the right religion

[I.S.L.A.M617]

"Most likely"? Who's measuring for the conclusion here? While this is certainly possible, and even likely, it is not certain, and the testimony of those like Tacitus and Pliney nevertheless constitutes some evidence of the existence of a person corresponding to the Biblical Christ. Far from decisive evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

In the same way that both dinosaur fossils and human skeletons being in the ground is evidence that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time...

And I will ask again, if Jesus was in fact a real person, why did it take about 40 years after his supposed death for people to know what his name was? The word "Jesus" was not used until the Gospels were written, though Christianity had existed for quite some time before.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In the same way that both dinosaur fossils and human skeletons being in the ground is evidence that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time...

That's retarded. I'll abide by the principle of charity and pretend you didn't say that.

And I will ask again, if Jesus was in fact a real person, why did it take about 40 years after his supposed death for people to know what his name was?

Who knows? Maybe he went by several different names, or a pseudonym, or whatever.

Regardless, the fact remains that, the existence of numerous reports, which cannot be conclusively ruled out as unreliable/fabricated/false, does constitute fair evidence for the existence of a historical Christ.

And let me further emphasize that I am NOT arguing that there was a historical Christ. Need I repeat that? I'm not arguing that the various early sources mentioning Christ are conclusive, or reliable, but simply that they do constitute evidence- which is really not arguable (i.e. if we're thinking of evidence in terms of Beyesian theory, which we should). This is simply being honest.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Regardless, the fact remains that, the existence of numerous reports, which cannot be conclusively ruled out as unreliable/fabricated/false, does constitute fair evidence for the existence of a historical Christ.

And let me further emphasize that I am NOT arguing that there was a historical Christ. Need I repeat that? I'm not arguing that the various early sources mentioning Christ are conclusive, or reliable, but simply that they do constitute evidence- which is really not arguable (i.e. if we're thinking of evidence in terms of Beyesian theory, which we should). This is simply being honest.

And how is this any less "retarded" than my dinosaur analogy? Both dinosaur and human skeletons are in the ground. This shows that they could have existed at the same time, even though the evidence isn't necessarily reliable or conclusive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You really need to lay off giving advice, you have no skill for it.

You are as mistaken about that as you are mistaken about the historical Jesus. I give wonderful advice.

1. I am not convinced one way or the other. I'm simply being honest- there is a fair amount of evidence, comparable at the very least to the quantity and quality of available evidence for many other historical figures, that someone at least roughly corresponding to the character of Jesus Christ actually existed.

No, actually there isn't. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

...but stating unequivocally that theres zero reason to think Christ ever existed is misleading at best, false at worst. There is some reason to think that, even if it is not sufficient reason to think that.

I have to (reluctantly) agree with you on that point. There is some reason to think that the moon is made of green cheese, even if it is not sufficient reason. I mean, why would we have all the historical references to a green-cheese moon if there were absolutely zero reason to think it might be made of green cheese?

2. It is not a cultural assumption. It is a subject of a fair scholarly consensus.

Nonsense. The 'scholars' who push for an historical Jesus are virtually all the product of a Christian upbringing. I'm sure that ancient Roman scholars arrived at a similar scholarly consensus about the historical Zeus, etc.

I'm not saying they are necessarily right (as I said, I'm agnostic on the matter at present), but the fact that there is a consensus among experts at least deserves consideration rather than blanket dismissal.

Try to peer through the assumptions of your culture. You might see Jesus differently.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's retarded. I'll abide by the principle of charity and pretend you didn't say that.

You explained to me in an earlier thread that you don't go around saying impolite things on the forum.

Isn't it so odd how minds work? Me, I'd consider myself impolite to call the other guy retarded. But you apparently don't.

Truth really is personal, you know. Almost always.

 

[1robin]

Not to be a pedant, but the Nietzsche quote "God is dead", is probably the single patently misunderstood quote ever. Nietzsche was NOT saying that God existed and is now deceased. Rather, his proclamation that God is dead meant that belief in God as a foundation of morality was dead- and his philosophy consisted in trying to find a naturalistic basis to anchor morality and prevent the nihilism which he thinks will accompany a widespread lack of religious belief.

I did not misunderstand Nietzsche (as he is the only Atheist philosopher worth reading). He was describing God as a concept and that is close enough for what I claimed. Challenging the notion of God in any form has not been a very successful endeavor. Especially for historians and writers. Just ask Lewis or Chesterton.

And the Death of God was for Nietzsche the starting point for his philosophy, which is one of the most widely read and influential (not to mention suggestive and insightful) philosophies in the past thousand years- so he'd probably say it was an excellent career choice.

I do not know if I agree with your assessment or not but he was a very smart man. My favorite philosopher (Ravi Zacharias) sure holds him in high esteem. Nietzsche recognized what the stakes are in removing God (concept or Omni-being) from the social conscience. He said because we killed God (concept or being) in the 1800's that the 1900's would be the bloodiest century in history and a general madness would prevail. He was wrong, it wasn't the bloodiest century, it was bloodier than all previous centuries added together. Not only is there a current moral insanity prevailing but Nietzsche himself went insane. He was an atheist prophet.

 

[sojourner]

In the same way that both dinosaur fossils and human skeletons being in the ground is evidence that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time...

And I will ask again, if Jesus was in fact a real person, why did it take about 40 years after his supposed death for people to know what his name was? The word "Jesus" was not used until the Gospels were written, though Christianity had existed for quite some time before.

What makes you say that it took 40 years? The Q material was almost certainly extant less than ten years following the Jesus Event.

 

[1robin]

What makes you say that it took 40 years? The Q material was almost certainly extant less than ten years following the Jesus Event.

Paul was far earlier than 40 years as well.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, actually there isn't. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Unfortunately, your bare assertion of this counts for precisely nothing.

I have to (reluctantly) agree with you on that point. There is some reason to think that the moon is made of green cheese, even if it is not sufficient reason. I mean, why would we have all the historical references to a green-cheese moon if there were absolutely zero reason to think it might be made of green cheese?

Nonsense. The 'scholars' who push for an historical Jesus are virtually all the product of a Christian upbringing. I

Why have you used scare quotes here? Are you implying they are not real scholars? And even if they were all Christians (as a matter of fact they are not- go look up some of the writers I've already cited and you will see), this isn't a real objection; they could be right all the same- the implication here is simply non-sequitur.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And how is this any less "retarded" than my dinosaur analogy? Both dinosaur and human skeletons are in the ground. This shows that they could have existed at the same time, even though the evidence isn't necessarily reliable or conclusive.

Because there is evidence which renders such a conclusion impossible- dating techniques that put the age of the fossils relative to each other to be too far apart. There is no comparable evidence in the case at hand- there is no separate evidence rendering the conclusion that Christ existed impossible.

Or if there is, no one has mentioned it yet. If you're in possession of such evidence, do share.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I did not misunderstand Nietzsche (as he is the only Atheist philosopher worth reading). He was describing God as a concept and that is close enough for what I claimed.

Um.. What? You appeared to be repeating the canard that Nietzsche was making a metaphysical claim in saying that "God is dead"- he was not saying literally that there was a God, who is now dead. The phrase is metaphorical- he means literally, that belief in God is dead.

Challenging the notion of God in any form has not been a very successful endeavor. Especially for historians and writers. Just ask Lewis or Chesterton.

Or we could ask Nietzsche, whose tremendous reputation and career depending on challenging God. Or any number of other atheists whose livelihood depended on their atheism.

I do not know if I agree with your assessment or not but he was a very smart man. My favorite philosopher (Ravi Zacharias) sure holds him in high esteem. Nietzsche recognized what the stakes are in removing God (concept or Omni-being) from the social conscience. He said because we killed God (concept or being) in the 1800's that the 1900's would be the bloodiest century in history and a general madness would prevail. He was wrong, it wasn't the bloodiest century, it was bloodier than all previous centuries added together. Not only is there a current moral insanity prevailing but Nietzsche himself went insane. He was an atheist prophet.

It wasn't quite that simple. Nietzsche was not a prophet in any literal sense- for one, his descriptions of the mass chaos and pandemonium which would ensue if "the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal.. are hurled into the people" (Untimely Meditations) were hyperbolic, and what ended up happening with WWII and the Holocaust hardly followed the same lines Nietzsche spoke of.

Nietzsche's problem was this- as a man of the Englightenment, the old Judeo-Christian worldview is not longer an intellectually tenable or viable option; it is founded upon superstition and ressentiment. But without this worldview, all moral behavior, and any "cardinal distinction between man and animal" appears to have no basis- why act morally if there is no God? What does it matter? This is what Nietzsche sought to avoid, this nihilism that seems to be the result of the absence of belief in God- and he endeavored to find a naturalistic basis for morality, which would restore the distinction between man and beast, and his eventual solution was the dual conception of the overman and the eternal return of the same.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unfortunately, your bare assertion of this counts for precisely nothing.

Right. Same as yours.

Why have you used scare quotes here? Are you implying they are not real scholars?

Oh, I hate it when you nail me like that. Yes, yes, yes... I am implying that biblical scholars should be seen as different in kind from 'real scholars.' Sorry. I know that's a sore point for you, but I've gotta say what I believe.

And even if they were all Christians (as a matter of fact they are not- go look up some of the writers I've already cited and you will see), this isn't a real objection; they could be right all the same- the implication here is simply non-sequitur

Sure. And Santa scholars could be right -- the ones who believe in an historical 'real' Santa -- but they could also be wrong.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Paul was far earlier than 40 years as well.

Paul never used the name Jesus/Yeshua. He only referred to "Christ", as did every other Christian until the Gospel of Mark. Paul also never implied that Jesus was a real man.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Am I the only person in the world who hasn't forgotten that Nietzsche was completely nuts and in love with his sister?

 

[YmirGF]

Am I the only person in the world who hasn't forgotten that Nietzsche was completely nuts and in love with his sister?

Not at all, that inherent reality is what taints my views on Nietzsche. He seemed like a genuinely creepy person.

 

[Breathe]

Paul never used the name Jesus/Yeshua. He only referred to "Christ", as did every other Christian until the Gospel of Mark. Paul also never implied that Jesus was a real man.

You think Christ could've been something different to Jesus?

But what about this?

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


16: ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Matthew 16:16 Biblos Interlinear Bible

20: τότε ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός.
Matthew 16:20 Biblos Interlinear Bible

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You think Christ could've been something different to Jesus?

But what about this?

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


16: ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Matthew 16:16 Biblos Interlinear Bible

20: τότε ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός.
Matthew 16:20 Biblos Interlinear Bible

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

 

[Breathe]

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Sorry, entirely my fault.


Two questions.

1) Do you think Jesus is not synonymous with being 'the Christ'? If so, what do you think of both of them?

2) I took your post as meaning Jesus was not identified with Christ until later writings, so I asked if so, what do you make of these verses where he was identified as such.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not at all, that inherent reality is what taints my views on Nietzsche. He seemed like a genuinely creepy person.

And Newton was a complete and utter arrogant prick. And he was one of the most brilliant mathematicians who has ever lived. This is why 'ad-hominem" is a fallacy- because that someone was "creepy", or an arrogant turd, is irrelevant to the quality or truth of their work.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Am I the only person in the world who hasn't forgotten that Nietzsche was completely nuts and in love with his sister?

He loved his sister, he was not in love with his sister (and who doesn't love their own siblings?). And what does the fact that he became clinically insane (perhaps as the result of syphilis) have to do with his writings (you know, besides nothing)?