than others, but gathered together (as the graphic very conveniently demonstrates) it builds case that indicates that it is very likely at least the original person at the centre of Christianity, Jesus, existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Well I realise it is disputed, by the nature of disputed it means either you think it is or it isn't. You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge a basic fact of a persons existence through source analysis though.
    And given the lack of corroboration of that "source"1 then why should we count it as valid? Science doesn't take a single source as evidence for anything.
    As stated above, the bible isn't in isolation, but even if it were, there are any number of methods, some of which I have outlined, to confer at least its reliability on basic facts, such as the existence of Jesus in this instance. Furthermore, the Bible is not just one source, it is a compilation of texts/sources (a collection, a library, more than one just to clarify). therefore by the criteria of a more than a single source, the bible itself is sufficient. Then, as I have already stated, the indirect evidence combined with this builds a fairly adapt case to at least confirm a man named Jesus existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    What errors?
    The flood.
    Jericho's walls.
    Exodus.
    Etc.
    Well now your dealing with a completely different texts within the bible, there seems to be a theme throughout your view of the bible, you seem to think it was all one book - It isn't. You also seem to be assuming these books' purpose were historical - they weren't. Genesis on its own, is a mixture of genres, and not really meant to be taken literally. Every text, whether it be a poem, a 'historical' account (historical meant a different thing to the original writers of much of Israelite history than what we would consider historical), and other works needs to be viewed in its cultural context and specific purpose. Therefore 'errors' is an incredibly bad word to use in this context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Many of the apostles died for this con, including Paul.
    So what?
    His - and anyone else's belief - doesn't mean that what he believed was factual.
    True, but it is fairly well known a con artist, which is what they all would have been, does not die for his own con particularly when he fabricated it as you propose. Indeed, if there is some benefit in terms of power or status, such as many of the later popes did, then a con has its benefit, but not the original men who fabricated the stories. Furthermore, what is the point of spreading a con abroad? It isn't exactly going to gain anything for himself at least in the short term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I am a Christian, not a creationist or evangelical, I have degree in the Ancient World and I am soon to start a Masters in Political Science (I thought some of my own background would be useful to know in this context).
    I've read through this whole thread and I'm astounded at the scientific arrogance of some who have posted.

    The bible is a viable source like any other ancient compilation of documents, its simply a matter of how you read it and what you look for, I appreciate Science is very black and white in its a approach but you have to view the source differently that simply saying it is or it isn't a source.

    For example, Caesar's Gallic Wars are accounts from Caesar about his wars in Gaul. However, they are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of his wars, they do tell us Caesar fought wars in Gaul, they do tell us Caesar likely won in Gaul in the end, they do tell us Roman attitudes towards non-Roman people groups. The specifics of this perspectives are questionable but you can still gain a great deal of information.

    The gospels are the primary sources for Jesus. They were all written between circa. 90 - 130 AD. The Epistles, written by Paul, Peter, James etc are further secondary accounts of Jesus. They were all written between circa. 70 - 150 AD. We can see from the sources that Jesus and the early Church are the central aspects of the sources. Therefore it is highly likely they existed. In fact the Epistles are even more evidence than the gospels in this regard as some are written by Peter, James and John - people who knew Jesus personally. Whether Jesus was all that is claimed by these sources is debatable (obviously). More to the point, these documents, in historical terms, are perfectly acceptable as source material when compared to other documents.

    Further the Dead Sea Scrolls are based off the four gospels, which are more like hearsay as sources as they were written significantly later than the other documents. Caesar was further removed from the original source but you would not argue his non-existence. A modern example of documents in modern times could be viewed with Karl Marx, he is dead but I'm fairly certain he existed from his works.

    The only reason I see that this whole thread exists is because basically of the claims Jesus made and about him within the New Testament, which are unbelievable to many. I understand that many who would argue against his existence don't believe his claims or deeds. That's fair enough, but it sounds like many of you guys have a rather biased perspective from being Atheists rather than a true approach through evidence (I realise as a Christian I have a biased perspective but I am trying not to let my personal beliefs cloud my judgement of the evidence).
    So far as I know, the only disinterested historical account that refers to Jesus, i.e. given that the gospels and epistles exist to promote the religion and therefore cannot be seen as disinterested, is that of Josephus.

    Furthermore the Dead Sea scrolls are mainly concerned with the OT, are they not, and have been dated to before the birth of Christ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    So far as I know, the only disinterested historical account that refers to Jesus, i.e. given that the gospels and epistles exist to promote the religion and therefore cannot be seen as disinterested, is that of Josephus.

    Furthermore the Dead Sea scrolls are mainly concerned with the OT, are they not, and have been dated to before the birth of Christ?
    That is true, Josephus is the only main disinterested account for Jesus.

    Ah yes, apologises, I was thinking of the Gnostic Gospels and other Christian writings (or the Nag Hammadi Library) rather than the Dead Sea Scrolls, for some reason I often equate those two sources as the same in my head when they are very different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Why does it have to been independent of the Bible? That sounds more like you're picking and choosing your evidence. Evidence is evidence is evidence, the New Testament is a combination of biographical and epistolary source material, what makes it exempt? Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I am beyond dissecting it to figure out how accurate it is.
    It would help if we had original manuscripts, but we don't. It would help if we knew who the gospel writers were, but we don't.
    Jesus was just one character in the golden age of myth and fable. Suggest you read Thomas Doane (Bible Myths), and Robert Taylor (Diegesis, Devil's Pulpit) All available as downloads.
    Taylor was an Anglican priest until he realised it was all myth. While imprisoned for atheism he wrote the Devil's Pulpit.

    If you're saying healing the blind with spit and prayer is impossible so therefore the source is inaccurate; great, well done, generally that is not normal medical practice when dealing with a blind person nor capable by an ordinary person.
    In relation to the source itself, could it have been made up, possibly, could it still refer to an actual person and extolling his virtues (insomuch as healing a blind man), well yes. The belief of whether Jesus actually did those things is clearly a separate issue and topic.
    All the more reason to read the above books, where the answers are given.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    43
    [QUOTE=ox;626093]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Why does it have to been independent of the Bible? That sounds more like you're picking and choosing your evidence. Evidence is evidence is evidence, the New Testament is a combination of biographical and epistolary source material, what makes it exempt? Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I am beyond dissecting it to figure out how accurate it is.
    It would help if we had original manuscripts, but we don't. It would help if we knew who the gospel writers were, but we don't.
    Jesus was just one character in the golden age of myth and fable. Suggest you read Thomas Doane (Bible Myths), and Robert Taylor (Diegesis, Devil's Pulpit) All available as downloads.
    Taylor was an Anglican priest until he realised it was all myth. While imprisoned for atheism he wrote the Devil's Pulpit.
    I will give those a read at some point, however I have done some preliminary research on the method Taylor, in particular, uses. The method he uses is the comparative myth method and I hate to say this but that is a very intrinsically flawed one. The method proposes that by comparing myths within the same region and time span, you can establish that religions such as Christianity are the eventual syncopated end product/myth. This particular school of thought was favoured in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most modern scholars dismiss this method as it often misses out the various differences or particularities within the religion i.e. a general statement doesn't really cut it any more.

    A good example of this that is often used is the Roman and Greek religions. Yes there are many similarities to there religions through themes and legends (indeed many Greek legends were adapted by Roman authors for the Romans), however they were intrinsically different in their manner i.e. how they materialised within society. To the Romans, their form of religion materialised as more cults than religion i.e. the cult of Bacchus, yes in this example Bacchus is often equated with Dionysus from Greek mythology but it is far less anthropomorphic than the Greek version.

    In reference to Jesus, I am well aware there was a rise of 'doomsday' cults or mystery cults within the Judea region that be comparatives to Jesus and thereby syncopated into the deeds of Jesus i.e. one person merged from various sources. However, although we do not have the original documents, the nature of the reactions from the indirect evidence within the graphic, particularly Josephus and the Talmud, would indicate this is a specific individual rather than a collection of people mashed together. The Talmud is particularly telling because unlike the Roman sources, they have an expressed interest to dissuade people within their own community not to follow Jesus.

    Also the comparative method is particularly bad in one area as it often links religions or cults or sects that are actually very different from each other but have a similar origin or story accompanied to them. For example with Jesus, the first thing that springs to mind (from the top of my head so forgive me if the details are not exactly correct but the point still follows) is another man named Jesus who lived at the same time (considering the Hebrew name for Jesus is Jeshua or Joshua is relatively unsurprising). This other Jesus was known for being a political dissident and doomsday cultist (who could perform miracles), the two are naturally intrinsically linked due to the Romans being seen as the largest threat to the Jews at the time.

    Said Jesus I believe was arrested and also crucified/killed. There are obviously linking aspects but Jesus of Nazareth (at least the one we read of in the Bible) was seemingly apolitical or if he expressed displeasure at the Roman occupation it was never written down and it didn't seem to interfere with is actions in the bible, example the Centurions servant, the questions relating to taxes. Now you could argue a Roman sympathiser could have written the Gospels thereby spinning a pro-Roman spin on the Gospels, but considering the Gospels clearly have been written for different audiences (including the Gnostic Gospels) that would seem unlikely for all of the them.

    I think you get the jist and I have made my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,206
    Do other cultures, apart from the people that wrote about Jesus in the New Testament, have accounts of Jesus existing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I will give those a read at some point, however I have done some preliminary research on the method Taylor, in particular, uses. The method he uses is the comparative myth method and I hate to say this but that is a very intrinsically flawed one.
    It's not flawed. Read the comparisons between religions in Bible Myths. It would be extraordinary if all was pure coincidence.

    The method proposes that by comparing myths within the same region and time span, you can establish that religions such as Christianity are the eventual syncopated end product/myth. This particular school of thought was favoured in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most modern scholars dismiss this method as it often misses out the various differences or particularities within the religion i.e. a general statement doesn't really cut it any more.
    Religions are usually invented usually because of hardship. Do you think a small group of Jews would have inadvertently started the Christian religion had it not been for the Roman occupation and the feeling God had deserted them?
    Islam came from a similar idea that God had deserted the Arabs. The idea of just one god is merely an idea which was promoted in Judaism.
    The god of Abraham is shared by 3 different religions, so you can't say there is no connection.

    In reference to Jesus...
    Why should we not ask for evidence that Jesus ever existed?
    As there is none, there is only faith.

    What Christians believe is confusing.
    He was a man born of an angel and a woman. It would never do to be born from the sperm of a male.
    Some believe in the literal Creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, the Virgin birth, but not all do.
    The age of the Earth is always a problem to a Christian.
    They would always prefer to change the subject when confronted about their beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Do other cultures, apart from the people that wrote about Jesus in the New Testament, have accounts of Jesus existing?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Do other cultures, apart from the people that wrote about Jesus in the New Testament, have accounts of Jesus existing?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
    Thanks! I will check this out sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,206
    It sounds like many scholars question the authenticity of the current version of the Antiquities of the Jews.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    It sounds like many scholars question the authenticity of the current version of the Antiquities of the Jews.
    Could you post references.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    What Christians believe is confusing.
    He was a man born of an angel and a woman. It would never do to be born from the sperm of a male.
    Just to emphasise, that has nothing to do with the debate about the existence of Jesus.
    Of course you have a perfect right to put forward your own opinion on this matter, but it seems to me your attitude to religion, generally, is an important factor in determining your view on the existence of Jesus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    If Jesus did not have a human father then he could not have inherited male Y chromosones. Therefore he could not have been a man as a male has 50% DNA from his father and 50% from his mother.
    If he only had X chromosones he could only have been a she. Jesus as a man therefore did not exist.

    Sorry I said 'He was a man born of an angel and a woman' when I should have said Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) after being visited by the Angel Gabriel.
    If in this day and people still believe nonsense like this, then it's up to them, but I think they should believe in more reality and less in fiction.
    Last edited by ox; October 10th, 2019 at 07:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    If Jesus did not have a human father then he could not have inherited male Y chromosones. Therefore he could not have been a man as a male has 50% DNA from his father and 50% from his mother.
    If he only had X chromosones he could only have been a she. Jesus as a man therefore did not exist.

    Sorry I said 'He was a man born of an angel and a woman' when I should have said Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) after being visited by the Angel Gabriel.
    If in this day and people still believe nonsense like this, then it's up to them, but I think they should believe in more reality and less in fiction.
    My opinion - Jesus was a real person - mother Mary, father Joseph.

    As for your argument about genetics, those who have the holy spirit as the father could easily say the holy spirit had male genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    It sounds like many scholars question the authenticity of the current version of the Antiquities of the Jews.
    Could you post references.
    Search Josephus on Jesus on Wikipedia and read the first three paragraphs. I was just sharing what I had read there. mathman had provided the original link I had read from in post #115.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    My opinion - Jesus was a real person - mother Mary, father Joseph.
    This sounds like heresy to me! Just as well you are not living in the Middle Ages.
    I suppose you could argue that Jesus had 2 fathers. One in Heaven. One on Earth. But that would be heretical too.

    As for your argument about genetics, those who have the holy spirit as the father could easily say the holy spirit had male genes.
    Where is this supported in the Bible (HG was male)?
    Churches represent the HG as a dove.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,552
    One theory I've come across recently is this.

    https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

    It seems to get some support from Bart Ehrman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2013, 06:25 AM
  2. Did the person Jesus from the bible actually really existed in the past?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 24th, 2013, 07:08 PM
  3. Jesus Christ as a missing person case
    By Pong in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 31st, 2011, 04:13 PM
  4. Who is god and jesus a metaphor for in the real life?
    By Meatoz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 04:11 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •