|
Post by gillianren on Feb 10, 2008 16:55:00 GMT -4
I actually said once on this forum that I think he probably existed. However, after another six months of reading, I'm starting to think that he probably didn't. The evidence we have is consistent with Jesus being a myth and it does not show consistency with the kind of evidence we would expect if he had been a real person, in my humble opinion. What evidence do you think we should have had? The man was a Galilean peasant--an illiterate Galilean peasant. I don't know what records the Romans kept of people crucified in Bethlehem, or if any of them have even survived, but I think that, especially given the number of self-proclaimed Messiahs floating around in that era, there wouldn't be much documentation available until well after his movement started to spread.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 17:35:42 GMT -4
If he had remained just a peasant, then yes -- by all means we should expect to hear absolutely nothing of him. But the story has it that he started an incredible movement and at times had at least hundreds of followers -- or at least people willing to listen to him.
But I think the more interesting thing is that Paul never met Jesus - and yet Paul is the most important person in the early spread of Christianity. Paul is mostly unaware of the biography of Jesus. Stories of Jesus' biography only surface later through unknown writers writing at an unknown time. I don't believe in visions. There is no rational reason to believe that Paul had a vision of Jesus -- so the only remaining rational option is that Paul made up everything that was supposedly revealed to him.
And if that is the case....
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 18:04:47 GMT -4
Gillian: What makes you think Jesus was illiterate?
wdmundt: Why is it irrational to beleive that Paul had a vision of Jesus?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 18:07:02 GMT -4
I actually said once on this forum that I think he probably existed. However, after another six months of reading, I'm starting to think that he probably didn't. The evidence we have is consistent with Jesus being a myth and it does not show consistency with the kind of evidence we would expect if he had been a real person, in my humble opinion. That's a nice way of answering the question both ways. If you thought he really did exist then why argue so much about it?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 18:14:04 GMT -4
I actually said once on this forum that I think he probably existed. However, after another six months of reading, I'm starting to think that he probably didn't. The evidence we have is consistent with Jesus being a myth and it does not show consistency with the kind of evidence we would expect if he had been a real person, in my humble opinion. That's a nice way of answering the question both ways. If you thought he really did exist then why argue so much about it? No, Jason. I'm saying I changed my mind. That's not having it both ways. The way I had it before was one way. The way I have it now is a different way. At no time did I hold both opinions and at no time did I have it both ways. And as far as me arguing about it -- we were arguing about whether there was extra-biblical evidence -- not about whether he was a real person. There is a difference that is not particularly subtle.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 10, 2008 21:13:50 GMT -4
All I'm saying is that from a skeptic's point of view, the answer here has to be that there is not enough evidence to prove Jesus physically existed. I in fact believe he did exist but as of yet there is nothing to prove that. It really depends on just how skeptical you are. A fair-minded person will probably say "well, there's a lot of people near that time who were convinced he existed, so he probably did in one form or other." Someone who's a little anti-Christian will probably lean towards "there's not enough evidence he did exist, so I say he didn't." Your opinion of what a "fair-minded" person thinks is nothing but conjecture. And I find it offensive and foolish that you think someone would have to be "a little anti-christian" to not believe Jesus existed based on available evidence. I do believe he may have existed, but if I didn't it wouldn't be because I as "anti-christian." Most of the time, Jason, I merely disagree with you but respect your rationality. This time, however you are espousing the same typical ignorance and spite usually reserved for the most hateful fundamentalists. You know better than that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 21:49:44 GMT -4
Gillina: What makes you think Jesus was illiterate? Actually this is a very good question for two reasons. Firstly all hebrew males had to be able to read the Torah, and the Gospel has an account of Jesus doing just that, and secondly, Alexander had introduced a large scale literacy program throughout the area only a short (in historical terms) time before Jesus, which was to teach the people of his empire to read Greek. This is the reason the Septuagint was written, so that the Hebrews would have their scriptures in Greek. In all likelihood he would have been able to read at least Greek, if not Hebrew, and been able to speak Aramaic (the local language) and Hebrew (the language of his religion) if not Latin (the Roman language) and Greek (the education and trade language) as well. People back then in many ways, were more educated in those areas than we are today.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 23:41:39 GMT -4
And I find it offensive and foolish that you think someone would have to be "a little anti-christian" to not believe Jesus existed based on available evidence. I do believe he may have existed, but if I didn't it wouldn't be because I as "anti-christian." Well, who is going to have a strong opinion on this matter? Really only the Christians and the anti-Chrstians. Someone for whom it doesn't matter too much either way is not going to bother to argue the point. And in this specific case wdmundt has made it obvious that he has a negative opinion of Christianity.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 23:42:47 GMT -4
And as far as me arguing about it -- we were arguing about whether there was extra-biblical evidence -- not about whether he was a real person. There is a difference that is not particularly subtle. Well then the debate's over. I already said there is very little secular evidence that Jesus really existed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 10, 2008 23:45:38 GMT -4
If he had remained just a peasant, then yes -- by all means we should expect to hear absolutely nothing of him. But the story has it that he started an incredible movement and at times had at least hundreds of followers -- or at least people willing to listen to him. Yes. But it was true about quite a lot of self-proclaimed Messiahs of the era as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that there were similar movements in various other Roman provinces that we don't know about, and we only know anything about Jesus because that movement kept growing in the years after his death. We know--as much as we know anything about the Bible--that Paul had encountered other Christians before his revelation/conversion/whatever you want to call it. He is said to have, according to the books I read as a child, "held the coats" at the stoning of St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr. We know that he encountered St. Peter, who I'd give quite a lot of credit to in the whole "spreading Christianity" thing--and Peter did meet Jesus. He was also the first Pope. (Interestingly, there's some belief that his wife pretty much shared responsibilities with him!) Ergo, I do think it's quite a leap to say that he made it all up. The actual Road to Damascus thing? Apparently, Paul himself had little to say about it in the Pauline letters. But something happened to cause him to join the movement; we have no evidence that he created it himself, and we do, I believe, have enough to indicate that he didn't. As to why I think Jesus was illiterate . . . why else? I read it somewhere! However, as you may have gathered, my theological readings are pretty broad, and I read that book long enough ago that I cannot now give you a citation. It was a book written for non-theological scholars, I know, and it was talking about Jesus' reliance on the very scribes he railed against. And, after all, if Judean men were so literate, why were there scribes enough for Jesus to berate in the first place?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 23:59:12 GMT -4
Scribes, from the LDS Bible Dictionary:
As you can see, they had little to do with writing letters for people.
Paul tells of his conversion in Acts 22, and includes the statement that he held the clothes of those that stoned Stephen: "And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him." Paul also mentions his conversion in the first chapter of Galatians.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 11, 2008 2:04:15 GMT -4
Ummm, no he wasn't. Paul etablished the Church of Rome and Peter may not have gone there until well after Paul's death (he was in Babylon when he wrote 1 Peter and acts speaks of him being in Antioch during Paul's ministry) and there is no historical evidence about him having a lead role in the Roman Church, in fact he was deemed to be the Apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Further more, Bishops and other single leaders didn't come into being in the church until well after Peter's death. Quite simply the Peter as First Pope is a myth created by the Catholic Church.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 11, 2008 6:17:56 GMT -4
I would say that more than just christians and "anti-christians" are insterested in this question. I am certainly not an "anti-christian" and I am very interested. Whether or not Jesus was divine, if he existed he certainly had a huge impact on the world and did some incredible things in his life.
By the way, just what is an "anti-christian" anyway? Is that your codeword for an atheist or people of other religions or is it just a general term of paranoia directed at no group in particular?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 11, 2008 8:00:51 GMT -4
An anti-Christian is a person that when placed in the same room as a Christian results in the annihilation of both releasing vast amounts of energy. Actually I suspect that Jason means a person who is opposed to Christianity, someone that attacks it and goes after Christians and their beliefs a bit like a rabid dog. Since most atheists are happy just doing their own thing, it wouldn't include them, but some are very anti anything religious and seem to believe that since they don't believe in a god, no one else around them should be allowed to do so either, at least publically. I think that those are the people Jason would consider anti-Christian.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 11:48:39 GMT -4
I don't think anyone disputes that Christianity has had a huge effect on world history (though some will debate whether it was for better or worse), but it's Christianity, the religious movement that Jesus began, that has had this effect, not really Jesus the individual. Unless he is/was divine, his existence or lack of same doesn't really mean as much to the world as Christianity does. If he was/is divine and the claims about his role as savior are correct then he did/does have a greater impact, but if he is viewed as a mere mortal religious leader then it is the movement and the effect of its doctrines on the believer that is more important.
By anti-Christian I mean simply someone who dislikes and criticizes Christianity. They don't have to be a rabid attack dog about it, as obviously there are degrees of dislike of Christianity. It is not a code word for atheist, though I find that quite a few atheists are also anti-Christians.
|
|