Originally Posted by anais32:
“Depends how you see the religion.
Jesus of the gospels referred to himself in as 'son of man', not 'son of god'. However, he used the word 'Abba' to describe god (the Aramaic word for 'father'). It seems the gentile converts might have taken this literally and merged it with their own incarnation myths. In fact referring to god as 'father' was a pretty standard Pharisaic convention of the time and (despite the claims of antagonism), most of Jesus's teaching were Pharisaic. He throws in a bit of end of world stuff that the Essenes were speaking about then but that's because they would have been relatively 'normal' stuff to hear.
The original followers of Jesus were a select group of Jews who wouldn't have believed all that stuff about him being god. They certainly would have held him up as a messiah figure but there is nothing supernatural about a Jewish messiah. Paul is the one who created a god-man type theory and given his reach far extended that of Peter (they had a huge fall-out at Antioch and Paul was even threatened by the Jerusalem sect for teaching stuff that was heretical); it was Paul's version that won out in the end. And Christianity ended up being the Hellenized, western tradition espoused by Paul. And contrary to what people think of Paul, he was not Jewish in the same way the original apostles were. He was from a tentmaking family in Tarsus (modern day Turkey), a Roman citizen and completely Hellenized.”
~
theres a lot of assumption and conjecture in there. theres no firm evidence for any of this... however, you ask me how i see the religion.
i cannot see it as being anything other then how the bible describes it, because if it isnt, then its open to interpretation and that means inconsistency which leads to conflict and uncertainty. to me, it has to be black and white, the bible is totally true, or untrue.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“You accuse us of "side-stepping" and "fudging" the issue yet continue to make outlandish claims with no basis.
Please list contemporary accounts that we have found from the period AD 1 to AD 33 - they can be to do with any event or person you want.”
i did, i quoted ehrman
"I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.": - Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp55-56, 2001[1]"
Quote:
“Most people didn't read. Most people didn't write. Testimonies were almost certainly passed down in oral form, and this is backed up by a knowledge of Jewish custom as well as references in Luke to "many accounts" of Jesus having come before.”
we have covered this.... there was a lot more literacy then you think as the vindolanda tablets/letters have proven. but if only 1% were literate, thats 50 people who witnessed the loaves and fishes... is it really conceivable that FIFTY people didnt write it down? write to absent family members and friends? that these words spread which is what they were supposed to do? and ALL have been lost despite their importance? and thats just from 1 event... i believe there was 37 miracles according to a very quick search.
the very scale of the witnessing makes it inconceivable that
every written and oral testimony was lost to all but... oh yeah, those who created the religion many years later.
Quote:
“It was also explained to you before that what Jesus was doing was, while remarkable, not Messianic. Many prophets had come before him and the concept of miracles was well established in Jewish teaching. There was no reason for people to write about Jesus while he was alive. It was the belief in his Resurrection that made him worth writing about - that made him worth dying for. Without that, he was at best a Prophet and at worst, a mad man.”
seriously? making a blind man see, bringing back someone from the dead? walking on water? not worth writing about?
Quote:
“But we're retreading old ground. You state the Bible is a biased source yet if there were contemporary, authentic written accounts of Jesus discovered, guess where they'd end up?! It's a circular argument. The New Testament is largely a compilation of information and ideologies about Jesus and the early Christian Church.”
thats because the writings in the bible cannot be proven, the originals dont exist, they cannot be dated. if new material was discovered, in this day and age it COULD be scrutinised scientifically and if such writings are proven to refer to jesus and proven to be from the right date - id accept that.
on the other hand, you would not do the same if such writings emerged that proved jesus was a man made construct.
Quote:
“The historians who agreed on the historical Jesus come from all backgrounds, all faiths and none. The evidence is incredibly strong.”
more dodging again..... WHICH jesus do they
think existed? that is the fundamental question. the evidence is NOT 'incredibly strong',
there is NO evidence just assumption and conjecture.
Quote:
“However, that is not what you have been debating us on, despite your best attempts to shift the goalposts. This is about whether Jesus existed as a historical character.”
eh? what 'shifting goalposts'?... i made it perfectly clear that there are 3 options.. ive stuck with that and still do.
Quote:
“This is utter nonsense. Not only have you misquoted but you're tying yourself in knots as before you have spoken about "the silence that screams" and 30 years of nothingness, and now you're admitting that there WAS an early church and that we have evidence for it! Make up your mind!”
eh?... im in no nots at all, there clearly was an early church but i have no idea when it started, i think no one does. it could well have started 30 years later when the first biased writings were created. theres not 1 jot of evidence anything was happening in that 30 years - the very time when all those witnesses would still be vibrant and talking about this miracle worker.
you might be able to accept this, but i cant, it makes no sense to me at all.
Originally Posted by dosanjh1:
“You have been open, I'm just asking if you think jesus was a real historical figure or not.”
50/50 over whether he existed (as an embellished character based on one or more preachers but not the miracle worker) - or whether he didnt exist at all.
i can accept the character the bible depicts could be based on a real person. i totally reject that he was a miracle working son of god, i dont believe in supernatural events/magic.