25 Aug 11
1 edit
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him." Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian.
"Perhaps the explanation which best fits all the evidence is that Jesus existed, but that once you strip away the myths, his life was wholly forgettable. Followed by nothing."
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/11/04/did-jesus-exist/
25 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969I've been trying to get VoidSpirit to "strip away" the myth part from the New Testament. He can't he says. Its all legend.
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him." Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian.
"Perhaps the explanation which best fits all the evidence is that Jesus existed, but that once you strip away the myths, his life was wholly forgettable. Followed by nothing."
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/11/04/did-jesus-exist/
No one seems to be able to produce the "authenic" unmythological account of the life of Jesus.
The earliest documents we have about Jesus are the letters the Apostle Paul.
And around 50 AD he writes that he is just passing on what was passed on to him. In other words, FIRST others were already teaching it, then he followed on once he became a Christian:
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures; And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time -- OF WHOM THE MAJORITY REMAIN UNTIL NOW, but some have fallen asleep;
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also ... I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God ..." (1 Corinthian Letter 15:3-7)
Some scholars say that the formula "For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received ..." was the standard way scribes committed with sacred oral traditions assured their audiences that they were faithfully passing on teachings of their seniors.
The ancient world put much more emphasis on accurate oral memorization and faithful repetition than modern man.
Anyway, this was written within about 25 - 30 years of the last year of ministry on the earth by Jesus Christ.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by moon1969Did Russell's family and friends call him Bert?
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him." Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian.
"Perhaps the explanation which best fits all the evidence is that Jesus existed, but that once you strip away the myths, his life was wholly forgettable. Followed by nothing."
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/11/04/did-jesus-exist/
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillThat doesn't mean such repetition was actually accurate, nor does it tell us anything about the validity of the source. Repeating made up stories accurately does not change the fact that the story is made up.
The ancient world put much more emphasis on accurate oral memorization and faithful repetition than modern man.
All claims regarding 'accurate oral memorization' etc fall apart when we realise that the gospel accounts differ substantially despite the writers copying from each other, and that other gospel accounts exist which were discarded for being even more significantly different.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by moon1969the first is an opinion, the second is pretty stupid.
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him." Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian.
"Perhaps the explanation which best fits all the evidence is that Jesus existed, but that once you strip away the myths, his life was wholly forgettable. Followed by nothing."
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/11/04/did-jesus-exist/
it basically is equivalent to "let's ignore einstein's accomplishments and his intelligence. once you strip away that, his life was totally forgettable. followed by nothing". it ignores the main characteristics of an important figure.
christians believe jesus was the son of god and provided hooch for the cana wedding and so on. the second source doesn't bother to prove or disprove those "myths" because it would be too damn hard, but simply labels them as myths (when the truth could be either way) and says "let's ignore them, you will see jesus was totally a regular guy. his life accomplished nothing (but it did) and after him nothing happened(except to forever change the course of humanity)".
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziFrom the "stupid" article regarding the question did Jesus exist:
the first is an opinion, the second is pretty stupid.
it basically is equivalent to "let's ignore einstein's accomplishments and his intelligence. once you strip away that, his life was totally forgettable. followed by nothing". it ignores the main characteristics of an important figure.
christians believe jesus was the son of god and provided ho ...[text shortened]... did) and after him nothing happened(except to forever change the course of humanity)".
Of course it all comes down to the evidence. Since most of what we think we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, let’s start there.
If the crucifixion took place, it would have been in about 29CE. The four gospels were written no earlier than the period 70 to 90CE and were based on stories previously published using only a combination of the tongue and memory: a classic case of hearsay upon hearsay.
But if we could trust the authors’ ability to relay only hearsay which came from trustworthy sources, perhaps this wouldn’t matter so much. Yet we know virtually nothing about the authors. In fact, since the original texts were anonymous, scholars agree that the gospels probably weren’t written by those with the names attributed to them. What’s more, we know that the church inserted material into the gospels even centuries later. For instance the original gospel of Mark – perhaps significantly – omitted any reference to the resurrection, but ended with Jesus’ death.
And the gospels disagree with each other about several matters including the genealogies and Peter’s denial of Jesus. As for factual errors, they are so easy to find that I will mention just two.
First, the gospel writers referred to many prophecies which Jesus supposedly fulfilled. The only problem is that a number of the prophecies hadn’t been made in the first place (Luke 18:31-32, John 2:23, 5:46, 19:36, Mark 8:28, Matthew 2:23).
And how about this? Luke explains that the reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem was because Joseph and Mary had to return to Joseph’s place of birth. This was due to a decree issued by Emperor Augustus for a census to be taken throughout the Roman world for tax purposes while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2). Matthew 2 explains that this was while Herod was king. Yet Syria didn’t have a governor called Quirinius when Herod was king. And despite the best endeavours of archeologists and historians, it has proved impossible to find a trace of an imperial census during that period. There was a local one a few years later, but that didn’t require the population to return to their places of birth.
The rest of the New Testament doesn’t provide any evidence for Jesus’ existence, either. The letters which were supposedly written by the disciples Peter and John suffer from the usual problems of forgery, later interpolation and questioned identity. And the authors of the other epistles, including Paul, didn’t claim that they had ever met Jesus.
In fact, it is difficult to know which is the more baffling: the lack of virtually any historical evidence that Jesus ever lived or the apparent readiness of most people to take his existence for granted nevertheless.
Luke (23:44) tells us that during the crucifixion, “It was about the sixth hour and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.” Yet no contemporary writer considered the daytime shrouding of the planet in blackness worth even a passing reference – not even Pliny the Elder or Seneca even though they lived in the right period and they wrote about much lesser events such as eclipses.
And why did no writer consider Herod’s slaying of all the babies of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16) to be important enough to bother mentioning?
The gospels refer to Jesus’ fame and the multitudes that he drew (Luke 5:15, 19:47, 21:15-23, 23:23, 26:13). Yet, although the religious philosopher Philo and the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias both lived at the right time, neither of them mentioned him among their voluminous writings. Had Jesus’ fame not reached them?
We know that the Romans were meticulous in their documentation. Yet they have no record of Jesus or his crucifixion.
So is there any evidence that Jesus existed?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes, that is right. If Jesus had never existed, we would not have
the first is an opinion, the second is pretty stupid.
it basically is equivalent to "let's ignore einstein's accomplishments and his intelligence. once you strip away that, his life was totally forgettable. followed by nothing". it ignores the main characteristics of an important figure.
christians believe jesus was the son of god and provided ho ...[text shortened]... did) and after him nothing happened(except to forever change the course of humanity)".
Christianity. Also we would not be using dating system AD and BC.
At least someone like Jesus existed and was called "Christ" for all
these legends to exist. I can't imagine how they could have started
these legends and made them so believeable, otherwise.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by moon1969i wasn't arguing the evidence of jesus existance. i was arguing that sentence, taken out of context, is stupid.
From the "stupid" article regarding the question did Jesus exist:
Of course it all comes down to the evidence. Since most of what we think we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, let’s start there.
If the crucifixion took place, it would have been in about 29CE. The four gospels were written no earlier than the period 70 to 90CE and were based on ...[text shortened]... ey have no record of Jesus or his crucifixion.
So is there any evidence that Jesus existed?
but about the evidence: the whole point of this article (and yes, it sounds more reasonable when you get to read it more than one sentence taken out of context) is that 1. the bible has contradictions
2. the people two thousands years ago didn't have harddrives or any reliable way to maintain data.
yes, some stories will be conflicting, some historians will have opinions and will deny some accounts. some will not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence_of_Jesus
and more in depth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
there is no definite answer either way. ultimately, it comes down to faith. you need it anyway to believe that even if he existed, he was the son of god.
i have faith in that.
26 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsthere is a possibility that from hearsay a cult would be born and jesus simply became a personification of a belief system.
Yes, that is right. If Jesus had never existed, we would not have
Christianity. Also we would not be using dating system AD and BC.
At least someone like Jesus existed and was called "Christ" for all
these legends to exist. I can't imagine how they could have started
these legends and made them so believeable, otherwise.
the dating system isn't a consequence of jesus having existed they are a consequence of the impact christianity had. still no proof of jesus's existance.
believable? jesus's stories are hardly more believable, objectively speaking, from the iliad.
get this: christianity is faith. not scientifical fact. to claim it is undermines your credibility as a rational being. you must understand that from an objective stance, jesus resurrecting lazarus is no more believable than that prick paris dooming an entire nation because he had the hots for "the most beautiful woman in the world, the daughter of zeus the father of the gods".
and i am quite comfortable with that. i believe jesus is real, i don't need to prove him.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziMuch of what Voltaire had written on God is very much pertinent to this discussion.But I will quote just one sentence:If God did not exist,it would be necessary to invent him.( From the Story of Philosophy by Will Durant,page 241 of the Pocket Books Edition.)
there is a possibility that from hearsay a cult would be born and jesus simply became a personification of a belief system.
the dating system isn't a consequence of jesus having existed they are a consequence of the impact christianity had. still no proof of jesus's existance.
believable? jesus's stories are hardly more believable, objectively speaki ...[text shortened]...
and i am quite comfortable with that. i believe jesus is real, i don't need to prove him.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoi believe god is love. so for an atheist, i suppose it would be perfectly acceptable to live life not believing in god as long as love still is a driving force
Much of what Voltaire had written on God is very much pertinent to this discussion.But I will quote just one sentence:If God did not exist,it would be necessary to invent him.( From the Story of Philosophy by Will Durant,page 241 of the Pocket Books Edition.)
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziAll attributes such as Love,Sense of Beauty,Sense of Wonder about the Universe, Fellowship with all beings are indicators,according to Hindus,of God's presence in humans. Atheists term them as evolutionary adaptations. Does not matter,a rose is a rose by any name.
i believe god is love. so for an atheist, i suppose it would be perfectly acceptable to live life not believing in god as long as love still is a driving force
27 Aug 11
I'm pretty sure the majority of scholars, atheist, Christian and otherwise, believe Christ certainly did exist. Josephus' writings alone provide ample evidence. His being the Son of the Living God, 100% human and 100% divine seems to have had folks knickers in a twist for most of the past 2 millenia.