RE at Primary and Secondary for me involved learning about most religions. We even celebrated Diwali.
-
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!
It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
I don't know what time the story broke in the media, but I heard it from a voice coming from a burning bush as I was feeding the squirrels in the park today.
clara17
Memorable member
Yeah, but the audio is a little fuzzy.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Christianity is best lived out as Jesus wanted it to be. He wanted followers, not worshipers. Actions are stronger than beliefs, as far as loving as Jesus did.
How do we know? For all we know he just wanted to be the topic of pointless Internet debates.
And he'd be willing to be crucified for that? But then again, how many martyrs do we have that love getting crucified in all their threads they start here?
lukethethird
unknown member
And yet it is considered a virtue by the indoctrinated to believe these stories on faith alone.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Roman historian Pliny claimed African warriors rode giant scorpions. He claimed Hannibal rode
elephants over the Alps and invaded Rome itself. And Hannibal's nemesis, Scipio Africanus, was
born to the gods. See the problem?
Most atheists don't believe in Moses, but believe in Hannibal. Employing the same techniques of
critical analysis we should presume that Hannibal, if he existed, was nothing more than a local
warlord or escaped slave who gathered a band of men to himself. His story was crafted as a
precautionary tale for the Romans, similar to what the bible is claimed to have done with its
figures such as King David.
So why don't we teach this? Why do we believe Hannibal, Cleopatra, Aristotle and Plato to be
historic figures but Jesus is not? Why the double standard in our "critical analysis" of things.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You mean its not legitimate for seminary teachers. Not in general.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Well, if we look at the few quotes from him. It sure beats asking for sycophants.
It seems to me the two strongest arguments in favor of an historical Jesus are
1. By the criterion of embarrassment, in all four gospels, Jesus is shown as aggressive towards his mother and his family: Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast only John 19:26.
2. Ehrman's point that at no stage did any enemy of the early Christians use the argument that Jesus didn't exist.
2. Ehrman's point that at no stage did any enemy of the early Christians use the argument that Jesus didn't exist.
But overall, no one can decisively demonstrate the existence in 1st century Galilee and Judea of a real human who's known to us as Jesus. Such a figure is not necessary to explain the gospels, for example.
And no one can decisively demonstrate that no real human was the founder or trigger of Christianity.
Which said, if we assume there had indeed been an historical Jesus then the only credible model for him in the NT is the Jesus of Mark.
As for his message, there have been various claims that particular sayings found in extracanonical gospels are authentic, but as the failure of the Jesus Seminar shows, that's all mere opinion.
And if Mark is indeed any guide, such a Jesus may have been a follower of John the Baptist, with no greater subtlety of thought than "Get Ready ─ God's Kingdom will be established on Earth in the lifetime of this present generation."
lukethethird
unknown member
No double standards, it boils down to sources. To date there are no primary sources for Jesus, he is without contemporaries, and there are no secondary sources that make reference to primary sources. He's not in the history books. We do have religious texts that are theological works of literature beginning with the epistles. That doesn't scratch the surface of problems but sources is the place to start.
Last edited:
Right, about the time when secular laws took effect and good, God-fearing, decent Christians couldn't torture a person to death for such questions.
Lol.
lukethethird
unknown member
The criterion of embarrassment and a few others are used by biblical scholars, they got nothing else to go on so they invented this. They basically tell you to believe what you are reading as true.
The elephant in the room here is what Ehrman does not say. According to Galatians, Paul has a dispute with James that James could have settled by referring to Jesus, but he doesn't. Nobody said Jesus did exist and this is what he had to say about that when the time called for it. Ehrman doesn't mention that anything written counter to Christian writings were either destroyed or not recopied, left to decay. Second century Celsus was a critic whose writings survive only through the writings of Origen.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Why not spirit terms meant it doesn't exist.
Existing means the living only.
Ask the teachers were you teaching the human advice correctly.
The answer is no.
1901 Russia attack fallout via heavens. Life irradiated sacrificed. Did Jesus return 2012?
Non life sacrificed healed?
No. Stating sacrifice would be removed the image and vision seen would go with gods body heavens.
Because the heavens spirit is still being a Sacrificed extra cause by men of science the reasoning why life dies and won't heal and remains sick.
We all use the same heavens.
If you happen to be standing in the wrong place with God in two places. You get sacrificed the known teaching.
The status taught God chose you.
I always wished God would only choose the scientist to teach him what being a human egotist meant.
DNB
Christian
Well, of course, the historical veracity of his resurrection is the pinnacle of the Christian faith.
If there is no life after death, all missionary work, martyrdom and sacrifice will cease, ...eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
DNB
Christian
Christianity is all about the resurrection, and nothing more. Where there is no hope, there is no faith. His message to be good has no bearing on Salvation, we are saved by grace. No Messiah, then no redemption and no religion, and no faith.