In fact, you asked two questions:
On what basis do you claim that "the proponent" rejects Pliny's reference to Christians?
-
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!
Was Jesus Only Human?
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
In fact, you asked two questions:
On what basis do you claim that "the proponent" rejects Pliny's reference to Christians?
Augustus
…
Which completely mythical non-existent humans were deified shortly after their (fictional) deaths?
Very well done.
WalterTrull
Godfella
2 cents:
“Follow me.” Would seem impossible if Jesus weren’t what we are. Are we human? Definition, I guess.
Was he real? I would like to think so. Either way, the compilation of stuff attributed to him I find very useful. Some good pointers there. Since I believe in a mental universe, I also believe that all the miracles attributed to him are possible but then, not miracles
“Follow me.” Would seem impossible if Jesus weren’t what we are. Are we human? Definition, I guess.
Was he real? I would like to think so. Either way, the compilation of stuff attributed to him I find very useful. Some good pointers there. Since I believe in a mental universe, I also believe that all the miracles attributed to him are possible but then, not miracles
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yes. That was a specific question. Specific to the mythicists response to Pliny's mention of Christians.
Just wish to get the view. But that doesn't mean your response is not appreciated bro. Sorry if I came across that way.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
It is wrong to say Jesus is only human
but it is appropriate to say Jesus is a very special man.
Jesus is human with human feelings, emotions,
human anatomy, he felt pain, sorrow, hunger, everything we can feel, he felt.
born, died as a human, and raised by God from the dead still a human.
He is seated at the right hand of God still a human.
but it is appropriate to say Jesus is a very special man.
Jesus is human with human feelings, emotions,
human anatomy, he felt pain, sorrow, hunger, everything we can feel, he felt.
born, died as a human, and raised by God from the dead still a human.
He is seated at the right hand of God still a human.
None of that is credible, imo.
Was Jesus Only Human?
I think the word 'only' is not as being implied in the question. I believe a human can range from the animal to the divine.
I think Jesus was just a more spiritually advanced human and teacher that tried to help his fellow humans raise our spiritual level.
I would not call myself a Christian but I am pro-Jesus. I probably differ with the OP as I see a spiritual (more than the seen physical) side to reality as being real.
I think the word 'only' is not as being implied in the question. I believe a human can range from the animal to the divine.
I think Jesus was just a more spiritually advanced human and teacher that tried to help his fellow humans raise our spiritual level.
I would not call myself a Christian but I am pro-Jesus. I probably differ with the OP as I see a spiritual (more than the seen physical) side to reality as being real.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Not to me it isn't.
Phaedrus
Active Member
Feeling sick, contracted a bug from someone at work, so I'm just going to leave this link here:
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
The obvious response would be:
I do not reject Pliny (or, for that matter, Tacitus) as evidence of Christians. I simply reject it as sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
I find the response wanting, but that makes it no less obvious.
I hope you feel better soon.
Where?
PureX
Veteran Member
Nor did he seek these.
The revelation of Christ was that the spirit of God exists in all of us, as God's creations, and that we can come to embody it, as Jesus did, if we are willing to "die to self" and be "reborn into the Divine Spirit that exists within us". AND, Christ further promises that if we will do this, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help to heal and save the rest of humanity, and even the world.
What made this Jesus character different was that he recognized the divine spirit within him, and chose to embody it (becoming the Christ) as a lesson and example for all the rest of humanity. We (humanity) killed him for it, but we could not kill the Divine Spirit he spoke of, or the message and that promise he embodied. Which is why he is so 'revered' to this day, by so many.
Jesus never claimed to be more then a man. But he did proclaim that to be a hu-man is more than just being a body with a soul. He claimed it is also to be the embodiment of the Divine Spirit that creates and animates us all, from within. Which is why Jesus was not averse to being called, "the son of God". Because to be "the son of" a family patriarch in his culture was considered the equivalent of being a living extension of that patriarch. And Jesus considered himself to be a living extension of the God that created, inspired, and animated him in all his words and deeds.
None of that makes any sense to me, even if it does to you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I have seen that argument brother. I wanted your personal opinion. But if your opinion is exactly what is inn this link, I believe you should have studied it and gone to the source and made a wider analysis because this is very bias and setup already far prior to the investigation the writer has done.
Before all of that I hope you get better soon.
Anyway bro, the guy in your link begins by dismissing Josephus's account as "palpably bogus passage" but thats just absurd because the whole of Josephus is not proven false, only the exalted claim about miracles is proven to be false. Other accounts of the fleeting mention of Jesus the brother of James is not proven bogus.
His thesis is makes no real sense because the Pliny matter is based on a Christian priest who didn't like Pliny's letters due to it degrading Christians. Of course no Christian priest will like anyone degrading Christians as if they are some nonsensical cult and thats exactly what Pliny did. Thus, just because this priest didnt like it and says the letter must be bogus, that is not a scholarly way of negating the letter as bogus. Do you understand? Taylor doesn't like the fact that Christians were called a cult with cannibalism so he dismissed the letter as false, does that make a case for you to adopt a Christian priests thought for your evidence against the Pliny account? Well, it shouldn't. Pliny is reporting what he received as a historian, thats it.
Its just being dismissive and lacks depth.
Wish you well bro. Get well soon.
Peace.
There is absolutely no evidence Lao Tzu ever existed.
It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.
Genuine 'Duck, Bob and Weaver Beaver' response.
It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jesus was a man, just as described in G-Mark (less the additions).I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd, but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths. However, it is possible some things were factual, like him having a high opinion of himself, a very human condition, if not a pleasant one. As a kid he supposedly went off to the Temple to 'impress' the elders with him knowledge, without asking his parents permission, which was very naughty. Maybe they grounded him until he was 30, when he came to public attention.Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible. The exorcism nonsense did him no credit at all, as it caused a herd of pigs to fall over a cliff, animal cruelty, and harmful to the pig farmer, who presumably didn't get any compensation. Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.
All in all I think he would have been an interesting person to get to know, but certainly not deserving of worship and adoration.
So was the Baptist.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Gospel of Mark is not a bad record that Jesus existed.