|
Catholics are outraged...again (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I've got to side with Moral on this one: the historical Jesus is as likely to have existed as the historical Socrates, and their powers were probably not really that different. If anything, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John may just have exaggerated a bit either because they just loved the guy so much that they lost it, or just tinkered with his biography so he could sound more credible to later generations. Had Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes done the same to Socrates, we'd live in a very different world right now. |
I partly agree with you, but the documents that do exist that mention Jesus outside of the gospels and Paul's letters are not really reliable. The so called "Testimonium Flavianum" by Josephus (who was born shortly after the crucifixion) that is often used as major proof is worded very oddly, considering he was a Jew. Some scholars argue that the mention of Jesus might be genuine but that the lines that describe him as the Messiah were added later by Christians. But if the text was tampered with, what guarantee is there that the entire passage was not inserted? This is not the only odd thing about this, or other passages written passage about Jesus (Pliny, The Talmud, Tacitus, Thallus, etc.) and I do not wish to list all of them.
I guess I should have stated this more clearly, but I'm not asseverating that a historical Jesus didn't exist, because it's not entirely improbable. Only that the documents we have are not entirely reliable, and that it is my opinion that there are enough reasons to doubt the whole story entirely.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And that makes me wonder. If Christians have crosses all over the place to remind everyone else that Jesus dies for our sins, would Socratians worship jars!? |
:stongue:
And would Epicureans worship kidney stones? :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I partly agree with you, but the documents that do exist that mention Jesus outside of the gospels and Paul's letters are not really reliable. The so called "Testimonium Flavianum" by Josephus (who was born shortly after the crucifixion) that is often used as major proof is worded very oddly, considering he was a Jew. Some scholars argue that the mention of Jesus might be genuine but that the lines that describe him as the Messiah were added later by Christians. But if the text was tampered with, what guarantee is there that the entire passage was not inserted? This is not the only odd thing about this, or other passages written passage about Jesus (Pliny, The Talmud, Tacitus, Thallus, etc.) and I do not wish to list all of them.
I guess I should have stated this more clearly, but I'm not asseverating that a historical Jesus didn't exist, because it's not entirely improbable. Only that the documents we have are not entirely reliable, and that it is my opinion that there are enough reasons to doubt the whole story entirely.
|
I don't disagree with you on the credibility of late first century accounts; however, the lack of contemporay records should not be surprising. It would be pretty hard if not impossible to find writen record of any specific Judean or Galilean working class individual from that time. As I stated earlier; other then to his followers Jesus was more then likely viewed as entirly inconsequential by his contemporaries; subsequently, not noteworthy other then the legal record of his trial which would have been destroyed (assuming one existed... throwing a bone there) when the temple was burned. I do have to argue though that the lack of writen contemporary record other then those included in the bible does not act as sufficient grounds to argue that Jesus is entirely fictional. |
|
|
| woscar |
| I think we're both pretty much on the same page, except that we see the scale tipping in opposite ways. :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| After reading renegade’s arguments on the subject, im inclined to agree with moral. |
|
|
| wing |
| what ever happened to the regarding the last supper painting and how something something it was huge in the media for a week then died out suddenly some about a last supper painting |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
After reading renegade’s arguments on the subject, im inclined to agree with moral. |
Is this just an adjective or are you talking about James?
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I partly agree with you, but the documents that do exist that mention Jesus outside of the gospels and Paul's letters are not really reliable. The so called "Testimonium Flavianum" by Josephus (who was born shortly after the crucifixion) that is often used as major proof is worded very oddly, considering he was a Jew. Some scholars argue that the mention of Jesus might be genuine but that the lines that describe him as the Messiah were added later by Christians. But if the text was tampered with, what guarantee is there that the entire passage was not inserted? This is not the only odd thing about this, or other passages written passage about Jesus (Pliny, The Talmud, Tacitus, Thallus, etc.) and I do not wish to list all of them.
I guess I should have stated this more clearly, but I'm not asseverating that a historical Jesus didn't exist, because it's not entirely improbable. Only that the documents we have are not entirely reliable, and that it is my opinion that there are enough reasons to doubt the whole story entirely. |
But, it doesn't even matter if he existed or not.
You see, whether or not Jesus existed is barely even relevant: he could well be an entirely fictional character, because it's his ideas that matter. Jesus, in that sense, would bring cohesion to the body of ideas just like an actual person. For example, suppose Socrates and Confucius didn't exist: Does it make their legacies any less valid? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Is this just an adjective or are you talking about James?
|
james! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
james! |
Where's his post? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Where's his post? |
If I could be bothered finding it I would’ve posted it :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If I could be bothered finding it I would’ve posted it :p |
Meh, you slacker :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, it doesn't even matter if he existed or not. |
Agreed
| quote: | | whether or not Jesus existed is barely even relevant: he could well be an entirely fictional character, because it's his ideas that matter. |
Disagree... it's actually Paul's reflection on what he was told of Jesus' teachings that have had the greater influence on Christianity. The same is true of Socrates... it's not him but Plato's views on him that are of any consequence. |
|
|
|
|
