What do we know about Jesus? - Armor Games Community

31	16370

offline

twillight2

413 posts

Chancellor

Posted March 29, '14 7:49pm UTC

No histroian accepts Jesus of the Bible as historical figure.

Josephus' writings are NOT considered as valid, only refering to a "christ" at one place, what is only a title (there were like HUNDREDS of christs in that time, the title practically meaning a kind of religious preson with authority, being the person either real or fictional), and the other place just a later xian forgery in a previously empty space (check wikipedia, or any real historian touching the subject).
Especiallynot good source as Jospehus lived like a 100 years after Jesus at possible maximum could have lived (it is impossible to tell when exactly the person supposedly lived, as the only source on the subject, aka. the Bible disagrees with itself.

No, there is absolutely no evidence any roman executed such religious figure. They of course executed a couple (couple hundred) of jews of the time, even named Jesus, but that means nothing, as that name in that time was pretty common (like now John).
Especially can't happen, as the prime source mentioning Jesus in question (aka. the Bible) gives such datas what says they lived in a separate time.

-------------

Now to be constructive:
- please define "Jesus". What you think this person did? (When he did, etc.)
- tell me why you think it is important that the person was a real figure, and not a mythical one (or even entirely fictional). The difference is when something is a myth, it had a "real" version, but it got "boosted" by fairytale-element.
This IS a question, as for example Homeros (the guy writing Ilias/Odusseia) might not even exist as one person. And? The important thing from the &quoterson" is the two epos.
(Personally my opinion of Jesus' teaching - sourcing the Bible - is of no worth today, but that is not the topic of this thread!)

No histroian accepts Jesus of the Bible as historical figure.\r\n\r\nJosephus' writings are NOT considered as valid, only refering to a "christ" at one place, what is only a title (there were like HUNDREDS of christs in that time, the title practically meaning a kind of religious preson with authority, being the person either real or fictional), and the other place just a later xian forgery in a previously empty space (check wikipedia, or any real historian touching the subject).\r\nEspeciallynot good source as Jospehus lived like a 100 years after Jesus at possible maximum could have lived (it is impossible to tell when exactly the person supposedly lived, as the only source on the subject, aka. the Bible disagrees with itself.\r\n\r\nNo, there is absolutely no evidence any roman executed such religious figure. They of course executed a couple (couple hundred) of jews of the time, even named Jesus, but that means nothing, as that name in that time was pretty common (like now John).\r\nEspecially can't happen, as the prime source mentioning Jesus in question (aka. the Bible) gives such datas what says they lived in a separate time.\r\n\r\n\r\n-------------\r\n\r\nNow to be constructive:\r\n- [b]please define "Jesus"[/b]. What you think this person did? (When he did, etc.)\r\n- [b]tell me why you think it is important that the person was a real figure[/b], and not a mythical one (or even entirely fictional). The difference is when something is a myth, it had a "real" version, but it got "boosted" by fairytale-element.\r\nThis IS a question, as for example Homeros (the guy writing Ilias/Odusseia) might not even exist as one person. And? The important thing from the "person" is the two epos.\r\n(Personally my opinion of Jesus' teaching - sourcing the Bible - is of no worth today, but that is not the topic of this thread!)

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted March 29, '14 11:20pm UTC

No histroian accepts Jesus of the Bible as historical figure.

The claim is that Jesus of the Bible was based on a historical figure. I would seem a majority of biblical scholars agree on this. However the reasoning is flawed in a number of ways.
First off a majority of these scholars are Christians, suggesting a possible bias at work with at least some of them.
Secondly the methodology being applied has been criticized by some of the scholars who don't abide by this claim as unprofessional. What's happening is one scholar will come to this conclusion then another will follow his footsteps with the same claim and so on and so on. So instead of following the evidence they are following each others claims. With that in play even if a majority of the scholars weren't holding a bias of belief in the character, it would only take a handful to hold such a bias to get the chain going and have everyone feed off each other from there.

please define "Jesus". What you think this person did? (When he did, etc.)

The General accepted claims are that there was a man named Jesus which was the basis for the Christian Messiah in the Bible. It's generally regarded that he was at least executed by Rome. Non of the miraculous aspects are regarded as true.

tell me why you think it is important that the person was a real figure, and not a mythical one (or even entirely fictional). The difference is when something is a myth, it had a "real" version, but it got "boosted" by fairytale-element.

By that definition of myth the claim is Jesus of the Bible is a myth. I am inclined to think the Jesus character was entirely fictional.

[quote]No histroian accepts Jesus of the Bible as historical figure.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe claim is that Jesus of the Bible was based on a historical figure. I would seem a majority of biblical scholars agree on this. However the reasoning is flawed in a number of ways.\r\nFirst off a majority of these scholars are Christians, suggesting a possible bias at work with at least some of them.\r\nSecondly the methodology being applied has been criticized by some of the scholars who don't abide by this claim as unprofessional. What's happening is one scholar will come to this conclusion then another will follow his footsteps with the same claim and so on and so on. So instead of following the evidence they are following each others claims. With that in play even if a majority of the scholars weren't holding a bias of belief in the character, it would only take a handful to hold such a bias to get the chain going and have everyone feed off each other from there.\r\n\r\n[quote]please define "Jesus". What you think this person did? (When he did, etc.)[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe General accepted claims are that there was a man named Jesus which was the basis for the Christian Messiah in the Bible. It's generally regarded that he was at least executed by Rome. Non of the miraculous aspects are regarded as true.\r\n\r\n [quote]tell me why you think it is important that the person was a real figure, and not a mythical one (or even entirely fictional). The difference is when something is a myth, it had a "real" version, but it got "boosted" by fairytale-element.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBy that definition of myth the claim is Jesus of the Bible is a myth. I am inclined to think the Jesus character was entirely fictional.

offline

twillight2

413 posts

Chancellor

Posted March 29, '14 11:49pm UTC

The claim is that Jesus of the Bible was based on a historical figure. I would seem a majority of biblical scholars agree on this.

I don't care what they agree on as long as it is just their opinion. That's just they "agreeing" as a human.
When they'll start to agree on that based on evidence - that's when they agree on that as scientists.

The HYPOTHESIS that Jesus of Bible was modeled after a real person/historical figure is far from unbelievable - but that won't make me accept as fact.

If you want to continue this part of the argument please bring sources (we already excluded Josephus, the Bible, and any source made after hundred(s) of years after the death of the persona).

The General accepted claims are that there was a man named Jesus which was the basis for the Christian Messiah in the Bible.

1) So you bring the acts depicted in the Bible.
We must conclude that person never existed. No Sun stopped for like an hour, no deads rising, the historical facts are self-contradictory, the story-elements are self-contradictory.
2) So no miracles, and they guy got executed in the ancient Rome.
Then who cares? It is proven thousands got executed in the ancient Rome. Why should we pick out him, not eg. Spartacus, who definitely did something catching?
3) Let's take the biblical figure w/o the miracles, thus we remain with hate-speech, advocating self-mutilation, unproductive behaviour, Old-Covenant laws (including advocating genocide, rape, child-harassment, all the sacrificial laws and so on), and collective suicide. (Don't flag this, these are facts, and I can quote it if necessary.)
Conclusion to this:
- if only the content of the speech counts, it is irrelevant what was the speaker's name, when the person lived, where the person lived, what gender the person was.
- the speeches attributed to this Jesus of Bible is to be rejected by anyone who knows them.

[quote]The claim is that Jesus of the Bible was based on a historical figure. I would seem a majority of biblical scholars agree on this.[/quote]\r\nI don't care what they agree on as long as it is just their opinion. That's just they "agreeing" as a human.\r\nWhen they'll start to agree on that based on evidence - that's when they agree on that as scientists.\r\n\r\nThe HYPOTHESIS that Jesus of Bible was modeled after a real person/historical figure is far from unbelievable - but that won't make me accept as fact.\r\n\r\nIf you want to continue this part of the argument please bring sources (we already excluded Josephus, the Bible, and any source made after hundred(s) of years after the death of the persona).\r\n\r\n[quote]The General accepted claims are that there was a man named Jesus which was the basis for the Christian Messiah in the Bible.[/quote]\r\n1) So you bring the acts depicted in the Bible.\r\nWe must conclude that person never existed. No Sun stopped for like an hour, no deads rising, the historical facts are self-contradictory, the story-elements are self-contradictory.\r\n2) So no miracles, and they guy got executed in the ancient Rome.\r\nThen who cares? It is proven thousands got executed in the ancient Rome. Why should we pick out him, not eg. Spartacus, who definitely did something catching?\r\n3) Let's take the biblical figure w/o the miracles, thus we remain with hate-speech, advocating self-mutilation, unproductive behaviour, Old-Covenant laws (including advocating genocide, rape, child-harassment, all the sacrificial laws and so on), and collective suicide. ([b]Don't flag this, these are facts, and I can quote it if necessary.[/b])\r\nConclusion to this:\r\n- if only the content of the speech counts, it is irrelevant what was the speaker's name, when the person lived, where the person lived, what gender the person was.\r\n- the speeches attributed to this Jesus of Bible is to be rejected by anyone who knows them.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted March 30, '14 3:38am UTC

Well, most of us agree that the bible isn't really an unbiased book and to some, maybe Jesus itself are fictitious, but at least some of the depiction in the bible is based on historical facts and can be explained scientifically. Although i can't really prove this, the sun stopping for an hour or the dead risings can happen, with the first being a solar eclipse and the latter being a false case of presumed death. what i suspect is the writer itself is being hyperbolic, he lengthens the duration in both cases and he adds unconfirmed folklore to make the case of Jesus seemed magical in some sorts. A more plausible claim is that (the miracles) is the work of His students after his execution ( in a logical way), so the "true" Jesus is maybe not capable of doing such things

about Jesus, there ARE hundreds of hundreds of persons named after that, but to me there should be a good reason to why there ARE just one Jesus in the bible or even why he exist in the story in the first place. maybe he was a spiritual leader, a miracle maker or whatevs, but there should be a reason as to why, if he was fictitious, the name "Jesus" is used and not, say Spartacus or Mary or John. to me that is enough to make me believe the existence for him, as i do believe the existence of Buddha, the ancient folklore based king Arthur, and the Islamic prophet Muhammad. but in the case of him being a messiah that-sort-of-thing, that can be explained by the hyperbolic writings of the past, they tend to exaggerate the fact to hide the darker truths. to me there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the truth about Jesus is not different to what's being told to us in the bible or Josephus or other works ( and I'm a Christian, pretty weird for me to make this claims, right? )

Well,  most of us agree that the bible isn't really an unbiased book and to some, maybe Jesus itself are fictitious, but at least some of the depiction in the bible is based on historical facts and can be explained scientifically. Although i can't really prove this, the sun stopping for an hour or the dead risings can happen, with the first being a solar eclipse and the latter being a false case of presumed death. what i suspect is the writer itself is being hyperbolic, he lengthens the duration in both cases and he adds unconfirmed folklore to make the case of Jesus seemed magical in some sorts.  A more plausible claim is that (the miracles) is the work of His students after his execution ( in a logical way), so the "true" Jesus is maybe not capable of doing such things\r\n\r\nabout Jesus, there ARE hundreds of hundreds of persons named after that, but to me there should be a good reason to why there ARE just one Jesus in the bible or even why he exist in the story in the first place. maybe he was a spiritual leader, a miracle maker or whatevs, but there should be a reason as to why, if he was fictitious, the name "Jesus" is used and not, say Spartacus or Mary or John. to me that is enough to make me believe the existence for him, as i do believe the existence of Buddha, the ancient folklore based king Arthur, and the Islamic prophet Muhammad. but in the case of him being a messiah that-sort-of-thing, that can be explained by the hyperbolic writings of the past, they tend to exaggerate the fact to hide the darker truths. to me there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the truth about Jesus is not different to what's being told to us in the bible or Josephus or other works ( and I'm a Christian, pretty weird for me to make this claims, right? )

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted March 30, '14 4:18am UTC

the sun stopping for an hour or the dead risings can happen, with the first being a solar eclipse

I think that's referring to Joshua 10:13. The sun stayed in the sky a day longer than normal. That's not an eclipse.

and the latter being a false case of presumed death.

Perhaps with Lazarus, but Matthew 27:52-53 says tombs/graves opened up and many undead people wandered the streets.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted March 30, '14 6:25am UTC

I think that's referring to Joshua 10:13. The sun stayed in the sky a day longer than normal. That's not an eclipse.

Sorry, i misread the argument. i thought he was implying the darkened skies after Jesus supposed crucifixion

tombs/graves opened up and many undead people wandered the streets.

exactly. but that's not very logical right? maybe Matthew just exaggerate this case or in other words, it never happens historically

offline

danieln92

11 posts

Shepherd

Posted March 31, '14 9:55pm UTC

Phew, reading this is meticulous. Anyways, its obvious that imposing historical verification standards on a faith's documentation and figurehead is a little like using the features of an orange to prove an apple is an apple. Naturally, &quotroving" Christianity is a bit of a pointless task (particularly since, as many have pointed out, it is a faith based belief).

If I was going to even attempt to give evidence that a man lived in the region of Israel who was the biblical Jesus, I wouldn't point to people like Josephus. The best evidence is the religion that rapidly spread all over the world from around the turn to AD (or CE) and onward until even today. Now of course, that is very qualitative and unscientific, but maybe at least logical. If the religious landscape of the world drastically changed in a relatively short amount of time (which is likely more well documented [no I have no source haha], though obviously still biased and flawed since those records would likely be kept by the church) then logically there was probably a cause, and for those with faith, it is explained well by Jesus Christ.

So hypothetically, if there WAS a man named Jesus who did what the Bible says, then the world probably would change in some of the ways it did in the last 2,000 years. This is not by ANY means a way to argue other people into believing in Christ, but just a way of saying that history doesn't exactly disprove Christian faith.

Phew, reading this is meticulous. Anyways, its obvious that imposing historical verification standards on a faith's documentation and figurehead is a little like using the features of an orange to prove an apple is an apple. Naturally, "proving" Christianity is a bit of a pointless task (particularly since, as many have pointed out, it is a [i]faith[/i] based belief).\r\n\r\nIf I was going to even attempt to give evidence that a man lived in the region of Israel who was the biblical Jesus, I wouldn't point to people like Josephus. The best evidence is the religion that rapidly spread all over the world from around the turn to AD (or CE) and onward until even today. Now of course, that is very qualitative and unscientific, but maybe at least logical. If the religious landscape of the world drastically changed in a relatively short amount of time (which is likely more well documented [no I have no source haha], though obviously still biased and flawed since those records would likely be kept by the church) then logically there was probably a cause, and for those with faith, it is explained well by Jesus Christ. \r\n\r\nSo hypothetically, if there WAS a man named Jesus who did what the Bible says, then the world probably would change in some of the ways it did in the last 2,000 years. This is not by ANY means a way to argue other people into believing in Christ, but just a way of saying that history doesn't exactly disprove Christian faith.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted March 31, '14 10:05pm UTC

Naturally, &quotroving" Christianity is a bit of a pointless task (particularly since, as many have pointed out, it is a faith based belief).

So hypothetically, if there WAS a man named Jesus who did what the Bible says, then the world probably would change in some of the ways it did in the last 2,000 years. This is not by ANY means a way to argue other people into believing in Christ, but just a way of saying that history doesn't exactly disprove Christian faith.

This does not relate to the premise of the thread. It's simply a question of how much we can agree upon with regard to the life of Jesus (Christ), which turns out to be virtually nothing.

offline

danieln92

11 posts

Shepherd

Posted April 1, '14 5:58am UTC

This does not relate to the premise of the thread. It's simply a question of how much we can agree upon with regard to the life of Jesus (Christ), which turns out to be virtually nothing.

Did not intend to be unrelated. It seemed to me that the most basic question that came up several times in this thread is whether Jesus existed, and how that might be evidenced. I simply wanted to offer how I might think answering that question, as well as reframing how people might approach evidencing what we know about Jesus.

You are right, my post was really more in response to where the thread has ended up, not where it started. You are right, as a whole, we obviously do not agree on much of anything.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 2, '14 3:53am UTC

Did not intend to be unrelated. It seemed to me that the most basic question that came up several times in this thread is whether Jesus existed, and how that might be evidenced. I simply wanted to offer how I might think answering that question, as well as reframing how people might approach evidencing what we know about Jesus.

The existence of the religion provides no more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus then the cargo cults existing provides evidence for John Frum actually existing.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted April 2, '14 6:44am UTC

The existence of the religion provides no more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus then the cargo cults existing provides evidence for John Frum actually existing.

I would've gone with Comics + Fans + NYC = Spiderman, considering that you can probably even find legal records of someone in the area named "Peter Parker".

offline

Asherlee

5,001 posts

Shepherd

Posted April 2, '14 4:06pm UTC

Slightly related, but I was investigating evidence for King Solomon and King David and just about every reference to those people are religious texts.

I'm not even convinced THEY existed at this point. Granted, I haven't completed the personal 'investigation,' but it isn't looking good.

If you look at King David's wiki page you'll see that 98% of the citations are from the Bible. I don't know how I feel about using the Bible as historically accurate.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted April 2, '14 5:25pm UTC

Slightly related, but I was investigating evidence for King Solomon and King David and just about every reference to those people are religious texts.

There weren't many historical texts back then that survived. Some bits of the bible, such as 1 Kings 6-7, are far more meticulously (and realistically) detailed than others. This would suggest real events. Sure, somebody could fabricate measurements, but it would've been just as easy to leave it blandly as "he made a grand palace" or something.

offline

Freakenstein

9,504 posts

Jester

Posted April 2, '14 8:33pm UTC

I don't know how I feel about using the Bible as historically accurate.

I wouldn't take it as fulfilling citation requirements either. Scientists don't use one study's points to support the very same study it's supporting, rather they bring up multiple independent studies before they come to a consensus. In short, this would violate the Circular Reasoning fallacy.

That is quite surprising, were this verified, that King David/Solomon's existence is brought into question. One would think a classical era would keep tabs on the lifestyle of important people, sans spiritual texts. Even the enemies of King Solomon and David would have information on them, albeit not in the same light.

offline

Asherlee

5,001 posts

Shepherd

Posted April 3, '14 12:50pm UTC

There weren't many historical texts back then that survived. Some bits of the bible, such as 1 Kings 6-7, are far more meticulously (and realistically) detailed than others. This would suggest real events. Sure, somebody could fabricate measurements, but it would've been just as easy to leave it blandly as "he made a grand palace" or something.

Actually historical records in that area had a prominence a good bit before the time of King David. There were several Arabian historians at that time.

As far as I can tell there is no other mention in any other historical texts about David other than the Bible. If he did exist it wasn't nearly as grand as the Bible made it out to be. It is probably more like there was a moderately wealthy land owner with a small community on his land or it's just flat out a fable.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → What do we know about Jesus?