Yesterday I received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to the CSER Review, one which I will gratefully accept.
Where do you stand on the question of historicity?
Where do you stand on the question of historicity?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
doppelgänger;902100 said:There is so little historical evidence of first century Christianity that in my opinion all theories (including orthodox tradition) are highly speculative.
If I had to give an opinion as to what is most likely from all I've studied over the years, I'd say that that the majority of the materials we have are a synchretism built around a midrash on materials in the OT, in particular Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, mixed with the philosophies of Neoplatonism (especially in GJohn), the pagan Mysteries adapted to OT scriptures (in Paul's letters), and teachings from the Stoics and Cynics.
Whether any of this was inspired by the actual historical life of one or more persons is largely irrelevant as there's no way to discern it, and even if one makes that assumption, there's not enough evidence from which to sort out which parts are representative of that historical person and which parts are adapted mythology without resorting to speculation. A good case can be made that virtually every aspect of the story and the teachings were borrowed from elsewhere (mostly from Hebrew scripture).
Good publication, the CFI puts out some fantastic stuff.Yesterday I received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to the CSER Review, one which I will gratefully accept.
Where do you stand on the question of historicity?
Well, I believe Baha`u'llah IS a Messenger of God. He is undoubtedly an historical figure. He says Jesus was a Manifestation of God and did exist. Therefore, I have no doubt Jesus existed.
If I want infallibility I can go to the Baha`i and Babi sources.
Such reasoning has to be based entirely on belief, not information regarding the evidence (or lack thereof) for Jesus' life.
Much in the Bible regarding Jesus' life is obviously taken from other, pagan religious sources. Perhaps the Jesus of the Bible is based on a person or persons with a life embellished with pagan myth. But there is really no way to know if he was based on a real person or not. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to me. I perceive truth in parts of the Christ myth. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to serve as a metaphor.
James
I appreciate the fact that you actually answered the question.Personally, I think there is too little evidence either way to come to any sort of conclusion about the historical accuracy of anything in the Bible.
All you wanted was a for or against an authentic historicity of Jesus?I appreciate the fact that you actually answered the question.
No, it was not at all obvious, but that is an entirely different discussion. Thank you for the clarification.It's fairly obvious from my post I think the person of Jesus is a borrowed fairytale.