Forum menu
The nature of the evidence should be stronger in this case as Jesus is believed in without question by so many throughout history that the assessment of the evidence must be fraught with difficulty.
Just read your post saxonrider, so do you ""believe" in jesus christ as well as the existence of jesus? If so how do you put one view aside to asses the evidence, not trying to have a dig just think its an interesting conundrum. I really couldnt care less if he did or didnt have have no strong opinions eithercway.
@saxonrider - I think you've done your best to try and explain the historical evidence and interpretation of it, and it seems to me that those taking potshots are doing it simply to stoke an argument that doesn't need to happen.
Don't apologise for trying to use your knowledge to educate
How new are you around here?
About two months, far as I can tell from previous posting history.
He’s got a lot to learn, poor wee lamb...
I’m not remotely religious but I believe Jesus existed. I’d go as far as to say the religious aspects undermine what he was about and his overall message. A man who seemingly thought the meek should inherit the earth and that money lenders were a vile lot would probably be disheartened to see the Pope, for example, dripping in bling and living it up surrounded by priceless antiques.
Makes a mockery of a man who, on the face of it, seemed to be a bit of a rebel. Combine that with all the miracle bollocks and it takes away from the overall picture of a man trying to make a positive difference. Only my opinion of course.
A man who seemingly thought the meek should inherit the earth and that money lenders were a vile lot would probably be disheartened to see the Pope, for example, dripping in bling and living it up surrounded by priceless antiques.
Not just your opinion. There's a book called "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" by Philip Pullman which explores this very notion, in a very readable and engaging way. A bestseller a few years ago. I'd recommend it.
I’d imagine it’s a lot to type out, when it’s all on the internet already probably. He’s dropped a few names – put a bit of work in
I'm fascinated by this stuff, did loads of research pre internet.
As an atheist, I'd absolutely love to do a degree in theology.
Not from a smartarse point of view, but from a position of genuine interest.
And by the way, the next time the anti Chewk lobby start getting all frothy, please point them here.
Always good to hear an alternative viewpoint, whoever you are.
As to the slagging off of Saxon Rider:
Man's spent his whole life in pursuit of knowledge.
That is to be admired. However, the price of such knowledge is the burden of eternal proof. And that is a good thing.
countzero - chevy has been on here for 2 years, not 2 months so he/she should know the form.
Rusty - i agree with your comment about Chewkw; for once, he/she's posted some interesting/valid comments.
As for posts ^^^ re the Pope living it up and dripping in bling; yawn.
Does he have green chartreuse and/or creme de menthe on his cornflakes? Angelina Jolie on speed-dial? His own bling?
Go away, silly little boys.
I admire SR's patience in responding in a serious and considered way to yet another post about religion and belief; is he a saint?
I just regard all religion as cults. All equally unworthy. After arriving at that viewpoint debating the origin of the cult seems pointless. But you lot carry on, that's what the internet is for.
Oddly I can't quite disbelieve in a higher being.....but I think that is different to religion which is utter bunk and causes a lot of problems in society.
Anyhow, carry on with your debating society nonsense.
quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet.
In that case, provide the overwhelming evidence for the existence of anything prior to the invention of photography and film, or possibly not even those, because anything can be faked.
I don’t recall any references to the Q’ran here, though the Q’ran talks of Jesus as a prophet, and mentions many other characters in the Bible as being actual people.
The Arab’s have, for millennia, been know for their scientific knowledge, their mathematics and their record keeping, so their speaking of Jesus, Mary, his mother, and other significant biblical as being real, added to records from later commentators, should give weight to the evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, being a real person.
His being the son of God, however, is a more nuanced question, and one I’m not prepared to pursue, being Pantheistic.
The Arab’s have, for millennia, been know for their scientific knowledge, their mathematics and their record keeping, so their speaking of Jesus, Mary, his mother, and other significant biblical as being real, added to records from later commentators, should give weight to the evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, being a real person.
The Quran was written early in the 7th century, it can in no way be used as evidence for or against the existence of Jesus.
PhD's are getting devalued by certain awards eg Aaron Bastani who essentially did a PhD on himself
But lots of people really do have to work for them and study topics of value, so it's not a pop at people on here
I’d go as far as to say the religious aspects undermine what he was about and his overall message. A man who seemingly thought the meek should inherit the earth and that money lenders were a vile lot would probably be disheartened to see the Pope, for example, dripping in bling and living it up surrounded by priceless antiques.
Makes a mockery of a man who, on the face of it, seemed to be a bit of a rebel. Combine that with all the miracle bollocks and it takes away from the overall picture of a man trying to make a positive difference.
I have a lot of sympathy for this view. History shows that societies have mainly split the temporal and spiritual and both reinforce the other. They do fall out (the reformation is a classic example) but then revert back to the model. Both gather income and power in remarkably similar ways. There is no "church" in the gospels, no priests, no bishops, etc etc.
Communion could be a group of mountain bikers in a pub, having a drink and a bacon sarnie, who pause for a moment to give a moment's thought to someone who died 2000 years ago after setting out some simple guidelines for life.
Did he exist? More likely than not. Was he divine? Well we will all know eventually.
If that’s the way I came across, then I’m very sorry.
In all honesty, I was being antagonistic for the sake of debate and for that I'm genuinely sorry too.
I don’t recall any references to the Q’ran here,
Apart from all the times it's been mentioned.
As for posts ^^^ re the Pope living it up and dripping in bling; yawn.
Does he have green chartreuse and/or creme de menthe on his cornflakes? Angelina Jolie on speed-dial? His own bling?
Go away, silly little boys.
Have you ever seen the Pope? Looks like a Gangsta rapper! Giant ornate cross on a big stick, big daft hat and more jewellery than Elizabeth Duke.
It’s utterly ridiculous. Doesn’t matter if it belongs to the current pope or not. Still an accumulation of wealth that could be auctioned off and used to do some good in the world.
Why stop at the pope? I think you’ll find all heads of state - self proclaimed or otherwise have lined their nests with material wealth. For example, I think I noticed yesterday that our own illustrious political leader, BJ, will be spending his new year at some mega exclusive villa somewhere other than the UK - apologies for lack of detail, I really wasn’t that interested in the ‘news’ item.
Anyway, more to the point, my question is: why is it that the noisy and vociferous minority of atheists on here seem to be so in need of having God and any relatives thereof, scientifically proven as negative? Does it really matter? I mean, if you don’t believe, then, don’t believe, why get so Billy Graham about your non-belief?
Tsk, kids eh?
It makes sense that Jesus did exist and that his person is heavily exaggerated, rather than a conspiracy created him.
Why stop at the pope?
Because he is pertinent to the discussion and Boris Johnson isn’t for starters. My point is that if Jesus was real and judging by the believable aspects of his teachings, the man would be utterly disgusted by what is being done in his name.
Anyway, more to the point, my question is: why is it that the noisy and vociferous minority of atheists on here seem to be so in need of having God and any relatives thereof, scientifically proven as negative? Does it really matter?
Of course it matters. The alternative is to accept something that is, quite frankly, ludicrous as fact. Rising from the dead, immaculate conception, walking on water the list goes on. Where would we be if we didn’t constantly question things?
Well done for apologising Cougar, more of us need to reflect on our posts sometimes.
I agree that if Jesus taught the values he is supposed to have done, he'd be horrified by what is done in his name - as would many other founders of religions.
Partly, of course, because their teachings have been written, rewritten and distorted over the centuries to suit a minority seeking power, rather than to help the majority. Hence the immediate knee jerk reaction against religion by many, based on the distorted way it seems to be applied. Worth remembering that a lot of charitable good deeds are still done by ordinary congregations of churches, mosques and temples around the world, it's the extreme actions of zealots that cloud our view
I agree that if Jesus taught the values he is supposed to have done, he’d be horrified by what is done in his name
Maybe he needs to come back and sort it out? Wouldn't be beyond such a figure if the tales are to be believed...
Maybe he needs to come back and sort it out? Wouldn’t be beyond such a figure if the tales are to be believed…
I think Messiah is out on Netflix this week...
Not just your opinion.
No there was some other German guy too.. Martin someone.. quite famous...
The alternative is to accept something that is, quite frankly, ludicrous as fact. Rising from the dead, immaculate conception, walking on water the list goes on. Where would we be if we didn’t constantly question things?
Without wishing to derail the discussion further, we have a few different things here that don't all need to be true. 1) a physical Jesus preaching love and understanding 2) the divinity of that man 3) all the stuff written about him in the Bible.
The walking on water for example, you don't have ti believe that to believe in God or the divinity of Jesus. You also don't have to believe in God at all to think Jesus's teachings are worth following.
I'm reading about early Christianity now. It seems a lot of important early Christian figures disagreed on these things as early as the 4th century and the Emperor Constantine had to step in and get everyone to agree on it. And he was acting for political and practical reasons. And even then I guess people continue to disagree.
Point is Christianity has always been subject to debate and been able to change and evolve.
I think Messiah is out on Netflix this week…
But is that fictional
But is that fictional
For now.
For the second coming to be accepted by all the vested interests he'd have to lift an aircraft carrier out of the water or something equally spectacular. But that's probably for another thread.
IMO, based on reading a bit...
Jesus was a real person.
I'm the definition of agnostic on whether he was divine, the evidence is too tied up in self interest.
Whatever he was preaching, I doubt its core message was anything to do with what the Roman Catholic church turned into.
I’m reading about early Christianity now. It seems a lot of important early Christian figures disagreed on these things as early as the 4th century and the Emperor Constantine had to step in and get everyone to agree on it. And he was acting for political and practical reasons. And even then I guess people continue to disagree.
The problem that all religions have is the intolerance of alternative views i.e. heresy
I don’t recall any references to the Q’ran here, though the Q’ran talks of Jesus as a prophet, and mentions many other characters in the Bible as being actual people.
Best laugh I’ve had in ages, cheers! 😄
Minority?
you don’t have ti believe that to believe in God or the divinity of Jesus.
But then it gets a bit tricky. If it's not all true then how do you choose which bits are? As soon as one element is questionable it all unravels, how can you then trust any of it?
But lots of people really do have to work for them and study topics of value, so it’s not a pop at people on here
TBH given I have one they aren't that big a deal. I'm thick as mud lol
Chevy blathering on about logical fallacies makes zero sense in this context. We absolutely should listen to those who know more than we do.
Bollocks.
You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine - and in every way the holder of that degree would know infinitely more about homeopathy fhan I would. An 'expert', yo see.
But it's an expert in bunkum and bullshit because at no point, ever, has any homeopathic remedy been proven using a well-designed falsifiable trial to be any more effective than placebo. Because it's shite and it's practitioners are snake oil salesmen.
And that refusal to rely on a solid evidental basis kills people - you have people being advised to take homeopathic remedies for their deadly cancer rather than life-saving chemotherapy. And they die because of it.
Yes, we should listen to scientists who are experts in their fields - they have a rigourous burden of proof thrust upon them and are more than happy to provide their evidence base when challenged (because that's how science works).
This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it's snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it's practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.
On a separate note. You seem to be particularly vociferous. Do you have an oar in this game? Are you of the believer persuasion? If you are I'll cease and desist - as there's nothing I could say you wouldn't perform mental gymnastics to justify your own point of view over as not to do so would undermine everything you believe...
This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it’s practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.
Do you believe in the existence of Plato and Aristotle or other historical figures?
We're talking about verifiable history here, not whether the bloke was devine or not. Seems to me that with that statement you are discounting all of history because it's not "science".
Chevy - you're making the false equivalency fallacy do some seriously heavy lifting. Just because quackery such as homeopathy exists it does not follow that other experts are quacks. Knowledge is frequently defined as the convergence of belief and truth, supported by adequate justification. Your justification appears to be the fallacy above which is crap.
Have you ever heard of epistemology? The sorts of batshit mental contorsions you're churning out were tackled head on in antiquity by the Hellenistic philosophy schools, where you might play the role of Diogenes. Your local university probably has an expert in espistemology who could eduacate you.
Christianity has always been subject to debate and been able to change and evolve.
At the behest if those in power who want to adapt it to their whims. Would we be Protestants if Fat Harry hasn’t wanted to divorce Catherine?
Apologies for interrupting a discussion about Jesus, but ..
I have to say, though, that if we were having one of our relatively frequent medical discussions, then I would expect someone like DrJ – whose expertise is strongly hinted at in his screen name – to weigh in
my screen name was in fact chosen in reference to a well known hip-hop artist rather than any pretence to medical knowledge (of which I have essentially none 🙂 )
On with the show!! 🙂
Do you believe in the existence of Plato and Aristotle or other historical figures?
We’re talking about verifiable history here, not whether the bloke was devine or not. Seems to me that with that statement you are discounting all of history because it’s not “science”.
Exactly. (Actually it is science, seeing as science just means knowledge. 😉 )
@chevychase, you clearly know nothing about @molgrips. And as for this statement
This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion
there is a great deal we deal with on a daily basis that we can't "prove". But that is not what this thread is dealing with. Having said so, the world of academic theology - having given birth to the sciences you are exalting as the pinnacle of knowledge - has been part of the conversational process from the dawn of the universities - if not the dawn of consciousness. Regardless, though, there are elements of what you call "this religious study" that fit into many other (more empirical) disicplines: the historical and the sociological to name but two.
This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it’s practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.
I don't think that's entirely fair.
Say we had Father Christmas Studies. Santa has a huge cultural impact on our society, especially so at this time of year for some reason, even though he's (spoilers, sorry) entirely fictional. One could readily look into how the figure gained popularity, how and where in the world it spread, what alternatives other countries have, and whether or not his traditional red outfit came from a Coca-Cola advert. These are all real tangible things even if the central tenant is mythical.
The same could be said of religion. We could easily have a discussion on, as a random example I've just pulled out of thin air, whether Jesus was a real man who actually existed or not.
knowledge (of which I have essentially none 🙂 )
Thought this was a prerequisite for posting on STW?😉
Actually it is science, seeing as science just means knowledge.
The entomology of the word science has changed over the last 3000 years. It doesn't just mean knowledge. It is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
See these people that think they are experts in certain fields just because they read something on the internet.
also the idea that academic theology gave birth to science is a bit far fetched at the least.
Cougar
Please can I sign up to your Father Christmas studies course?
Sure. The exam at the end counts as one of your Ho-Ho-Ho Levels.
Five ****ing pages just to let you get to that punchline? 😄😂
The entomology of the word science has changed
"Etymology," unless the science you're sciensing is the study of insects. (-:
Five **** pages just to let you get to that punchline? 😄😂
I think it was worth the journey.
What I was going to say has been said. You might not believe in God but a lot of real actual people do, and the stuff that they really actually did can be studied. The existence or not of Jesus is also a matter of real actual history, studied by real actual historians using real actual methodology.
Saint Nicholas was real. Did he do the thing in his story? Maybe.
Also Santa is historically not the same as Father Christmas.
The entomology of the word science has changed over the last 3000 years. It doesn’t just mean knowledge. It is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
As Cougar points out, it's "etymology", and etymology by its very nature doesn't change. The root is what it is; only the tree changes. But, funny enough, when it comes to the word "scire" (to know), its related words have changed very little.
See these people that think they are experts in certain fields just because they read something on the internet.
Is that a suggestion that I pulled my etymology off the internet? If so, you know those manuscripts I have spent my life reading? Guess what language(s) they're in...
If you're going to tell us you're fluent in Aramaic and Classical Hebrew I'll be very impressed. (-:
(And yes, I know most of the NT was a form of Greek, but that's less funny.)