An Amazing Life

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your post here, however earlier you wrote -"No non-christian scholars believe that 'jesus of the bible' existed ... Or Else They Would Be Christians.
The possible 'poor slob jesus', hut builder, that may have existed never influenced anyone."

Which seems to suggest you do not believe Foal's suggested position, here, -"The much more plausible explanation is that he was a spiritual leader who drew a large following, was seen as dangerous for this and executed and then in martyrdom gained an exaggerated and mythological status." Is a possible one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Any non-son-of-god jesus is possible, moreso if he fits the times. There is no reason to think that he did gather large gatherings or there would be more cross-evidence, but no reason to rule it out just for lack of evidence.
The was differentiating between Henyr VIII, and Shakespeare's Henry VIII.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You have made allot of assumptions about my position.

Firstly, there is allot of room for ambiguity in the 'Quote''Quote''Quote'. Particularly the first part of it. It states that anyone that believes the 'Jesus of the bible' existed must be Christian. That was the part I took issue with. (Also it is interesting that you quoted MY reply and not Foal's/Fpir's or the fourth person that also took the same line. Is this a concious decision, or just chance?). There was no mention of miracles, or teachings in the post I was responding to.

I happen to believe that the Jesus mentioned in the bible existed.

I do not believe that he is the son of god, nor that he turned water to wine.

I also do not believe that these two statements have to be mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus of the Bible is the son of God. So, you don't actually believe in him. You cannot believe that Sherlock Holmes of Conan Doyle is real but that he isn't really British.

Well, I suppose you could, but...why?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I was saying that I am not a Christian.. Not that Christ was not a Christian. Thanks for clearing that up, hitch and Sepus.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No non-christian scholars believe that 'jesus of the bible' existed ... Or Else They Would Be Christians.
The possible 'poor slob jesus', hut builder, that may have existed never influenced anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he was a real and highly influential person (not a christian).

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in. That's 2. (I am not Christian.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe both that there was a real person named Jesus AND that this very same real person performed all of those miracles and said all of those things?


[/ QUOTE ]
Where did I say "this very same real person performed all of those miracles and said all of those things?"?

[ QUOTE ]
Because if you are ignoring or rejecting the miracles, you should probably be ignoring or rejecting all the wonderful things he said and his message...since they come from the same source.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what Jesus said and don't know what his message was.

[ QUOTE ]
Tacitus and all give some support to the idea that some dude named Jesus lived and was possibly crucified. But nothing Tacitus or any other Roman says has anything to do with whether this guy ever said a meaningful thing in his life.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess there's a .001% chance that he was selected completely randomly to be followed and worshiped as a mesiah. The much more plausible explanation is that he was a spiritual leader who drew a large following, was seen as dangerous for this and executed and then in martyrdom gained an exaggerated and mythological status.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know what he said or what his message was, then how can you know that HE was the influential person? In other words, how do you know that it is the real, living person Jesus who is influential, and not the completely separate, mythological, son of God Jesus?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your post here, however earlier you wrote -"No non-christian scholars believe that 'jesus of the bible' existed ... Or Else They Would Be Christians.
The possible 'poor slob jesus', hut builder, that may have existed never influenced anyone."

Which seems to suggest you do not believe Foal's suggested position, here, -"The much more plausible explanation is that he was a spiritual leader who drew a large following, was seen as dangerous for this and executed and then in martyrdom gained an exaggerated and mythological status." Is a possible one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that is most certainly not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is the son of God.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe both that there was a real person named Jesus AND that this very same real person performed all of those miracles and said all of those things? Because if you are ignoring or rejecting the miracles, you should probably be ignoring or rejecting all the wonderful things he said and his message...since they come from the same source.

Tacitus and all give some support to the idea that some dude named Jesus lived and was possibly crucified. But nothing Tacitus or any other Roman says has anything to do with whether this guy ever said a meaningful thing in his life. Its pretty inconsistent of you to take the Bible's word for the message and sayings of Jesus and not take its word for the miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this last comment is correct if you believe that it's easier to preserve messages and sayings accurately, but that mystically-ascribed powers are more prone to error. Most who believe in historical jesus but not any supernaturalness provide a rationale - something along the lines of being a great teacher, whose followers embellished who he was by ascribing supernatural powers later in an effort to garner support. Establishing him as able to perform miracles boosted his credibility in a way that tinkering with his message wouldnt.

[tame_deuces]

Probably a guess, aka. the science known as history.

Jokes aside Vhawk, I def. get what you are trying to say, but I think you're being harsh. I think some of the debaters here are talking abit in circles and that a usable opinion lies somewhere in the middle, and that there is little value in quarreling about it.

For instance we could assume a historical Jesus gave birth to some of stories that would later become legends in the bible. Hence the legends to some degree could reflect on this character's messages/ideology.

I'm not saying it IS so, but it is a plausible theory that both these things can work in tandem. It certainly is something that one often assumes has happened before in history (Real historic characters growing into spiritual legends.) A typical example would for example be Gilgamesh, which many historians believe have existed, but who also is a character having 'godlike' abilities in the legends about him. You can also find much later examples, like for example in people made saints etc.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Probably a guess, aka. the science known as history.

Jokes aside Vhawk, I def. get what you are trying to say, but I think you're being harsh. I think some of the debaters here are talking abit in circles and that a usable opinion lies somewhere in the middle, and that there is little value in quarreling about it.

For instance we could assume a historical Jesus gave birth to some of stories that would later become legends in the bible. Hence the legends to some degree could reflect on this character's messages/ideology.

I'm not saying it IS so, but it is a plausible theory that both these things can work in tandem. It certainly is something that one often assumes has happened before in history (Real historic characters growing into spiritual legends.) A typical example would for example be Gilgamesh, which many historians believe have existed, but who also is a character having 'godlike' abilities in the legends about him. You can also find much later examples, like for example in people made saints etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we think any of those were based on THAT Jesus, the one who the Romans record?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Probably a guess, aka. the science known as history.

Jokes aside Vhawk, I def. get what you are trying to say, but I think you're being harsh. I think some of the debaters here are talking abit in circles and that a usable opinion lies somewhere in the middle, and that there is little value in quarreling about it.

For instance we could assume a historical Jesus gave birth to some of stories that would later become legends in the bible. Hence the legends to some degree could reflect on this character's messages/ideology.

I'm not saying it IS so, but it is a plausible theory that both these things can work in tandem. It certainly is something that one often assumes has happened before in history (Real historic characters growing into spiritual legends.) A typical example would for example be Gilgamesh, which many historians believe have existed, but who also is a character having 'godlike' abilities in the legends about him. You can also find much later examples, like for example in people made saints etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we think any of those were based on THAT Jesus, the one who the Romans record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since we're now essentially discussing history you know as well as me that I can't really argue this too hard, history is not an exact science. For anyone to be bombastic and hightly argumentative here is probably wrong, it is probably better to have a set of educated 'what if' scenarios and adjust those as we get better information.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear tpir,

It says this:

Charity was a part of western civilisation long before it was nationalised. Charity has been a virtue recognised and fostered by religion throughout human history. Christian charity has been an integral part of European civilization. In medieval Europe the Church bore the responsibility for organising and promoting poor relief and it was not until the 16th century that the state began to take over this responsibility...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think this states that Christians were the first to bring organized charity to human civilization? Re-read what you posted please.

[Hopey]

I look forward to the post where Splendour explains to us how his life was a trainwreck due to booze, drugs, sexual abuse, etc... and that he found Jesus and was saved. It's coming...it's only a matter of time.