-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
did jesus exist?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was thinking about the interpretation of other texts that have a mixture of fact and fiction, or social commentary.
The works of Shakespeare, for instance, contain many lines that can only be understood or interpreted in light of historical context. He also may show reliable and insightful interpretations of real historical characters which really existed - Henry V and Julius Cesar come to mind - and the language itself is "Shakespearean." While it's not history, and it's not entirely fiction, it contains some allegory, metaphor, and the whole pallet of rhetorical devices - it can contain some truth, fact, and commentary.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Yes, loosening the standards must go hand in hand with the knowledge that we can only become less certain of what we claim to know, not more certain as some are known to offer.
logician
Well-Known Member
99 percent of all "scholars" have a built-in pre-existing bias that a supposed Jesus existed, and everything they write is based upon that assumption.
Not exactly scientific.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Absolutely not. I don't know why non-Chrisitans get into biblical studies, but there are thousands of them.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
No doubt, that may all be very well and true, but what shall we say of the wondrous characters of Hamlet, of Romeo, and Othello?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think that they tell us different truths about human nature.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Really? What of the scholars that are so certain of an historical Jesus, how many are non Jews & Christians? Are they 1%ers?
Last edited:
What does being a believing Jews have to do with whether believes Jesus was not simply myth?
And does this mean you can't address their arguments? Or that you aren't familiar with them? Have you read any academic works devoted to studying gospel genre?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yep. It's strange, but true. I'm a member of two scholarly organizations that focus on biblical studies and both of them have a good number of atheists, agnostics, and folks of other religions.
This is particularly true of folks who are religious studies experts and have a specialization in Christianity. They consider themselves historians and not biblical scholars.
logician
Well-Known Member
Please point to a specific man in history that was the Jesus of the NT, and show solid proof of such.
Then we may believe you.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you actually arguing that if depictions of a person in various texts differ, and we can't be certain exactly what there character was, they weren't historical? If that's your view, than no one from history ever existed, even those for whom there is photographic evidence. I can't point to Abraham Lincoln and provide what you ask. Depictions differ. Going back further in time it gets even harder.Please point to a specific man in history that was the Jesus of the NT, and show solid proof of such.
Then we may believe you.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
What of the scholars that are so certain of an historical Jesus, how many are non Jews & Christians? Are they 1%ers?
You really don't get it, do you? The atheists and agnostics involved in biblical research are almost always less likely to find the gospels as reliable as conservative christian scholars, and they may think we can't know much about Jesus, but the idea that Jesus wasn't historical is just so unsupportable it doesn't really exist in academia at all, regardless of religious background.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That I don't know. There only a handful of scholars who think that Jesus didn't exist. It is an extremely minority view. And I mean maybe there are 5 out of the thousands of scholars out there, and they aren't even historians, archaeologists, or otherwise a serious student of the ancient world. I'd be shocked if we could find enough to count on both hands.
Now there are many Christians who may think that the historical Jesus isn't needed for the faith, but that's different from saying that he never existed. In other words, to a lot of people the question of the historical Jesus doesn't matter (Jews, Christians, and atheists, etc alike), but don't proclaim that he didn't exist.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't even think that we can get up to ten if we count all the scholars in history who had this view.
Do you think that the tendency to think the historical Jesus is unimportant, or even unknowable beyond a few basic facts, is actually greater among christian scholars? I know for me as a non-christian the history is more important, and the theology only in how it shaped the understanding of Jesus and christianity among early christians, and therefore the history of early christianity. I have found similar tendencies among other non-religious scholars of religion in general and christianity in particular. I also sometimes think that views in which we can't access the historical Jesus beyond the barest of facts serve to protect Jesus from historical inquiry, and allow him to remain an item of faith alone.
outhouse
Atheistically
Is that not what ive been saying and having you argue with me?
"So little is known about historical jesus not much can be said with certainty"
I don't agree with that. First, I am talking about Christian scholars. And they aren't arguing that Jesus never existed. He was a first century palestinian Jew who gathered a following and was executed. There are even more details we can add that we can be sure of. However, my contention was that perhaps some christian scholars, who after all want to believe in the Jesus of the gospels, might perhaps try to protect him from historical inquiry by saying we can't know much more. In fact, R. M. Price, the ONLY scholar I know of who actually has a degree in NT studies and who argues against a historical Jesus, explicitly states that "I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith. For me the Christ of faith has all the more importance since I think it most probable that there was never any other." Indeed.
The point is, we can know a fair amount about Jesus for sure, and I was suggesting that perhaps the tendency to argue that we can't know much more stems out of a desire among christian scholars to protect the christ of faith.
logician
Well-Known Member
You simply are throwing out red herrings. Of course we can point to SPECIFiC men in history and say they were a specific person. There are many pictures of Lincoln, volumes of comtemperaneous historical data and his own writings that PORTRAY a specific man in history that really existed. Even ancient figures like Julius Caesar also had pretty much the same evidence, maybe not Polaroids, but pretty much everything else. A specific person could be pointed to in history and in time and location, and many events that had independent historical documentation of that person. There is no such evidence for a historical Jesus.
