Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: I changed my mind on the Historicity of Jesus

  1. #21
    So Raven tell me do you believe that with this threads claims of objectivity about the issue of Jesus, that it is safe to believe the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about Jesus being a mystory and not history; should fall to the dust, and my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain the same.

    Would you feel the need please to correct any of my mis assumptions as I am sort of curious really....

  2. #22
    nothing really matters chris4355's Avatar
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by sisyphus__ View Post
    So Raven tell me do you believe that with this threads claims of objectivity about the issue of Jesus, that it is safe to believe the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about Jesus being a mystory and not history; should fall to the dust, and my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain the same.

    Would you feel the need please to correct any of my mis assumptions as I am sort of curious really....
    Could you please repeat this statement a little clearer?

  3. #23
    The obvious point chris is that it was supposed to be fun to read........

    I will however take the time as you likly are not looking over my shoulder.
    So Raven tell me. Do you believe that with this threads claims of objective facts about the issue of Jesus (mostly being that your idea is that he did exist as subject to possibility), it is safe to believe in the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about "Jesus being a mythstory and not history"; that it should fall to the dust? And that my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain intact?

    Saying of course that it is evident to take your first few claims seriously? ....

    Would you feel the need (to correct any of the details which do not fit in accurately in my view)??


  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    So based on this assumption you are willing to believe he existed despite any historical evidence?
    There IS historical evidence. I outlined this in my first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    How do we know his name was even Jesus? Let alone he was a single individual?
    His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
    This leads me to believe you really haven’t done much research on the subject at all.

    What reason do you have to believe that he was more than one individual?
    Again, if you apply Ockham’s Razor, I see no reason to make that assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    And that proves he existed?
    Of course not. It suggests that these claims about his “miracles” were made later by those forming the Roman Catholic Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    You still did not answer my question? How much more historically distorted does a person have to be in order to be considered a myth?
    Because it’s a silly question – there is no formula to apply.
    I did address the idea, however, when I said:
    “The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
    The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
    I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
    In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.”


    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    Obviously, that kind of philosophy comes from a real person. Now if you don't mind could you explain to me exactly why you would think this philosophy has to come solely from one person? Why could it not evolve through a sect, passed on by words one generation to another? You are claming just one guy preached something, caused some turmoil, had lots of followers, died, and passed on his teachings generation to generation to a point where he eventually became considered a god.
    Why is it so hard to believe that his philosophy came from one person?
    How many people wrote Nietzsche’s collected works? Kant’s?
    I see no reason to believe that one person can not be a philosopher. Why would you make that assumption?
    And, no, I don’t think “he eventually became considered a god”, I think it was a concerted effort by the founders of the Church to craft that image.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    Good points, but this again leads to something you failed to take into account. Have you ever played a game called telephone? If you do not know what it is feel free to ask, then reconsider what you mean by - his teachings were spread forms of communications traveled by foot.
    I didn’t fail to take it into account.
    There is good reason that the earliest texts differ from the later ones.
    There is also good reason that I think the earlier ones are more reliable.
    However, his words, across several hundred years of texts, are strikingly similar, and carry the same undertones and ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    I think there was a real man who wrote his teachings, and he existed.
    That’s all I am saying.
    Many deny that – I used to deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    nor did he have to live at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.
    As I already pointed out, we have evidence that there were early Christian sects established less than 50 years after his death.
    That’s pretty solid evidence, if you ask me.

    The way you quoted me made it difficult to respond, by the way.

  5. #25
    Brent,

    Of course I think it is valid to take my claims seriously.
    Why else would I make them?

    I am not 2,000 years old, however, and if I were, I would question my memory - so it is ultimately up to you to decide whether my claims should be taken seriously.
    Do they make sense to you?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    All your points are based off assumptions, though fairly well reasoned and seemingly logical. Without any HARD evidence, they will always simply remain assumptions.
    Not exactly.
    It is one reasonable interpretation of the hard evidence we do have.
    We have texts that offer accounts of his teachings dating back to less than 50 years of his death that are not in the Bible and are rejected by the church (so they are obviously not church biased).
    That, in any other case, would be considered historical, hard evidence.

  7. #27
    BC - Before Christ
    AD - After Death

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    BC - Before Christ
    AD - After Death
    CE - Common Era
    BCE - Before Common Era
    What's your point?

    Besides, you're wrong...
    AD - Anno Domini

  9. #29
    John,
    Do you realize that the Gregorian Calendar wasn't created until almost 1600 years after Jesus' death?

  10. #30
    What does Anno Domini mean?

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    John,
    Do you realize that the Gregorian Calendar wasn't created until almost 1600 years after Jesus' death?
    That makes it even more probably.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    What does Anno Domini mean?
    Year of our Lord.
    Every year after his birth was to be known as a year of our lord.

    Have you ever heard people use that expression in English? I have.
    In the seventeen hundred and forty fifth year of our lord...

    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    That makes it even more probably.
    How so?

  13. #33
    nothing really matters chris4355's Avatar
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    Not exactly.
    It is one reasonable interpretation of the hard evidence we do have.
    We have texts that offer accounts of his teachings dating back to less than 50 years of his death that are not in the Bible and are rejected by the church (so they are obviously not church biased).
    That, in any other case, would be considered historical, hard evidence.
    Link please.

    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
    This leads me to believe you really haven’t done much research on the subject at all.
    I have done more than you think, there is a lot I am not revealing possibly because I don't feel like sparking a thread that will make every Christian on these forums hate me - I also do not feel like spending time debating it. My point was not depicting the accuracy of his real name, but rather how do we know its even him?
    What reason do you have to believe that he was more than one individual?
    Again, if you apply Ockham’s Razor, I see no reason to make that assumption.
    Word of mouth, a group of people passing on this story can create a myth without realizing it.


    “The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
    The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
    I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
    In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.”
    Obviously these points come from a real person. Where else will it come from? The sky?

    My point is that those points have been manipulated, distorted, changed, morphed, shortened, increased, translated, taught, yelled at, whispered... from person to person for hundreds of years which you supposedly claim came from a single source. A single source, that does not have 1, not 1 historian wrote about him for all things he has done.
    Why is it so hard to believe that his philosophy came from one person?
    How many people wrote Nietzsche’s collected works? Kant’s?
    I see no reason to believe that one person can not be a philosopher. Why would you make that assumption?
    And, no, I don’t think “he eventually became considered a god”, I think it was a concerted effort by the founders of the Church to craft that image.
    Even though thats probably not what happened , the fact that the founders of the Church made him a god means, in the eyes of Christians, still can mean that he in fact eventually became a god. [/COLOR]

    I didn’t fail to take it into account.
    There is good reason that the earliest texts differ from the later ones.
    There is also good reason that I think the earlier ones are more reliable.
    However, his words, across several hundred years of texts, are strikingly similar, and carry the same undertones and ideas.
    Maybe because they just did not change that aspect of the text? The text not changing does not prove his existence..

    That’s all I am saying.
    Many deny that – I used to deny it.

    As I already pointed out, we have evidence that there were early Christian sects established less than 50 years after his death.
    That’s pretty solid evidence, if you ask me.
    So? We have scientologists today who are willing to believe a brand new religion. The fact that there were Christian sects 50 years after his death does not make him alive.

    The way you quoted me made it difficult to respond, by the way.
    Sorry.


    I think we are both smart enough to agree he did not perform miracles, nor did he do most of the magical things the bible claims he did.

    You believe his philosophies were very unique for the time which leads you to conclude he existed and he wrote them.

    I too could believe someone was out there that might have sparked the religion, but the extent as to which I am willing to believe that person was Jesus himself, born on year 0, crucified to me is way too vague, and lacks too much historical evidence.

    Maybe we can just agree to disagree.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    Link please.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas

    Quote Originally Posted by chris4355 View Post
    My point was not depicting the accuracy of his real name, but rather how do we know its even him?
    Then give me a reason to doubt it.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post

    Have you ever heard people use that expression in English? I have.
    In the seventeen hundred and forty fifth year of our lord...


    How so?
    No, i have never personally heard that expression. Is there anything specific?

  16. #36
    His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
    After finding this thread i read that he was known as 'the Christ'. What does that mean?

  17. #37
    It's in the Constitution, for one.

    But I have mostly seen it in movies depicting official business (like reading things into records at meetings or court proceedings) from long ago.

    You never answered...
    How does the Gregorian calendar being adopted 1600 years after Jesus make it more probable that he existed?

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    Brent,

    Of course I think it is valid to take my claims seriously.
    Why else would I make them?

    I am not 2,000 years old, however, and if I were, I would question my memory - so it is ultimately up to you to decide whether my claims should be taken seriously.
    Do they make sense to you?
    Passing comment, before I make my opinions on that.

    Yes, absolutely.. what I (personally) feel about your claims is that it is incorrect for medicine woman to claim Jesus is a myth-story. That is what point I was making and I think it is absurd to claim that he did not exist. So with some support saying that Jesus existed and even more so; the idea that there is a more logicial explaination for some of the events written in the bible is all very good information. Very soothing but I will post more later...

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    After finding this thread i read that he was known as 'the Christ'. What does that mean?
    Annointed one.

  20. #40
    nothing really matters chris4355's Avatar
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas


    Then give me a reason to doubt it.
    From your own source...

    “ Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 CE or as late as 140 CE, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[12]"

    "It (ghospel of thomas) is further unique in that the gospel is no more than a collection of Jesus' sayings and parables, and contains no narrative account of his life"

    I still don't get why no one wrote about him when he was alive. And why that does not bug you to the least. Keep in mind 60 years at that time is quite some time regarding the amount of generations that pass on. Thats almost 3 generations later that someone writes about him, assuming it was written in 60CE and not any later...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By Reiku in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 10-20-11, 12:15 PM
    Replies: 22
  2. By Medicine*Woman in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 04-29-08, 05:43 PM
    Replies: 747
  3. By TruthSeeker in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 03-15-08, 01:19 AM
    Replies: 52
  4. By Trilairian in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 11-29-05, 11:29 AM
    Replies: 43
  5. By Dinosaur in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 09-26-05, 08:44 PM
    Replies: 53

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
  •