Forum menu
In the time it's taken you to whine about it you could've shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead.
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts
the thread is only 10 hours old! That’s hardly dedicating your life!
i jest. I’m interested to hear what you have to say.
Careful Saxonrider, they don't like it up 'em!
In the time it’s taken you to whine about it you could’ve shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead.
Not really. I was talking to @molgrips about this exact thing during a ride the other day. People have so many ideas about history and religion, it is extremely difficult to stay on top of them all. Anyway, what I wrote, above, was not directed at you, or any of the genuinely curious-but-conjectural posts; it was more concerned with some of the absolutist nonsense that appeared on the first page.
But you're right. I shouldn't just throw out a sarcastic comment without being willing to put some time into an actual response. I am in the midst of doing so, and will have more to share later. In the meantime, I hope everyone carries on. There is a lot of bullshit flying about, but I wouldn't have it any other way. 🙂
I would only ever want people to realise that when they proffer opinions, there is generally a much, much bigger story than is often realised. Same goes for most academic fields.
I would only ever want people to realise that when they proffer opinions,
I think - well, I'd hope - that most people do understand that. Rather with text-based communication it's easy to lose that sort of nuance and infer things that people don't mean. It's often how arguments start.
For my part, I was just rolling around ideas really.
Given that there is no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of JC and as mentioned above the first mention is 35 years after his “death” I’d go with he’s a fictional character.
He was probably in South America, going by the name Viracocha.
A pale skinned, bearded man who dissappeared after walking west over the Pacific, and spent his days dressed in robes, preaching about how to live your life, and, generally performing miracles
In the time it’s taken you to whine about it you could’ve shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead
iirc he has done many times before on these sorts of threads and in quite a reasonable manner as well. His point is a little grumpy but valid all the same
If Jesus really did exist, I bet his surname wasn't Christ.
Everyone seems to be an Expert on the bible, just wondering how many of you have actually read (and understood) it?
Yes i believe in God and Yes i believe Jesus was who he claimed to be, and its from over 30yrs of weighing up all the sides i can find, but as in most things on here, Too many experts and no real experts.
Happy new year
The trouble is that many people don’t understand the metaphors, which has little to do with whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, more to do with the predictably banal STW comments about the New Testament.
Comments often made by the same people who religiously lie to their children every year about the existence of Father Christmas.
Where’s my ironing?
Wither someone called Jesus Christ actually lived
Jesus, son of Joseph, the carpenter. Christ is a later appellation, not a name as such, more a title.
I am not a scholar... 😬
Anyway untill SR arrives with an undoubtedly interesting theologic history lesson, Wikipedia's take on Jesus the historical character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Everyone seems to be an Expert on the bible, just wondering how many of you have actually read (and understood) it?
Oh the arrogance. As it happens I was raised in a catholic household and attended catholic schools. Was baptised, took confession, communion and confirmation. So whilst I can’t quote the bible chapter and verse it’s safe to say that my opinions do not come from a place of ignorance.
I’m sure many other posters can tell similar tales.
gonefishin - same background as you know and I'm aligned with your comments.
As for SaxonRider's knowledge and experience - Michael Gove said that we've had enough of experts....only joking 😉
To avoid any confusion it might be best to refer to Jesus Christ by name, not initials, as we wouldn't to give the impression that Jeremy Corbyn (JC) is Christ.
History is not the same as theology.
Was there an actual person (or several people) about whom legends grew up that became the story of Jesus of Nazareth? IMO probably. All the theology? don't believe a word of it. Sorry Saxonrider I do enjoy discussing religion with you and commend your good humour when doing so but if one does not believe and has no faith then all any religion is is myths, rituals and (sometimes dubious) morals
@Lawmanmx
Yes, I've read the bible. I was given a NT by the Gideans, and I always read stuff that I'm given (well, not so much these days, but when I was a kid). I then sent off to get the OT when I'd finished.
Are you including the OT in your weighing up?
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
I think he realised he should get rid of it after he pulled a skid, probably trying to impress the ladies, and killed a kid, then bumped his head on a dustbin lid....
SaxonRider
Subscriber
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities; NOT some wacky “Bible colleges”) who themselves had studied at the feet of professors before them – all of whom have been subject to the review process by scholars in corresponding fields who are not themselves Christian, or even necessarily people of faith, but none of whom across centuries of scholarship have managed to distil the existence of Jesus down to the admirably simple formulae conjured up by the good folk of STW.
If only I – and all of them – had have had access to internet fora and social media years ago, we could have saved ourselves so much time.
Thanks, though. Better late than never.
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
Well said.
There's an annoying tendency on here for people to distill a bit of stuff they read on the internet then pronounce it as gospel (pun intended). The truth is much more complex.
JP
There’s an annoying tendency on here for people to distill a bit of stuff they read on the internet then pronounce it as gospel (pun
About as annoying as the assumption that those who don’t believe are ignorant and ill informed. Some of us actually know quite a bit, we just came to a different conclusion.
Sorry Saxonrider I do enjoy discussing religion with you and commend your good humour when doing so but if one does not believe and has no faith then all any religion is is myths, rituals and (sometimes dubious) morals
No apology necessary! I only contend that, seeing as the title of the thread invited a discussion around whether or not Jesus was a fictional character, it is important not to dismiss the scholarship suggesting he existed just because one doesn't subscribe to the religion around him.
Importantly, his historical existence is rejected by few, if any, serious scholars, and the manuscript evidence is as strongly in favour of a positive conclusion regarding the existence of the person Jesus as it is in favour of pretty much any commonly accepted figure from antiquity. Whether we accept the religious interpretation of him is an entirely different issue.
About as annoying as the assumption that those who don’t believe are ignorant and ill informed.
I don't think anyone, least SR would claim a lack of faith is ignorance. But failing to recognise Jesus as a historical character suggests a wilfull rejection of the evidence. Everyone however is entitled to an opinion ignorant or not.
taxi25 sed> Everyone however is entitled to an opinion ignorant or not.
I'm really not so sure this is a good idea.
Sorry @SaxonRider - I refuse to bow to your blatant and transparent appeal-to-authority:
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities... <yadda yadda ain't I great yadda>
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
Sucks to be you that you have indeed wasted large parts of your life. Not that an argument with a stranger on the internet will assuage you of your beliefs - but you've simply studied under a stream of misguided people who have never either had nor (importantly) wanted an actual real and proper evidential basis for their arguments.
I hope you've enjoyed it, and if we ever met I have little doubt we'd talk about mountain biking as our shared religion, so would get along fine.
But reach the way you just did in that post, and I'll happily shit on it. It's not for anyone to prove you wrong - but for you to prove yourself right. And no religious sect ever has (not that lacking evidence for anything has ever stopped them taking in a shedload of cash or having lots of power (and that's not confined to religions)).
And why is that? Because real, verifiable, falsifiable evidence doesn't exist.
You can't prove what isn't. You can only prove what is. And THAT is the argument that religions the world over have never been able to step up to.
That went south fast.
Because real, verifiable, falsifiable evidence doesn’t exist.
Huh?
And, missing the point?
Not pre-empting SR's promised summary, but isn't the point that Jesus's existence as a real person (not the son of God) is as verifiable as most other major individuals from the same period of history? If we agree that (for example) Herod was real then we should be able to agree that 'a' Jesus was too...
I'm a total atheist, but I have VERY little doubt that there was a Jesus at some point in that region who was significant enough for various people to record his existence. Was he the son of God? Absolutely not IMO, but that doesn't mean he wasn't real.
Sucks to be you that you have indeed wasted large parts of your life.
Chevy, you obviously didn't manage to read the two short paragraphs SR wrote their last post did you?
SR, I respect what you say, which seems to mirror many of the comments posted so far. Most have been quite reasonable.
I try to think of Jesus as a 2000 year old Ghandi, but I tend to think of Ghandi as more modern and I can follow what he said whilst watching footage of him on the TV.
Sorry @SaxonRider – I refuse to bow to your blatant and transparent appeal-to-authority:
That's not what's happening here at all. 'Appeal to authority' means 'believe me because these important people agree with me'. But SaxonRider is saying 'believe me because I myself have spend a lifetime actually studying it'.
If you consider that a logical fallacy then how would you ever learn anything from anyone? No, you are being irrational and your argument is fallacious as you are exhibiting confirmation bias.
I think Jesus probably existed, I cannot see any reason to deny that, nor do I see why it should be the subject of such vitriol. I believe he probably said many of the things attributed to him. I don't believe he was divine though.
You can’t prove what isn’t. You can only prove what is. And THAT is the argument that religions the world over have never been able to step up to.
It's called 'faith' for a reason... You're not really getting the concept.
But in any case, this thread isn't about religion, it's about history. Something else you appear to have missed. You're not doing very well so far.
It's a clear appeal to authority - hence the "here's my PhD's, not from *yadda* religious groups but respected serious people" yadda.
It's also absolutely a religious study, bound up with 'history'. And when you start looking under the covers you find people mix the historical, mythical and theological with a very low bar for what constitutes evidence (generally not a scientific bar, given ongoing arguments about forgeries and authenticity of 'evidence' sources).
But to no longer want to continue a theme that a lot of people are naturally going to feel strongly about (my attack (for that is what it is, and I'm not apologising for that - you can't debate anything worthwhile whilst dancing around the sides of a subject) was in opposition to that appeal to authority) - consider this:
To spend time and resources trying to discover whether a bloke called Jesus existed in the correct area and correct time *without* him being the 'son of god' is a monumental waste of time. The only reason to search is *because* of the religious connotations, otherwise you may as well be looking for a guy called Terry who liked to eat ham.
Anyone saying that this 'historical' search should be considered 'separate' in any way from the religious angle is being disingenuous as it's intrinsically bound up.
But to both humour that and move the argument on: does/did Jesus exist as a real person - the answer outside of a religious context must surely be "who cares?". For it is only in a religious context that the existence, or not, of such a figure takes on any importance. And inside a religious context the existence of such a figure is *even less important* - because belief in such a figure makes his actual existence irrelevant.
So take all of these arguments about whether Jesus the man/bloke/god existed for what they really are: a desparate scramble by a dying religion to give it some faux historical relevancy in the face of overwhelming evidence that we not only no longer need it as some sort of 'guiding light' but that it's onging existence is both counterproductive and dangerous....
Anyway. That's what you get for discussing religion on a biking forum. 🙂
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
I think he realised he should get rid of it after he pulled a skid, probably trying to impress the ladies, and killed a kid, then bumped his head on a dustbin lid….
Interesting. Round our way he pulled a skid, killed a kid, and paralysed his bollocks on aforementioned dustbin lid.
I think it's perfectly feasible to want to research whether 'Jesus' existed, and whether there's any real evidence for he said or what others say he said. Or did.
I mean, I'm not religious but I like to know stuff. It's just as valid as trying to work out what frozen scandi man died of, or what's buried under the new houses being built down the road. And given the importance others have ascribed to him, possibly more valid.
There is of course the possibility that there are folk involved in researching that are doing so with a big chip in the game, but that's the point of peer review and scrutiny.
The more I age the more I belive the whole thing was dreamed up by a bunch of bloated theocrats who sat down a few centuries ago and agreed they needed a story to fit their "my imaginary best friend is better than your imaginary best friend" idea, which they were beginning to realise had great value for controlling the uneducated peasants and extracting wealth from them. They even wrote it all down in a big book, which the Victorians embellished by inventing Christmas and all the claptrap that goes with that.
If you know any Muslims well and you try to discuss anything logically with them you can see that they are a century or so behind Christians in seeeing the light and making up their own minds about stuff.
Anyway. That’s what you get for discussing religion on a biking forum.
How new are you around here?
But SaxonRider is saying ‘believe me because I myself have spend a lifetime actually studying it’.
And yet has provided no evidence to base his opinion on.
I think it’s perfectly feasible to want to research whether ‘Jesus’ existed, and whether there’s any real evidence for he said or what others say he said. Or did.
I mean, I’m not religious but I like to know stuff.
Agree. Would be interested to know about the existence and what he actually did if he did exist.
I wouldn't spend too much time bothering to find out though as it is not THAT interesting.
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities; NOT some wacky “Bible colleges”) who themselves had studied at the feet of professors before them – all of whom have been subject to the review process by scholars in corresponding fields who are not themselves Christian, or even necessarily people of faith, but none of whom across centuries of scholarship have managed to distil the existence of Jesus down to the admirably simple formulae conjured up by the good folk of STW.
If only I – and all of them – had have had access to internet fora and social media years ago, we could have saved ourselves so much time.
Thanks, though. Better late than never.
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
Doesn't make you right
Poah PhD (actual science doctorate)
I don’t believe he was divine though.
But looking at those portraits of him he was quite good looking.
Chevy chase has it.
The thread is actually asking did Jesus Christ exist not whether a bloke called Jesus existed.
Jesus Christ is a fictional character based on a real man called Jesus.
We all agree pon that historical fact.
Well we're nit picking, but the man was known as Christ regardless of his actual divinity.
Perhaps it was Chris and it’s been misinterpreted all these years.
Of all your self satisfied douchbaggery Chevy this is the bit I think is the daftest:
It’s a clear appeal to authority – hence the “here’s my PhD’s, not from *yadda* religious groups but respected serious people” yadda.
It makes no sense. We're talking about a historical topic here. Humanity learns about history through the process of historical study and research. So someone who has done more research on a particular topic must surely therefore know more than someone who has done less (or none), this is surely obvious. However you dismiss this as a logical fallacy. So you are in effect saying that regardless of how much knowledge someone has on a topic, their opinion can have no more weight than anyone else.
This is bananas, is it not? If no-one can have any credentials then why should we listen to anyone at all? Why should we listen to you? Why are you bothering to contribute to the thread?
Actually, I think I know why 😉
I'd just like to point out that I have a phd in cow shit!!
SR what is the contemporaneous evidence for the existence of the historical figure of Jesus?
Looking forward to the definitive proof from SR.
As Saxonrider said
few, if any, serious scholars, and the manuscript evidence is as strongly in favour of a positive conclusion regarding the existence of the person Jesus as it is in favour of pretty much any commonly accepted figure from antiquity. Whether we accept the religious interpretation of him is an entirely different issue.
MY understanding is the consensus now is probably born around 4 BC and spent most of his life in what is now Lebanon - and that some / many of the tales attributed to him may have been other jewish mystics
Also the quality of the evidence is not great