So I'm thinking that when I have kids, I would really like to teach them about Jesus, not as the Messiah or as the Son of God, but as a moral teacher who taught lessons that I cherish such as pacifism, charity, compassion, and love. Of course, I would probably not teach them to worship or pray to him(I'd have to discuss it with my other half), but I think that Jesus ranks up there when talking about virtuous figures for children to model themselves after.

Views: 230

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"The research I have done on the existence of Jesus has lead me to believe that he did not exist. The references to jesus in historical records other then the bible see to vague for me to really believe he existed. "

And why haven't other scholars come to that conclusion then? It seems awfully strange that you don't find these references convincing but they do. Maybe you're just trying to hold Jesus to an unreasonably standard.

"It's hard to believe that no one really wrote about a man who went around walking on water, feeding thousands of people with a small amount of food, healing blind men, etc."

That's a classic logical fallacy. We're not talking about the mythical Jesus, we're talking about the historical Jesus: a preacher and faith healer from Nazareth who was crucified by Pilate. And there is sufficient evidence to conclude that this person existed and that he became the subject of later myths.

Religion is a lie perpetuated to exert control on the masses, it's a story written by man for man's own purposes. These are my own conclusions drawn from the ongoing reading and research I have done.

By that logic ("religion is all a lie"), Joseph Smith didn't exist either.
Sorry, but proper historical analysis can only be done when you're prepared to look objectively at the evidence and not be influenced by the biases we all inevitably have.
"Every non theologian scholar has come to the conclusion that this jesus charter did not exsist."

That's simply false. Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Frederiksen, Dale Allision, those are all 'non-theologian' scholars and they are all of the opinion that Jesus existed. Jesus Mythicism is a fringe idea and isn't taken seriously at all in the academic community. Instead its main advocates are outright kooks like Acharya S and nobodies like Rene Salm. What does that tell you?

"Where have you been getting your study material from the vatican library??"

I've gotten it from non-Christian scholars like the ones I mentioned above, and many many more. I can tell where you have gotten your information from though. Sadly - and I don't mean this to be an ass, it's just my observation - you've bought into some very biased source material and don't have a good enough grasp of the relevant material to really discuss it. This shows, for example, from your idea that Jesus Mythicism is a well-accepted idea among non-religious scholars (it's not, not even by a long shot) or you bringing up Pliny the Younger (PliNy - not Plity - another sign that you clearly haven't studied this matter in detail) despite the fact that Pliny's reference to Christians is never used as evidence for Jesus' existence.
So what I would advise you is to drop your preconceptions about this subject, go study the matter in detail and apply proper skepticism and rationality to them. That works much better than simply trying to bluster your way through a conversation on this subject; that way you won't make a fool of yourself (see above).

But if you want to discuss this further, there's already a "Did Jesus exist" thread in the Theism-section of the site, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have there.

"BTW... what does the existence of Joseph Smith have to do with religions being a lie??? No one said that since religion is a lie then all the characters associated didn't exist. Joseph Smith was a real person who told a huge lie and got millions to believe him.....why is that hard to understand???"

See above: my interlocutor tried to argue that since religion was all a big lie, Jesus did not exist either. That's a logical fallacy. But it's hard to follow the conversation since that person has either deleted their post or their profile has been deleted altogether.

Take care.
I think he's referring to this (huge) thread
Do you believe Jesus existed?
"Well Matt you sure have a way to get yourself out of a serious honest conversation. "Come visit me on my site"."

What total bullshit. Discussing the existence of Jesus in a thread about whether or not you should teach some of the supposedly moral messages in the Bible, is completely off-topic. And I didn't ask you to come to my site: I politely invited you to take this conversation to a place where it actually is on-topic: the thread in the Theism section of the site which George was courteous enough to link to.

Don't accuse me of trying to get myself out of a serious conversation: you made a lot of stupid statements including nonsense like "Every non theologian scholar has come to the conclusion that this jesus charter did not exsist." and some poorly articulated crap about "Plity" (sic). If you're interested in getting those claims ripped to shreds, please do go to that thread; we'll await you with open arms.

"Shit man you are all over this board and sites galore trying to sound like an historical scholar when I really feel you're a catholic who is trying to come to grips with his own ignorance but since you actually are just plain stupid and can't seem to get your focus from this Arachnya or whoever."

Oh wow, you totally caught me there. Yes, I am in fact a secret agent from the Vatican sent here to dragoon people into accepting proper historical analysis. What a wicked and cunning plan.
Get a fucking grip.

"Yet you follow people all over to refute reality for your delusion."

Like the reality that "Every non theologian scholar has come to the conclusion that this jesus charter did not exsist."?? You'll have no problem backing those claims up then.

In the meantime, you might do well to can the ad-hominems and pathetic attempts at dodges. They don't look too good.
Errrm yeah. Guilt by association: how very rational of you. The problem is that everyone who has been debating me on this subject has gotten their ass handed to them on a silver platter, and that's because I usually don't get into discussions until I know what I'm talking about (you should try that too).

And if you think I'm going to let people like you drag this movement down to the kind of pseudo-intellectual level of mainstream Christian websites then you've got another thing coming.
look objectively at the evidence and not be influenced by the biases we all inevitably have.

Wise words.

As for these so called scholars you name only 2 and I looked them up and they're both theologians who already believe in god

Most people with degrees who have written books believe in god. So it has to be true, right?
This is a very interesting little exchange here, so I thought maybe we should investigate it further.

JstNEarthling wrote: "As for these so called scholars you name only 2 and I looked them up and they're both theologians who already believe in god."

I think this was handled pretty well with the response that Vermes is a secular Jew, while Ehrman calls himself agnostic, though Matt argues that his position is more atheistic. Neither of them are theologians, and certainly not Christian theologians. However ...

Jo Jerome accepts Earthling's statement at face value and adds: "Most people with degrees who have written books believe in god. So it has to be true, right?"

I find this assertion fascinating, since I have never seen the statistics that Jo has. So, Ms. Jerome, when you say "Most people who have written books believe in god," do you mean:

1. to distinguish between people who have and have not written books?
2. any degrees or advanced degrees?
3. geographically specific to the U.S. or internationally?
4. god in a literal, fundamentalist sense, or something more general, such as Spinoza's pantheism, etc.?
5. Is there a correlation between the subject of their degrees and their belief in a deity, i.e., people with degrees in psychology or English lit are more likely to believe in god than people with degrees in biology?
6. Does this include degrees from non-accredited universities or people with degrees in divinity?

I'm sure you don't know he answers off hand, and are probably too busy to go looking all of this up. So, if you will simply give me your sources, I will be happy to do so.
@ Al-KADIM

Explaining my statement "Most people with degrees who have written books believe in god. So it has to be true, right?"

= Casual observation + sarcasm.

- I have yet to see the study that says going to college makes one *not* believe in deities. Sometimes, but it is no great guarantee of deconversion.

- I have yet to see where writing a book makes one an atheist, or that only atheists are capable of writing books.

And actually, I did know my casual observations offhand.
"look objectively at the evidence and not be influenced by the biases we all inevitably have."

I love how you keep pretending you have actually looked at the evidence even though you've already made several egregious factual errors.

"By we all Matt means women."

A word of advice: next time you start whining about how I hate women or I'm a catholic apologist or how I'm "fucking stupid", I'm reporting your bullshit to the mods. I wonder how nice they'll be when they find out about your history of repeated insults...

"As for these so called scholars you name only 2 and I looked them up and they're both theologians who already believe in god"

What total fucking nonsense. You clearly don't have the capacity for even the most basic form of fact-checking. Bart Ehrman is an atheist. Geza Vermes is a deist. Paula Frederiksen is a cultural Jew. Dale Allison is the most wishy-washy Christian imaginable. They're not fucking theologians. And there's plenty of more where those came from.

Why do you insist on pretending you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?
The problem is that everyone who has been debating me on this subject has gotten their ass handed to them on a silver platter,

No, not everyone. Many here believe that something being in the bible does not equate truth and that later historian accounts are conspicuously few and as subject to religious influence as the vast majority of people in this world are. When someone fails to respond to the umpteenth beading-a-dead-horse response because they are tired of beating it, is not the same as having their ass handed to them on a silver platter.

I love how you keep pretending you have actually looked at the evidence

And I don't love how you use Theistic tactics of personally attacking Atheists, on an Atheist-only website, who openly question the altruism and accuracy of the bible and 2 later historians' immunity to religious/scriptural influence. I don't know where JstN got his information that the 2 scholars you named were theologians. You could have responded with a link to a credible source refuting that claim and ask him where he got his. Instead you respond with personal attacks. Whether you're right or not, the delivery is that of a snake oil salesman bullying someone into buying their product or leaving the town square.

Brother Richard and moJoe have asked us (the community) to tone down the personal attacks.
"No, not everyone. Many here believe that something being in the bible does not equate truth and that later historian accounts are conspicuously few and as subject to religious influence as the vast majority of people in this world are. When someone fails to respond to the umpteenth beading-a-dead-horse response because they are tired of beating it, is not the same as having their ass handed to them on a silver platter."

And if that was all people here were saying, that might actually be fine. But it's not what JstN saying and you know it, so please stop trying to make him sound reasonable. Do you agree with nonsensical statements like "Every non-theologian scholar who has looked at the evidence has concluded that Jesus does not exist"? Come on Jo, you don't have to do this.

"You could have responded with a link to a credible source refuting that claim and ask him where he got his. Instead you respond with personal attacks. Whether you're right or not, the delivery is that of a snake oil salesman bullying someone into buying their product or leaving the town square."

Saying that he's not looking at the evidence is not a personal attack. Telling me that I'm "fucking stupid", that I'm an apologist, that I have brain damage and some of the other pathethic slurs that Jstn has hurled towards me, are insults on the other hand. And if he tries that nonsense again he'll be getting a visit from the mods for it.

Hey, here's an idea Jo: why don't you tell JstN to can the personal attacks instead? Instead you conveniently ignored those and chose to represent something I said as a personal attack when it's not. Any particular reason why you chose to do that?
Hey, here's an idea Jo: why don't you tell JstN to can the personal attacks instead?

Hey, here's an idea, how about "in addition to" rather than "instead?" If you wish to claim you are the bigger person, then rather than say he's not looking at evidence, ask him what evidence he's looking at.

And I stand by my statement. Not everyone who has debated you on the historicity of biblical Jesus or historical accuracy of the bible has had "their ass handed to them." Some of the core issues that have been put forth are on the matter of subjective interpretation of the evidence.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service