I always take the "son of god" description symbolically. Catholics worship "Mary, mother of Jesus" more prominently than Jesus himself and Protestants tend to worship Jesus and God as one or as linked entities. Mary and God certainly fulfils the one God that is both male and female, but I do worry as to why scholars feel it is perfectly fine to change the course or even invalidate Christianity, when they wouldn't even dare to do the same with Islam. Or Hinduism. I think it's fine, and kind of exciting to find things that more or less confirm Jesus' existence, but it should always be handled in a respectful and frankly, non-compromising way when it comes to undermining the spiritual belief, and lifelong hope, of millions.
As a Catholic, I just wanted to clarify that our church honours Mary...but we worship God... Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary doesn't come first in any sense even though many Catholics have a devotion to her, or another saint...as somebody who they look up to.
But God is the top man!
His actual existence isn't that contentious. A man of that name may well have made some waves. Being the son of some supreme being, that's a whole new can of worms.
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
Surviving one, or one that's been unearthed...yet.
I'm rot religious at all and find the concept of religion to be absurd today.
2000+ years ago however, Religion was a question answering guidance system for much more scientifically uninformed population.
I've said to people for years that I have no issue with there being a man called Jesus (or the correct spelling for the time/place) who was someone that was trying to change his surroundings & prevailing attitudes for the better. No issue at all that people admired him, followed him etc & would actually love for there to be solid evidence of this. The same also applies to the other major religions that still have huge influence in the world.
Unfortunately the belief systems that have built up around these people will be incredibly difficult to change & are unlikely to accept any actual evidence contradicting their long established books of faith (even though these books often contradict themselves in numerous places anyway).
This new(ish) finding will just be ignored by the Christian faith as either fake or a genuine article that was attempting to derail the Christian faith when it was made.
is there any evidence for this?.... but even so, did baby paul write a contemporary account?
and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...
im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
Surviving one, or one that's been unearthed...yet.
I'm rot religious at all and find the concept of religion to be absurd today.
2000+ years ago however, Religion was a question answering guidance system for much more scientifically uninformed population.
I've said to people for years that I have no issue with there being a man called Jesus (or the correct spelling for the time/place) who was someone that was trying to change his surroundings & prevailing attitudes for the better. No issue at all that people admired him, followed him etc & would actually love for there to be solid evidence of this. The same also applies to the other major religions that still have huge influence in the world.
Unfortunately the belief systems that have built up around these people will be incredibly difficult to change & are unlikely to accept any actual evidence contradicting their long established books of faith (even though these books often contradict themselves in numerous places anyway).
This new(ish) finding will just be ignored by the Christian faith as either fake or a genuine article that was attempting to derail the Christian faith when it was made.
bib.... thats the point though, there is no solid evidence for this. its all heresay, conjecture, fable, myth. i find it remarkable that theres not 1 contemporary account of this supposed person who preached to thousands over a 3 year period. why?.
untill there is a solid indisputable account of 'him', then it must be treated with suspicion and the fact that its possible its all made up.
bib.... thats the point though, there is no solid evidence for this. its all heresay, conjecture, fable, myth. i find it remarkable that theres not 1 contemporary account of this supposed person who preached to thousands over a 3 year period. why?.
untill there is a solid indisputable account of 'him', then it must be treated with suspicion and the fact that its possible its all made up.
Unfortunately it needs to be remembered that there was no readily available way for the majority of people to record these historical details & if those that did would likely be on perishable items that have simply been lost through deterioration in the following 2000 years.
The stuff that has been "recorded" & kept is unfortunately 2nd/3rd/4th+ hand accounts dozens-hundreds of years later, possibly when those following in the words he laid down (although likely to have been twisted, altered, manipulated for various reasons) were in a position better to compile & keep records.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence that we have could just be whole load of crap based on a control system thought up a load of guys trying to influence culture years after his death but jumping on the almost mythical name he had created during his life.
and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...
And your understanding is wrong. Paul's letters often respond to arguments and disagreements he had with other parts of the church (e.g in Galatians 2:11-21 Paul responds to an argument his readers are aware he had with Peter) It's would seem odd if Paul spend ages writing responses to things nobody else was saying or teaching. Therefore Paul almost certainly was not the only influential person within the early church as otherwise he wouldn't have spent so much time responding to 'false teachers' and other factions.
So why is it that only Paul's writing survive? Have you ever been to an archaeological site or a museum? If fragments or pottery or a pile of bricks are of interest to an archaeologist then how many writings made of papyrus etc are still around? It's important to remember that only a tiny percentage of everything that was written by the early church or the Romans survives to this day.
im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
Seeing as even very sceptical scholars accept that Jesus existed, maybe you're overlooking the fact that believing Jesus was the originator of Christianity fits with the evidence better than any other explanation. I think Scientology is a load of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically mean Ron Hubbard didn't exist.
is there any evidence for this?.... but even so, did baby paul write a contemporary account?
and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...
im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
DW2 explain's it better than I can.
Paul was certainly a contemporary of Jesus, even though he didn't meet him, his writings say he met with those who did - namely the early apostles.
It's logical to accept that Jesus very likely existed - Pauls existence is not in doubt.
Obviously that can't ever be watertight and definative evidence - but to be sceptical about it is rejecting a fairly strong balance of probability.
And there are new discoveries every year. I've heard for years that the Queen Néfertiti had mysteriously disappeared from all official records, years before her supposed death. Only to see a tv documentary about a recent discovery of her name being found written on a marble piece, in a... not sure, cavern or something like that? with a date and her rank, meaning that she hadn't disappeared but that the papyrus mentioning her had been probably lost to Time. Causing archeologists to come up with the theory that something had happened to her, death, repudiation.....
I had seen a tv documentary about what would happen if all humanity vanished out of the blue. In 10 000 to 20 000 years, there will be nothing left of us, only monuments like the Pyramids or Mont Rushmore.
Unfortunately it needs to be remembered that there was no readily available way for the majority of people to record these historical details & if those that did would likely be on perishable items that have simply been lost through deterioration in the following 2000 years.
The stuff that has been "recorded" & kept is unfortunately 2nd/3rd/4th+ hand accounts dozens-hundreds of years later, possibly when those following in the words he laid down (although likely to have been twisted, altered, manipulated for various reasons) were in a position better to compile & keep records.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence that we have could just be whole load of crap based on a control system thought up a load of guys trying to influence culture years after his death but jumping on the almost mythical name he had created during his life.
he supposed to have preached to thousands of people..... how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ? they didnt have to write it down, but it would have helped. the lack of such testimonies raises a red flag to me.... the only sort of testimony comes from people with a vested interest.
And your understanding is wrong. Paul's letters often respond to arguments and disagreements he had with other parts of the church (e.g in Galatians 2:11-21 Paul responds to an argument his readers are aware he had with Peter) It's would seem odd if Paul spend ages writing responses to things nobody else was saying or teaching. Therefore Paul almost certainly was not the only influential person within the early church as otherwise he wouldn't have spent so much time responding to 'false teachers' and other factions.
you mean people who disputed pauls version.... hmmm.... you think thats solid ground?
So why is it that only Paul's writing survive? Have you ever been to an archaeological site or a museum? If fragments or pottery or a pile of bricks are of interest to an archaeologist then how many writings made of papyrus etc are still around? It's important to remember that only a tiny percentage of everything that was written by the early church or the Romans survives to this day.
no comparison. pottery, bricks, whatever can be dated, traced, understood, they are what they are. writings on papyrus mean nothing, they are only evidence that they are writings on papyrus, it doesnt mean what the writing says is real.
but even so.... there is no writings contemporary to the life of jesus that support he existed. which id suggest is very strange for a character that had such a high profile.
id also refer you to the answer above.
Seeing as even very sceptical scholars accept that Jesus existed, maybe you're overlooking the fact that believing Jesus was the originator of Christianity fits with the evidence better than any other explanation. I think Scientology is a load of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically mean Ron Hubbard didn't exist.
i dont accept that 'nearly every scholar' accepts jesus existed.. no scholar would accept the existence of anything of which there is no evidence. im guessing your scholars are of a biblical/religious persuasion, certainly no scientist would belive in something theres no evidence for.
Paul was certainly a contemporary of Jesus, even though he didn't meet him, his writings say he met with those who did - namely the early apostles.
It's logical to accept that Jesus very likely existed - Pauls existence is not in doubt.
Obviously that can't ever be watertight and definative evidence - but to be sceptical about it is rejecting a fairly strong balance of probability.
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.
of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
And there are new discoveries every year. I've heard for years that the Queen Néfertiti had mysteriously disappeared from all official records, years before her supposed death. Only to see a tv documentary about a recent discovery of her name being found written on a marble piece, in a... not sure, cavern or something like that? with a date and her rank, meaning that she hadn't disappeared but that the papyrus mentioning her had been probably lost to Time. Causing archeologists to come up with the theory that something had happened to her, death, repudiation.....
I had seen a tv documentary about what would happen if all humanity vanished out of the blue. In 10 000 to 20 000 years, there will be nothing left of us, only monuments like the Pyramids or Mont Rushmore.
Our civilisations would be just legends.
thats clutching at straws.... and our civilisations would be far more then legends, theres far too much work been done on the planets surface.
he supposed to have preached to thousands of people..... how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ? they didnt have to write it down, but it would have helped. the lack of such testimonies raises a red flag to me.... the only sort of testimony comes from people with a vested interest.
Uuuummmmmm that's precisely what the new testament is isn't it?! At some point people got around to documenting the life and work of Jesus from the various stories & sources most of which are likely to have been passed down orally until that point.
Why would people that were not interested in what he did bother documenting it?
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.
of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
The interesting thing with the bible is that there are certain things within it that sound ridiculous (& imho all of the god/religious slant of it is. The Moralistic side has it's benefits but only to within the time period it was written, now a lot is irrelevant) that does appear to actually have some simple possible basis in truth that has been embellished.
I remember watching a documentary about one such possibility a long time ago, think this was it. It had interesting theoretical links between events that we know happened & stories that are embellished re-tellings of history from the bible.
you mean people who disputed pauls version.... hmmm.... you think thats solid ground?
That's like saying "many people don't like the Labour party, therefore Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exist." The fact that there were multiple traditions at the time Paul was writing is evidence that Paul wasn't the sole inventor of Christianity.
they are only evidence that they are writings on papyrus, it doesnt mean what the writing says is real.
Of course, that's why historians ask questions like 'who wrote this?' and 'why did they write this?'. Historians don't just assume that everything in a historical source is true but they don't dismiss it out of hand either.
The scholarly thing to do is to treat Paul's letters in the same way you'd treat any other letter written by a first century religious leader. That means reading it sceptically, but it doesn't mean assuming it has no worth whatsoever.
but even so.... there is no writings contemporary to the life of jesus that support he existed.
Most people in the ancient world were illiterate (even the wealthy would often use scribes). There was also no printing press meaning that books etc were very rare. As a result hardly anything was written down by ordinary people. Out of that small number of writings only a few of them are still around today as materials like papyrus don't tend to last thousands of years. What sort of contemporary writings are you expecting there to be?
i dont accept that 'nearly every scholar' accepts jesus existed
Name me one scholar who doubts Jesus' existence? The nearest you'll find is Robert Price and Richard Carrier, neither of which teach in a university or publish in mainstream journals.
You come across as somebody who hasn't even read the sceptical end of scholarship on this subject.
Im guessing your scholars are of a biblical/religious persuasion,
Take somebody like Bart Ehrman. He's one of the leading scholars in the field of Biblical studies and known for his sceptical approach. He got so fed up of non-scholars disputing Jesus' existence that he took a break from attacking the Bible and decided to write a book explaining how historians know Jesus existed.
If Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity then whoever did start it left even less evidence behind!
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.
of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
I don't think you understood where I'm coming from.
Something must of happened to kick start christianity.
We know Paul converted not long after the crucifixion and we know he met other historical figures who met with Jesus in the flesh after Paul converted.
Your right Paul could've made all this up but when you analyse it alongside the gospels and other source's independent to biblical writing in tacitus or Josephus - you can only conclude that it's very probable that he existed.
That probability IS the mainstream historical view - and it doesnt have much to do with Christian entrenchment in western society / culture.
The mainstream historical view is based on textual analysis and balance of probability.
In fact the view amongst historians that he probably existed is so mainstream that the POV that Jesus definitely didn't exist is viewed a somewhat left field and eccentric.
Comments
As a Catholic, I just wanted to clarify that our church honours Mary...but we worship God... Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary doesn't come first in any sense even though many Catholics have a devotion to her, or another saint...as somebody who they look up to.
But God is the top man!
Based on the 'classic' look of jesus, id have said he was the 8th doctor.....
And the 6th Doctor was the basis for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhLtvYhvbsU/maxresdefault.jpg
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
The same arguments that dismiss Jesus as having lived mean you lose a lot of historical figures.
I guess you don't believe in Alexander the Great then?
Paul The Apostle was born within his lifetime.
Surviving one, or one that's been unearthed...yet.
I'm rot religious at all and find the concept of religion to be absurd today.
2000+ years ago however, Religion was a question answering guidance system for much more scientifically uninformed population.
I've said to people for years that I have no issue with there being a man called Jesus (or the correct spelling for the time/place) who was someone that was trying to change his surroundings & prevailing attitudes for the better. No issue at all that people admired him, followed him etc & would actually love for there to be solid evidence of this. The same also applies to the other major religions that still have huge influence in the world.
Unfortunately the belief systems that have built up around these people will be incredibly difficult to change & are unlikely to accept any actual evidence contradicting their long established books of faith (even though these books often contradict themselves in numerous places anyway).
This new(ish) finding will just be ignored by the Christian faith as either fake or a genuine article that was attempting to derail the Christian faith when it was made.
is there any evidence for this?.... but even so, did baby paul write a contemporary account?
and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...
im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
bib.... thats the point though, there is no solid evidence for this. its all heresay, conjecture, fable, myth. i find it remarkable that theres not 1 contemporary account of this supposed person who preached to thousands over a 3 year period. why?.
untill there is a solid indisputable account of 'him', then it must be treated with suspicion and the fact that its possible its all made up.
Unfortunately it needs to be remembered that there was no readily available way for the majority of people to record these historical details & if those that did would likely be on perishable items that have simply been lost through deterioration in the following 2000 years.
The stuff that has been "recorded" & kept is unfortunately 2nd/3rd/4th+ hand accounts dozens-hundreds of years later, possibly when those following in the words he laid down (although likely to have been twisted, altered, manipulated for various reasons) were in a position better to compile & keep records.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence that we have could just be whole load of crap based on a control system thought up a load of guys trying to influence culture years after his death but jumping on the almost mythical name he had created during his life.
So why is it that only Paul's writing survive? Have you ever been to an archaeological site or a museum? If fragments or pottery or a pile of bricks are of interest to an archaeologist then how many writings made of papyrus etc are still around? It's important to remember that only a tiny percentage of everything that was written by the early church or the Romans survives to this day.
Seeing as even very sceptical scholars accept that Jesus existed, maybe you're overlooking the fact that believing Jesus was the originator of Christianity fits with the evidence better than any other explanation. I think Scientology is a load of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically mean Ron Hubbard didn't exist.
No they dont
DW2 explain's it better than I can.
Paul was certainly a contemporary of Jesus, even though he didn't meet him, his writings say he met with those who did - namely the early apostles.
It's logical to accept that Jesus very likely existed - Pauls existence is not in doubt.
Obviously that can't ever be watertight and definative evidence - but to be sceptical about it is rejecting a fairly strong balance of probability.
I had seen a tv documentary about what would happen if all humanity vanished out of the blue. In 10 000 to 20 000 years, there will be nothing left of us, only monuments like the Pyramids or Mont Rushmore.
Our civilisations would be just legends.
he supposed to have preached to thousands of people..... how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ? they didnt have to write it down, but it would have helped. the lack of such testimonies raises a red flag to me.... the only sort of testimony comes from people with a vested interest.
you mean people who disputed pauls version.... hmmm.... you think thats solid ground?
no comparison. pottery, bricks, whatever can be dated, traced, understood, they are what they are. writings on papyrus mean nothing, they are only evidence that they are writings on papyrus, it doesnt mean what the writing says is real.
but even so.... there is no writings contemporary to the life of jesus that support he existed. which id suggest is very strange for a character that had such a high profile.
id also refer you to the answer above.
i dont accept that 'nearly every scholar' accepts jesus existed.. no scholar would accept the existence of anything of which there is no evidence. im guessing your scholars are of a biblical/religious persuasion, certainly no scientist would belive in something theres no evidence for.
no comparison between jesus and hubbard.
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.
of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
thats clutching at straws.... and our civilisations would be far more then legends, theres far too much work been done on the planets surface.
Uuuummmmmm that's precisely what the new testament is isn't it?! At some point people got around to documenting the life and work of Jesus from the various stories & sources most of which are likely to have been passed down orally until that point.
Why would people that were not interested in what he did bother documenting it?
The interesting thing with the bible is that there are certain things within it that sound ridiculous (& imho all of the god/religious slant of it is. The Moralistic side has it's benefits but only to within the time period it was written, now a lot is irrelevant) that does appear to actually have some simple possible basis in truth that has been embellished.
I remember watching a documentary about one such possibility a long time ago, think this was it. It had interesting theoretical links between events that we know happened & stories that are embellished re-tellings of history from the bible.
That's like saying "many people don't like the Labour party, therefore Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exist." The fact that there were multiple traditions at the time Paul was writing is evidence that Paul wasn't the sole inventor of Christianity.
So historians aren't allowed to critically study ancient texts now?
Of course, that's why historians ask questions like 'who wrote this?' and 'why did they write this?'. Historians don't just assume that everything in a historical source is true but they don't dismiss it out of hand either.
The scholarly thing to do is to treat Paul's letters in the same way you'd treat any other letter written by a first century religious leader. That means reading it sceptically, but it doesn't mean assuming it has no worth whatsoever.
Most people in the ancient world were illiterate (even the wealthy would often use scribes). There was also no printing press meaning that books etc were very rare. As a result hardly anything was written down by ordinary people. Out of that small number of writings only a few of them are still around today as materials like papyrus don't tend to last thousands of years. What sort of contemporary writings are you expecting there to be?
Name me one scholar who doubts Jesus' existence? The nearest you'll find is Robert Price and Richard Carrier, neither of which teach in a university or publish in mainstream journals.
You come across as somebody who hasn't even read the sceptical end of scholarship on this subject.
Take somebody like Bart Ehrman. He's one of the leading scholars in the field of Biblical studies and known for his sceptical approach. He got so fed up of non-scholars disputing Jesus' existence that he took a break from attacking the Bible and decided to write a book explaining how historians know Jesus existed.
If Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity then whoever did start it left even less evidence behind!
I don't think you understood where I'm coming from.
Something must of happened to kick start christianity.
We know Paul converted not long after the crucifixion and we know he met other historical figures who met with Jesus in the flesh after Paul converted.
Your right Paul could've made all this up but when you analyse it alongside the gospels and other source's independent to biblical writing in tacitus or Josephus - you can only conclude that it's very probable that he existed.
That probability IS the mainstream historical view - and it doesnt have much to do with Christian entrenchment in western society / culture.
The mainstream historical view is based on textual analysis and balance of probability.
In fact the view amongst historians that he probably existed is so mainstream that the POV that Jesus definitely didn't exist is viewed a somewhat left field and eccentric.