An Amazing Life

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
luckyme makes a post where his whole point is basically "when you tell me X historian (or scholar) says jesus existed, i don't know that the historian means the same thing by "jesus" that you do."

and your respose to that is


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tacitus a Roman historian who lived at the time of Christ was no Christian...yet he mentions him in his histories...So he most definitely lived...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



it's like you're pretending that luckyme made an entirely different post than the one he wrote

[/ QUOTE ]

Sephus,

I can’t find who made this quote: “Tacitus a Roman historian who lived at the time of Christ was no Christian...yet he mentions him in his histories...So he most definitely lived...”

But it is incorrect. Tacitus lived well after Jesus’s death. No historian that was a contemporary of Jesus, such as Seneca or Philo ( who lived and wrote in Judea during Jesus’s lifetime ), made any mention of him at all. Jesus was a complete nobody during his life.

[madnak]

[ 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 ]

The difference is that Gilgamesh isn't universally venerated, and nobody is shocked when anyone suggests he might not have existed. If I say that Gilgamesh was probably a Mesopotamian warlord, the worst I'll get is a shrug. If I say that Jesus was probably a magician/con-man, everyone (regardless of religious belief) tends to take offense.

I think lucky is mainly saying that Jesus wasn't that influential during his own time. Obviously his ultimate influence was broad. But if you reject the "miracle" part of the Bible, there is no reason to keep the "wise man" or "spiritual leader" parts. Unless you would say the same of Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard.

Nobody is asking for outright rejection of Jesus - only a critical and rational approach to the figure, and an acknowledgement that the Jesus of the Bible is a character in a story from whom we can't derive any facts about the real man's personality or actions. Just like Gilgamesh.

[tame_deuces]

A good post Madnak. I'll also freely admit to not having devoted much time on the possible existence/non-existence of Jesus, so most of my musings are just something I threw together from what I read in this thread. From what I have understood elsewhere there is indeed some controversy about the validity of the sources also. However, even as an atheist I think believing he did exist is def. one of the 'smaller' leaps of faith a theist has to take. If that makes sense. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[madnak]

It's reasonable to conclude that Jesus existed. I believe it myself. But it's not the only reasonable conclusion.

I don't think Christians typically make incremental leaps of faith. I think they more often go from large to small. "Christ was the son of God, so of course he existed!"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's reasonable to conclude that Jesus existed. I believe it myself. But it's not the only reasonable conclusion.

I don't think Christians typically make incremental leaps of faith. I think they more often go from large to small. "Christ was the son of God, so of course he existed!"

[/ QUOTE ]

They're a lot like union groups. Afraid to give up anything , even to their advantage, for fear of losing something they can't identify. Dogma gridlock, essentially.

I'm sitting looking at a Krispie Kracker that has a hazy crossed fish on it and what looks like, "I didn't exist, cheeesh."
Does the history of the world change like in a sci-fi?
Why is it such a problem to differentiate between effects of an actual being and the effects of a belief in one. Or the actual attributes of a being and the ones claimed for him. We do it all the time with other historical figures.

luckyme

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
No non-christian scholars believe that 'jesus of the bible' existed ... Or Else They Would Be Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

while this stands to reason, it proves nothing.

if a Non-believing Scholar came upon the evidence, and was thereby convinced and 'converted' he would cease to be a Non-believing Scholar. While your statement would still be 'true', it's intended meaning would be completely undermined.

It is pretty well established that the Historical Person Jesus existed, and that the texts which we get our current Bible from are Historically accurate - that is, they were written when they were supposed to have been written, and the events they relate happened in the Author's lifetime, or at least when the texts were written.

The part that most laypersons like to debate is the accuracy of the events they describe. the problem is the circular reasoning used to refute these events, and the disconnection between our time period and that of these events. there simply are no eyewitnesses alive today.

"circular reasoning?" you ask. well, yes. this is obviously a simplified form of the discussion, but i think it's quite circular.

the events under the greatest scrutiny and dispute are the Miracles described in the bible. the skeptic approaches with Scientific analysis, and says that these things couldn't possible have occurred, they are Scientifically impossible! but, i don't think this is sufficient grounds to dismiss. of COURSE they are Scientifically impossible. that's why they're called MIRACLES. there have been plenty of times in history where things occurred that couldn't have been explained up until that moment.

so who are we to believe? scientists of today who weren't there and dismiss most of the bible because of the impossible miracles? or the eyewitnesses who wrote about the miraculous things they saw because they were so spectacular?

obviously the answer to this question lies with Faith. where do you put your faith? this isn't a black-and-white question either. it's not God vs. Science or anything like that (false dichotomies get us into a lot of trouble, it seems...). Do you believe in God? does that mean you can't believe in Science? (hopefully not)

i don't like discussion threads like these, they tend to go nowhere, and very rarely do people actually engage each other's intellect. usually just a lot of smug arguing at each other. i just felt i had to say my piece.

[Splendour]

very nicely put baggins:

the events under the greatest scrutiny and dispute are the Miracles described in the bible. the skeptic approaches with Scientific analysis, and says that these things couldn't possible have occurred, they are Scientifically impossible! but, i don't think this is sufficient grounds to dismiss. of COURSE they are Scientifically impossible. that's why they're called MIRACLES. there have been plenty of times in history where things occurred that couldn't have been explained up until that moment [ the events under the greatest scrutiny and dispute are the Miracles described in the bible. the skeptic approaches with Scientific analysis, and says that these things couldn't possible have occurred, they are Scientifically impossible! but, i don't think this is sufficient grounds to dismiss. of COURSE they are Scientifically impossible. that's why they're called MIRACLES. there have been plenty of times in history where things occurred that couldn't have been explained up until that moment possible have occurred, they are Scientifically impossible! but, i don't think this is sufficient grounds to dismiss. of COURSE they are Scientifically impossible. that's why they're called MIRACLES. there have been plenty of times in history where things occurred that couldn't have been explained up until that moment[/i]

Here is what Paul had to say in Romans chapter 8 (this is the bible translated into our current vernacular by Eugene H. Peterson:

THE SOLUTION IS LIFE ON GOD'S TERMS

With the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah, that fateful dilemma is resolved. Those who enter into Christ's being-here-for-us no longer have to live under a continuous, low-lying black cloud. A new power is in operation. The Spirit of life in Christ, like a strong wind, has magnificently cleared the air freeing you from a fated lifetime of brutal tyranny at the hands of sin and death.
God went for the jugular when he sent his own Son. He didn't deal with the problem as something remote and unimportant. In his Son, Jesus, he personally took on the human condition, entered the disordered mess of struggling humanity in order to set it right once and for all. The law code, weakened as it always was by fractured human nature, could never have done that.
The law always ended up being used as a Band-Aid on sin instead of a deep healing of it. And now what the law code asked for but we couldn't deliver is accomplished as we, instead of redoubling our own efforts, simply embrace what the Spirit is doing in us.
Those who think they can do it on their own end up obsessed with measuring their own moral muscle but never get around to exercising it in real life. Those who trust God's action in them find that God's Spirit is in them-living and breathing God! Obsession with self in these matters is a dead end; attention to Gods leads us out into the open, into a spacious free life. Focusing on the self is the opposite of focusing on God. Anyone completely absorbed in self ignores God, ends up thinking more about self than God. That person ignores who God is and what he is doing. And God isn't pleased at being ignored."

The rest of Chapter 8 is amazing but I'm afraid I'm taking up to much space on 2+2...If anyone wants the rest of it...I will provide it later...

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
or the eyewitnesses who wrote about the miraculous things they saw because they were so spectacular?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the authors of the gospels were almost certainly not actual eyewitnesses to the miracles.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of Chapter 8 is amazing but I'm afraid I'm taking up to much space on 2+2...If anyone wants the rest of it...I will provide it later...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting that certain people seem to believe that the 2+2 forum is in need of missionaries to convert us heathens. I guess it's a lot easier to sit in front of a computer and proselytize than it is to travel to Africa or New Guinea to do it in person.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or the eyewitnesses who wrote about the miraculous things they saw because they were so spectacular?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the authors of the gospels were almost certainly not actual eyewitnesses to the miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Paul of Tarsus didn't experience a miracle on the road to Damascus??