One again SULLA turns up with little bits of sentences rather than actual discussion. Could you name us some of the 'serious historians' you cite when talking about the existence of Jesus? You've made reference to them an awful lot and it would be interesting to see.
One again SULLA turns up with +little bits of sentences rather than actual discussion. Could you name us some of the 'serious historians' you cite when talking about the existence of Jesus? You've made reference to them an awful lot and it would be interesting to see.
Maybe it is this bloke, Fr Thomas Brodie. Apparently a priest and a scholar but when he researched, he found Jesus didn't exist. Apparently this is called "the ahistoricity of Jesus" amongst the theologians. And seems to be an accepted concept.
I believe in one half of the story, but remain unconvinced about the other. What was it about the supposedly resurrected Christ that dispelled the doubts of his followers despite their initial inability to recognise him?
He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
John 20:15
Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
John 21:4
Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.
Someone on one of these threads once made the point there is no record of any Roman census at this place or time, either. I'd assume this meant "or record of them doing a census"..?
I believe that a bloke named Jesus probably did exist, and that he was nailed to a cross for his crimes. All the other stuff though, like being the Son of God, rising from the dead and curing people, well that's just a load of old bollocks.
I believe in one half of the story, but remain unconvinced about the other. What was it about the supposedly resurrected Christ that dispelled the doubts of his followers despite their initial inability to recognise him?
John 20:15
John 21:4
Luke 24:13-16
A very convincing imposter?
I am actually impressed that the gospels include these things, warts and all.
Someone on one of these threads once made the point there is no record of any Roman census at this place or time, either. I'd assume this meant "or record of them doing a census"..?
The Romans were fastidious at recording events as were the Egyptians. There is no contemporaneous record of Jesus, either Roman or otherwise. There is nothing on maps from that period showing a place called Nazareth and, as you say, there is no record of a census at or around that date.
The Romans were fastidious at recording events as were the Egyptians. There is no contemporaneous record of Jesus, either Roman or otherwise. There is nothing on maps from that period showing a place called Nazareth and, as you say, there is no record of a census at or around that date.
Why would there be a contemporaneous record of Jesus? He was of no consequence at the time.
There is also no record in Roman or Jewish history which claims that Jesus was an invention.
You either have faith or you don`t, personally I am a million per cent certain that Jesus existed, preached, died and rose again as I am pretty sure you are. Let them scoff!!
The Romans were fastidious at recording events as were the Egyptians.
That's a bit of a myth. We don't know how fastidious they were since so few of the records survive. For example, there is only one mention of Pontius pilot in any Roman records, and that's from Tacitus, which was written after the event and only mentions of his involvement with the execution of Jesus. Pilot was the perfect for Judea for 10 years, yet no contemporaneous roman records from his life.
Or do you think he never even existed. I'm genuinely uncertain on this. Personally I think there is a good chance he existed, a decent chance he was crucified but the resurrection I'm not so sure about.
It seems strange that people seem to avoid thinking about this issue. A lot of atheists really aren't that open-minded.
have no idea, wasn't around at the time, am agnostic which means im on the fence
Why would someone of no consequence have followers?
Errrm David Koresh? Charles Manson? They both had followers as did any number of small time con men who have faded from memory, people can be stupid, and religion is one of the oldest ways to make a buck on the planet...
You either have faith or you don`t, personally I am a million per cent certain that Jesus existed, preached, died and rose again as I am pretty sure you are. Let them scoff!!
That's a bit of a myth. We don't know how fastidious they were since so few of the records survive. For example, there is only one mention of Pontius pilot in any Roman records, and that's from Tacitus, which was written after the event and only mentions of his involvement with the execution of Jesus. Pilot was the perfect for Judea for 10 years, yet no contemporaneous roman records from his life.
Yeah Jesus lived. And died. Possibly on a big cross, possibly in some other way. No he didnt come back from the dead. No he probably wasnt the Son of God if for no other reason than God is way too busy being God to procreate.
Jesus was a cool dude, way ahead of his time. But when he was dead he stayed that way.
You either have faith or you don`t, personally I am a million per cent certain that Jesus existed, preached, died and rose again as I am pretty sure you are. Let them scoff!!
In which case, you have already exaggerated your certainty by at least 999,900%.
I've can see what you're saying but what's more likely, really - that there's a non-supernatural explanation for that or that someone could come back from the dead?
There are things in the NT that are doubtful, aren't there, like the census, the earthquake at the crucifixion and the massacre of the innocents. They were probably added for drama, for propaganda, for allegory, for narrative value or whatever so why not the resurrection?
Supernatural is always less likely - but still ......
Actually all I was meaning to say was that it seems to me that people likely did believe from the first that something very strange happened - the resurrection isn't likely to be a myth added later, it seems more likely to have been a belief from the beginning. If it was a late addition they'd more likely had a man as the first witness.
Why people believed it from the beginning is the open question.
Comments
Maybe it is this bloke, Fr Thomas Brodie. Apparently a priest and a scholar but when he researched, he found Jesus didn't exist. Apparently this is called "the ahistoricity of Jesus" amongst the theologians. And seems to be an accepted concept.
Here, too.
John 20:15
John 21:4
Luke 24:13-16
A very convincing imposter?
In your opinion off course. :rolleyes:
But belief is Born in you,
You can't convince someone to believe, but some do get a chance to be reborn and belief can come but only a few.
Those who twist everything that's said will never believe so leave them to it. :cool:
I am actually impressed that the gospels include these things, warts and all.
The Romans were fastidious at recording events as were the Egyptians. There is no contemporaneous record of Jesus, either Roman or otherwise. There is nothing on maps from that period showing a place called Nazareth and, as you say, there is no record of a census at or around that date.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
But based on all probability, he's likely to be right.
Why would there be a contemporaneous record of Jesus? He was of no consequence at the time.
There is also no record in Roman or Jewish history which claims that Jesus was an invention.
Why would there be even if he was?
To discredit His followers for starters.
Like some atheists do in these times.
You either have faith or you don`t, personally I am a million per cent certain that Jesus existed, preached, died and rose again as I am pretty sure you are. Let them scoff!!
That's a bit of a myth. We don't know how fastidious they were since so few of the records survive. For example, there is only one mention of Pontius pilot in any Roman records, and that's from Tacitus, which was written after the event and only mentions of his involvement with the execution of Jesus. Pilot was the perfect for Judea for 10 years, yet no contemporaneous roman records from his life.
Why would someone of no consequence have followers?
have no idea, wasn't around at the time, am agnostic which means im on the fence
Errrm David Koresh? Charles Manson? They both had followers as did any number of small time con men who have faded from memory, people can be stupid, and religion is one of the oldest ways to make a buck on the planet...
Correct
He was of no consequence to the Roman Empire during his lifetime.
Jesus was a cool dude, way ahead of his time. But when he was dead he stayed that way.
Supernatural is always less likely - but still ......
Actually all I was meaning to say was that it seems to me that people likely did believe from the first that something very strange happened - the resurrection isn't likely to be a myth added later, it seems more likely to have been a belief from the beginning. If it was a late addition they'd more likely had a man as the first witness.
Why people believed it from the beginning is the open question.