Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 21, 2010 at 3:19am

Then I'll have to take that amen away again :P
Michael was not pointing out that there is a discrepancy between a Biblical Jesus and a historical Jesus, he said that:
It amazes me that some people (including some atheists) think that Jesus is an historical character who lived about 30 AD.
and he also said patently absurd things like:
It was about 30 AD when James, John, Peter and Stephen opened a Church in Jerusalem, and right away the temple priests went on the attack. They hired a gang of thugs to get rid of them.
and
The pagans and the very early “messiah worshipers” (including Paul) had always known that their son of god was a mythical character from the world of the supernatural, but the Gentile Christians came to the opinion that Joshua the Messiah (whom they called Jesus the Christ) was an historical character who had lived on earth just a few decades earlier.
He's saying that Jesus the Christ was a mythical character in a supernatural world. This is simply not true. Jesus the Christ is the tale of a historical character whose deeds as a faith healer were exaggerated and whose speeches as a preacher were overrated. But he was very much a real person.

The truth is that the Biblical Jesus is based on the historical Jesus; and that means that looking closely at the Biblical Jesus we can find a historical Jesus. The Bible account is a "mythicised" version of real events that happened to a real person.
Again, we see this happening with all kinds of historical figures, who we all believe were real: Vespasian was said to have healed the blind (according to Tacitus), Caesar was said to have ascended to heaven (according to Ovid and many other contemporaries), and Alexander the Great had more legends circulating around him than Paris Hilton has one-night-stands. Does this mean that the historical Vespasian and the "Tacitean" Vespasian are different people? Is the "Ovidian" Caesar not the historical Caesar? Of course they are the same people: it's just that the stories around them have achieved mythic proportions.

Things we can say about the historical Jesus wit high degrees of certainty:
- he was born in Nazareth in Galilee
- he was a fan of John the Baptist and started preaching after the latter got executed by the Romans
- he was a faith healer, who healed the "blind" (visually impaired due to cataract and other treatable eye diseases might be better) and drove out "demons"
- he preached about the perfection of Jewish law, and was very tough on adultery
- he was an apocalypticist and preached about the imminent Kingship of Yahweh
- he caused a disturbance in the Temple of Jerusalem at Passover somewhere in the 30's AD, and was subsequently captured by Temple authorities
- the Roman pro-curator Pontius Pilate had him executed for treason against the Roman Empire, the penalty for which was death by crucifixion
And these are just the things we can say with a high amount of certainty: the historicity of specific passages (for example a specific saying) is much harder to determine, but undoubtedly he did say some of the things he is reported to have said.

So are there differences between the historical Jesus and the man he became in the Biblical story? Absolutely. Do the gospels exaggerate his works? Sure. But to pretend that pagans and the very early “messiah worshipers” (including Paul) had always known that their son of god was a mythical character from the world of the supernatural, but the Gentile Christians came to the opinion that Joshua the Messiah (whom they called Jesus the Christ) was an historical character who had lived on earth just a few decades earlier is patently absurd. He was a historical character, just like Vespasian and Caesar were.

Sorry, but this flirting with a "mythical Jesus" from a "supernatural dimension" (the same crap Zeitgeist spouts, incidently) does not deserve an Amen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on April 21, 2010 at 10:41pm

The truth is that the Biblical Jesus is based on the historical Jesus; and that means that looking closely at the Biblical Jesus we can find a historical Jesus.

Evidence please.

Show me just one scrap of empirical, secular evidence, reliable and pre-dating the influence of religious writings, that speaks of a historical figure named Jesus/Yeshu/Yeshua/Yeshuara.

Much less a Jesus that did or said anything he was uniquely claimed to have said/done in the canon bible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 23, 2010 at 11:03am

Show me just one scrap of empirical, secular evidence, reliable and pre-dating the influence of religious writings, that speaks of a historical figure named Jesus/Yeshu/Yeshua/Yeshuara.

What a crock of shit.
How about you give me one scrap of "empirical" (This one in particular is funny. What do you want? A DNA sample?) "secular evidence" (which is impossible considering everyone in the ancient world was either heavily superstitious or at least vaguely religious") that Hannibal existed? Or Boudicca? Or Theudas? Or the Egyptian Prophet?

You are insisting on putting the bar for evidence much, much higher than we can reasonably do, and you're doing this only for Jesus.

Why are you doing this, Jerome?
Hang on, I know why: you're letting your biases guide you in what you're willing to accept. You have no problem believing Boudicca and Arminius existed, even though we don't have any kind of the ridiculous amounts of quality evidence you demand for Jesus. You're doing it of sheer bias.

Which is exactly what we revile the religious for, am I right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on April 24, 2010 at 6:22pm

What a crock of shit.
How about you give me one scrap of "empirical" (This one in particular is funny. What do you want? A DNA sample?) "secular evidence" (which is impossible considering everyone in the ancient world was either heavily superstitious or at least vaguely religious") that Hannibal existed? Or Boudicca? Or Theudas? Or the Egyptian Prophet?

Because those people aren't the subject of this thread.

So I'll ask again; as you assert that biblical Jesus is based on historical Jesus, then you are asserting we have empirical, secular evidence of a historical Jesus that amazingly parallels the many deeds and sayings in the bible. Please present this evidence.

Or deflect by changing the subject. Your choice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 25, 2010 at 3:21am

They are relevant to the thread, because you are making unreasonable high demands for evidence when you know fully well (well actually, you didn't know, but now you do) that we don't have these standards of evidence for thousands of other figures in history, some of them vastly more important than Jesus.
Supplying "empirical, secular" evidence showing the existence of Hitler can be done. Supplying "empirical, secular" evidence showing the existence of George Washington is possible.
For the Ancient world, things are more difficult; for the single most important people (like Caesar), we might have some "empirical, secular" evidence. But for anyone even a little less important than that, "empirical, secular" evidence is impossible.

Hannibal was Carthage's greatest general. He destroyed a dozen Roman legions, terrorised Rome for nearly two decades, and was probably the single greatest enemy they ever faced: almost bringing them to the verge of annihilation.
And what evidence do we have of the existence of this great warrior? No "empirical, secular" evidence. And this is, again, the single greatest threat the Roman Empire ever faced. That should give you an idea how scarce "empirical, secular" evidence is.

Yet you're asking me for "empirical, secular" evidence for a little-known preacher in the middle of nowhere? No such evidence exists. But that doesn't stop the case for Jesus from being conclusive, just as the lack of that sort of evidence for Hannibal doesn't make his existence any less certain. You simply need to lower your expectations to something reasonable.

So cut the crap with this "empirical, secular" evidence: we have secular evidence, but to expect it to be empirical (with a DNA sample or something) is just retarded. And don't accuse me of deflecting: showing you why your demands are unreasonable is directly relevant to the discussion.

As for the sources that parallel the Biblical story, I already showed them: we have accounts of Tacitus and Josephus detailing that Jesus was a preacher, a faith healer, was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and was called the Messiah by his followers. This is the same person described (in detail) in the Bible.
The only difference is that the Bible is a mythicised and politically correct (for the time) version of the guy. But it's still based on a historical person.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Caperton Miller on April 15, 2010 at 10:23am

Read Philip Pullman's new book "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Chirst". Interesting read from a good atheist. Maybe TWO Jesus's existed!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on April 15, 2010 at 12:37pm

>Should I check with Matt VDB FIRST ? Sorry about that. I have to a little smart ass to make up for my lack of knowledge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on April 15, 2010 at 12:32pm

You got me there. I am no historian. Now I feel bad for buying the book. Maybe I can get a refund. I am beginning to think all history is unreliable. I guess I do not care about the history of Jesus because I do not believe in any god. I am now going to leave this dialogue to, what seems to me, are professionals at this topic. I apologize for my ignorance on this matter. I still give Michael an amen. Why not ? It won't be recorded in history.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 15, 2010 at 1:48pm

Hey, no need to feel bad about it, we all make mistakes; in fact it's a testimony to your rational mindset that you're instantly willing to admit that. I wasn't trying to scare you off: I know I'm pretty combative when correcting certain statements, but trust me, it's in good sports.
I think the beauty of historical analysis is the same as that found in other branches of science: there are no dogmas and unchanging truth that is set in stone: everything is potentially changeable if good evidence is supplied, and it is this willingness to change our current beliefs when evidence is presented that makes it the best available tool to understand and unravel the richness of the past.
Of course, the corollary of this is that it might seem very "unreliable". That unreliability stems mainly from the fact that evidence is constantly weighed and re-examined though, not from some innate weakness.

And, in my opinion, it's a subject atheists should be interested in. Not only because part of our argument is that religion is a corrosive belief system that does more harm than good (and for that proposition you need, by necessity, a decent historical knowledge) and most interestingly of all, many of the very best arguments against Christianity are to be found by this historical analysis: I guarantee you that reading how Jesus' original (highly Jewish, as well as highly weird) teachings were altered and transformed by decades of non-Jewish influences and Gentiles, can only consolidate your atheism and make you a better and more knowledgeable debater.

And I'm by no means a professional historian either. But I am fairly well read on the subject :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on April 20, 2010 at 4:09pm

I am beginning to think all history is unreliable.

I certainly wouldn't go that far.

What I would say is that some historical facts can be in dispute; say when the source is a copy of a copy of a copy of a document written in an effectively dead language.

Then you get historians that add their own editorial takes as if they are fact.

In particular, when you're talking about a hot and emotional topic like religion, it is extremely difficult to get unbiased information.

When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, it is such an emotional issue for some, and there is so very, very little secular, empirical information out there; most of which is dodgy at best, it's no wonder we get so many wildly different conclusions by the so-called experts!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 20, 2010 at 4:23pm

Actually I would ascribe the wildly different conclusions by experts ("so-called"? Lets not be anti-intellectual) to personal bias. Way back in 1906 Albert Schweitzer's ground breaking classic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, cautioned about reconstructions of the historical Jesus that bear too close a similarity to their reconstructors.
This is in fact exactly what we see in reality:

Biblical fundamentalists like William Lane Craig look around and see an absolutist Jesus preaching the inerrant word of God? Well gee, what a surprise.
Liberal Christians (like the majority of the famous "Jesus Project") investigate the New Testament and come back with a liberal hippie Jesus who preached about love, respect and decency? Gosh, what a surprise.
Atheist posterboys and apologists like Richard Carrier or neo-pagans like Acharya S see a Jesus who didn't exist at all but is a conglomeration of various pagan myths (conveniently giving them a bigger stick to beat Christianity with)? Again - what a surprise.

The reason I read works by Bart Ehrman, Paula Frederiksen, Dale Allison, Geza Vermes is because their work has a ring of authenticity: the Jesus they come up doesn't really conform to their biases; Ehrman calls himself an Agnostic, Frederiksen is a cultural jew, Dale Allison is some kind of nominal Christian and Geza Vermes' beliefs are pretty much unspecified. Yet they come up with a flesh-and-blood Jesus who preaches apocalypsism (which none of them believe in or would have any reason to promote) and has some rather weird ideas.

Unlike the aging hippies of the "Jesus Seminar" they aren't arguing for a Jesus that is simply a reflection of their own ideologies, but for an uncomfortable and not terribly attractive Jesus who fits his historical and religious context. All of this lends it a ring of authenticity that the protestant literalist Jesus, the contrived hippy Jesus, or the pagan non-existent Jesus can never have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew James Aumann on April 15, 2010 at 1:19pm

I'm an atheist, but I also accept that Jesus is real.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" - that is from the King James bible.

Sounds like how we atheist view life right? You need to use rational thought, the scientific method, always move forward and never fall into a trap of circular knowledge.

The teaching of Jesus were corrupted by churches, they turned it into religion. They use it to control the masses.

Soon, Atheists and the open minded and rational religious will form a new understanding of our history and our future.

Think about it, so much has been hidden from us. What did Jesus see wrong with the world? Why did he have a problem with the money changers?

Ask yourself, what are most humans ensalved to? Capitalism is not ethical - it only creates winners and losers and eventually a few concentrate all the power. We are watching the world wide economic system collapse, it is a failure. This cycle of boom and bust will not serve us in the future. We will throw off this system, end wars, poverty, racism, homophobia, learn not to hate, how to love, and we will learn how technology can be used to improve our lives - not enslave us for someone else's benefit.

I only ask you to look at what is happening to our world right now - there is a song by Pearl Jam - "Given to fly"

Go listen to it, remember that Eddie Vedder has maintained that he is atheist. Listen to the song in that context.

I love all of you.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• …
• 94
• Next ›
• Page