At the risk of sounding retarded, I really want to know: why is it so important to Christians that Jesus was a verifiable historical figure? Isn't this obsession contradictory to the requirement of faith that Christ purportedly requires?
>>1005045
They tend to get butthurt when people bring it up. That's about it.
Because Christ was God incarnate. Christ came down and took the form of man. He absorbed sin for man so that man could be given the gift of eternal life. Not Christian but raised Catholic. There is a lot of history behind this, as Christians didn't all necessarily agree about the divine nature of Christ in the early days of Christianity before Constantine converted the Empire. gnostics for example
Not a Christian but I imagine any amount of evidence that could be used to make their version of events seem more plausible would be welcomed, even if it's not required for belief.
>>1005045
Because if Jesus didn't literally die on the cross then there is no atonement for sin and therefore humanity remains condemned.
The punishment for sin is death and if Jesus never existed then he never died for our sins which means we must bear the punishment for our transgressions.
>>1005045
For Catholics/Orthodox: Their entire organization justifies it's existence by saying that Jesus founded their church. They have had wars and edicts backed by this legitime order from God. If Jesus wasn't historical their entire existence has no justification.
Theology: Saint Paul believed the purpose of Jesus coming to earth was to fulfill a Jewish sacrificial ritual (usually a lamb would be used instead). This is supposed to cleanse people of original sin. If Jesus never existed than everything Paul ever wrote is pointless.
Ethics: In Christian ethics something is only good if God says it is. You cannot defer the justification for something to anything else, God is the only measurement of good. All Christian ethics are based on Jesus's teachings and assume he was God. If he never historically existed than there is no God to give ethics (and before you say Old Testament, Christian theology says Old Testament isn't God's word). Ethics are non-existent if Jesus doesn't exist.
So without a historical Jesus the religion is completly nihilistic. There is no ethics, no purpose in life, and you are already doomed the moment you are born because of original sin.
If you're interested in learning about the historical Jesus, I'd look into the work of the Jesus Seminar. It was a non-denominational collection of academics that sought to tease out the life of Jesus as a man from sources of the day by first re-translating the materials and then going through line by line and discussing the likelihood that it represented the actual historical figure of Jesus.
The Seminar was comprised of a rather eclectic group. There were some who denied that Jesus ever existed and there were also some fundamentalists who believed everything in the Gospels was literal truth. Most of the scholars were somewhere in between. There has been a lot of criticism laid against the project but it did come to some interesting conclusions.
>>1005095
>>1005097
>>1005133
>>1005144
These are very helpful. I have done a lot of research on this issue (yes, including reading the entire OT and NT), and I just keep coming to the conclusion that the insistence on the historical Jesus is borne out of the same need to "prove" that the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled in order to legitimize the influence and political control of the church(es) based thereupon. If one really only cared about the *idea,* they would be open to the idea that one's personal interpretation is inherently incomplete, and that insisting on empirical proof is actually disingenuous to the message found in biblical teachings. Of course, it also opens the door to accepting the Qu'ran as a legitimate "update" to the Judeo-Christian belief system, but again - that seems to be a political power-struggle more than a theological inconsistency.
>>1005200
>If one really only cared about the *idea,* they would be open to the idea that one's personal interpretation is inherently incomplete, and that insisting on empirical proof is actually disingenuous to the message found in biblical teachings.
No because the "idea" is meaningless unless it is based in reality.
Fedoras like to joke about how there's no difference in believing in Jesus and believing in Superman and if the Historical Jesus didn't exist, they'd be right.
>>1005200
There is an idea that Christianity is an ethics or spirtual system, how unlike say Buddihism it cannot function without a historical basis.
This is because the spirit or ethical system of Christian is not based on reasoned observations about how the world works. It is based on edicts from a God which is supposed to be absolute. As a result if the God doesn't exist than the entire ethical and spiritual system is baseless. Concepts such as "sin" and "salvation" cannot be be inferered from an observation about reality. The only way they are understood to be true is that a historical being that is all knowing and never lies mentioned them. Or if this historical being gave the power to invent theology to a certain priesthood.
Christianity cannot survive as a culture, or a spiritual system, or an ethics system the way that Buddhism can.
>>1005364
The idea of humans flying wasn't "based in reality" until the 20th century. The idea of me sending a message to someone literally anywhere in the world basically instantaneously wasn't "based in reality" until the 1990s.
When are human beings going to get the picture that their expectations might not be the best metric for what's "based in reality"?
And what if people read Superman in a way that leads them to the same ideas and actions that they would have if they read the words of Jesus? Why does it have to be the "official" words guarded and published by the church? Like, that's pretty elitist, and I didn't get that impression from Jesus when he was giving away free food to everyone and curing lepers just because they were human, and you know, doing all that cool Jesus stuff.
I know my opinions are unpopular and strange, by the way, in case you feel the need to point that out as a response to this.
>>1005387
Well, it can if they stop insisting on Jesus as a historical figure and preaching that one interpretation is required in order to fully understand it...
I guess what you're saying is that people who do that are going to be automatically barred from calling themselves Christians, though... and you're probably right.
>>1005466
>The idea of humans flying wasn't "based in reality" until the 20th century.
The Bible is full of accounts of people flying.
>The idea of me sending a message to someone literally anywhere in the world basically instantaneously wasn't "based in reality" until the 1990s.
The Bible describes this phenomenon as well.
>When are human beings going to get the picture that their expectations might not be the best metric for what's "based in reality"?
The whole point of believing in a revealed deity is that it negates human expectations by making God the ultimate arbiter of objective reality.
>And what if people read Superman in a way that leads them to the same ideas and actions that they would have if they read the words of Jesus?
Then those people believe a fantasy.
>Why does it have to be the "official" words guarded and published by the church?
The church has authority through the Holy Spirit to defend sound doctrine against heresies.
>>1005133
>Christian theology says Old Testament isn't God's word
No it doesn't you Marcionist heretic
>>1005133
I am increasingly perplexed as to how Christians reconcile the fact that the gospels and pretty much everything they know about Jesus is clearly fabricated and that Paul invented a religion pretty much on his own.
>>1005045
Anything to draw the unbelievers in... if it takes a verifiable historical figure, so be it.
>>1005555
>the fact
>>1005555
most people aren't aware. in my family the only people who are knowledgable about the bible are either atheists or fundamentalists. the moderate majority don't know shit about the bible
>>1005555
Because it's not
>>1005555
what are people like you called? are you just some crackpot or is there a stream that just denies St. Paul? only asking because I've seen this criticism before.
>>1005600
Judaizer
>>1005589
The apparent paradoxes and contradictions of Jesus' character would, in some cases, lead me to suspect there was more than one person involved behind the myth.
First, his attitudes to the saved and unsaved are widely divergent. Bertrand Russell is correct here- refuse his salvation and he was a monster.
While he was preaching, he was planning an earthly kingdom. This is anathema to modern christian thought, but the references are undeniable:
Mar 10:29 ...There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
He clearly differentiates the earthly and heavenly rewards.
Jesus asked for the donkey in order to fulfil a prophecy. The prophecy is described in almost identical terms to Zech 9- and Zech 9 refers to a rebellion by a worldly army in which god was expected to help. This is exactly what the Jews had been led to believe a pious king could expect- it was seen throughout old testament. And Jesus had made specific references to his ability to summon legions of angels- another signpost to Zech 9. Mark refers to swords- plural- being carried by the apostles.
No historian turns a hair at the notion we should read Caesar's Gallic Wars with an awareness that he was propagandising himself- that he might honour a mistake or happenstance as hidden intention, or claim a reverse was part of a long-term plan. Why should it be any different for these particular Greek texts from antiquity?
>>1005502
>The Bible is full of accounts of people flying
ooo, and also talking snakes
>>1005611
Nope
>>1005045
It's said directly in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:14-19.
>14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
>15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
>16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
>17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
>18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
>19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
>>1005612
Yep.
>>1005600
The general conesus amoung modern biblical historians is that Paul drastically changed the religion. The emphasis on old testament prophecies, the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus as a divine figure were all his ideas. These were not the beliefs of the church of James and Peter and most historians will tell you these were not the beliefs of the early Christians.
Another common consensus is that Paul lied about having a background as a Pharisee and lied about being a persecutor of Christians, a number of contradictions or oddities in his story make this the most likely truth. Rather Paul was deeply immersed in Hellenic, mostly Platonic and Stoic philosophy and had some knowledge of Mystery religions. It was these pagan ideas rather than the origenal Jewish/Jesus ideas that he influenced him. He added these foreign to the religion and was dennounced as a fake and a liar by several early other Apostles.
Paul, not Jesus, is the most important figure in Christianity. It also generally accepted a lot of the stuff Jesus says in the bible isn't historical but words were putting in his mouth to support a pro-Paulian Christianity. One thing you need to understand is that there were multiple versions of the books, they show signs of being re-written and all of them are at least 20 years after Paul. Many of them are confirmed forgeries (for instance several of Peter's books were known not to be written by Peter and Revelation was not written by John). In other words after Paul's initial letters attempts were made to re-write history and change the life and teachings of Christ.
It was none other than the anti-christ himself Fredrick Nietzsche that first put forward the theory. However now it is something that biblical scholars have concluded to be true based on textual and historical analysis.
>>1005045
Because if he didn't exist, all claims about him being the son of god and salvation coming through him become null and void.
It's rather funny, especially given the fact that evidence for him basically doesn't exist.
>>1005722
>The general conesus
>most historians
>common consensus
>It also generally accepted
>>1005722
>Paul lied about having a background as a Pharisee and lied about being a persecutor of Christians
Paul didn't lie about this. he doesn't even mention them. these two things are mentioned in Acts so the author of Acts probably lied, not Paul
>>1005748
>he doesn't even mention them
If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
- Philippians 3:4-6
>>1005045
>why is it so important to Christians that Jesus was a verifiable historical figure?
His personal existence is what the entire religion is about. It's not particularly important to Christians whether it's "verified", since it's just a popular and recent meme among atheists that it needs verification. It always comes down to about a dozen "atheist activists" and undistinguished academics that hold to this theory against the vast majority of academia that agrees he did exist, while the typical shitposter goes on that he was a composite figure, or a mistaken identification, or an invention from whole cloth after the fact.
> Isn't this obsession
Why do you consider it an obsession? You're the one starting the thread.
>contradictory to the requirement of faith that Christ purportedly requires?
I see in your view faith means "believe something whether or not it's true." In the view of people with faith it means "believe something because it's true."
>>1005744
If you don't believe me just look at literally any academic book on the new testament.
Erhman's "How Jesus became God" is a good intro
Yale's videos are also nice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWj6j2Dswc&list=PL462B0F2345C29AFA&index=19
Here's another fun part. Paul didn't think Jesus was God, he thought he was some sort of divine being such as an angel. Jesus doesn't actually become God till around the end of the 1st century. Jesus's originally followers just throught he was a prophet. The divine status of Jesus is something people kept making bigger and bigger until he eventually became God himself.
>>1005775
>In the view of people with faith it means "believe something because it's true."
And their way of verifying that it's true is?
Because anyone can just assume truth.
>>1005776
>Paul didn't think Jesus was God
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
- 1 Cor 12:3
>Jesus is the Lord
>the Lord
>Lord
>>1005791
>And their way of verifying that it's true is?
They don't usually. They don't need to. This is line of reasoning comes from atheists waving off two thousand years of accounts, chronicles and apologetics and saying "show proofs". I can't prove half the people I know personally exist, it's fool's errand.
>>1005801
>atheists waving off two thousand years of accounts, chronicles and apologetics and saying "show proofs"
depends on who you have in mind. there are plenty of legitimate reasons to reject some of these accounts as evidence but there are some shitty pseudointellectuals out there
>>1005840
>there are plenty of legitimate reasons to reject some of these accounts as evidence
For the most part they'll reject anything that's trying to tell you about Jesus because it has the agenda of trying to tell you about Jesus, so it can't be an unbiased account. If the gospel and acts were true word for word there still isn't much reason any of the classical contemporary historians would have take note of events in a small religious circle on the periphery of the empire. Even then Josephus and Tacitus seem to mention him, and these get waved off as "that could be any Jesus!" and "Chrestus could be anybody!", which could be used to reject any other account. There's no way to answer this to the satisfaction of anyone prepared to reject absolutely everything out of hand in the first place.
>>1005853
>Even then Josephus and Tacitus
except that Josephus's mentions of Jesus are definitely interpolations on some level. Josephus wouldn't say "he was the messiah". Josephus wasn't christian
>>1005858
Not all. The one where Josephus proclaims him the messiah is considered altered in some way. There's another where it says "who is called the christ" which doesn't read like a statement of faith.
>>1005853
>Gospels and acts true word for word
Are you serious? The Gospels contradict each other on details as basic as what day Jesus was crucified on, consistently misquote older scripture they supposedly draw upon, and Acts claims that the "Pharisee" Saul/Paul goes to the Sadducee High Priest, whose authority he shouldn't acknowledge, for permission to go arrest people in Syria, way outside his (Roman granted, not religiously granted) authority.
There's a reason Early Christian religious documents are taken with a large grain of salt in academic circles, and it has nothing to do with desperate atheist bogeymen.
>>1005865
I consider that one to be at least somewhat suspect too though. it uses a similar wording used in the gospels. Josephus hasn't explained what "christ" is to his roman audience. the fact that there's another yeshua in the passage makes me think that the original passage had James as the brother of that Yeshua
>>1005870
>if, were
Stopped reading when you edited the quote to have something to argue about.
>>1005880
He says while starting off with the premise that the rejection of documents mentioning Jesus are unreliable due to agenda instead of the more basic "having no fucking clue what they're talking about".
>. Even then Josephus and Tacitus seem to mention him, and these get waved off as "that could be any Jesus!" and "Chrestus could be anybody!", which could be used to reject any other account. There's no way to answer this to the satisfaction of anyone prepared to reject absolutely everything out of hand in the first place.
Except the Josephus one is widely understood to be a later interpolation, and Tacitus quite clearly says that he's talking about the beliefs of Christians because of how they got blamed for a fire in Rome.
> There's no way to answer this to the satisfaction of anyone prepared to reject absolutely everything out of hand in the first place.
And when people actually read the sources and reject it based on rather simple logic and source comparison?
>>1005801
> I can't prove half the people I know personally exist, it's fool's errand.
You can certainly go take a photo of them and show it to me, that'd be enough.
> This is line of reasoning comes from atheists waving off two thousand years of accounts, chronicles and apologetics and saying "show proofs".
This line of reasoning is actually the first application of critical thought to things that were credulously accepted for no reason for thousands of years. Looks like they don't stand up.
>>1005872
>it uses a similar wording used in the gospels.
Is that so unusual, he's a late first century Jew writing in greek.
>Josephus hasn't explained what "christ" is to his roman audience.
There's no other passage in antiquities that discusses messianism? Even if not, it's straight greek for anointed, and doesn't necessarily have to if the sect is known and growing. He's not discussing Jesus at length here so he just points out "This guy, who was the brother of this other guy you might have heard of" and moves on.
>the fact that there's another yeshua in the passage makes me think that the original passage had James as the brother of that Yeshua
Again, we can set aside any possible piece of evidence that way. If true it still can't be proven to the satisfaction of a nitpicker.
>>1005895
>He says while starting off with the premise that the rejection of documents mentioning Jesus are unreliable due to agenda instead of the more basic "having no fucking clue what they're talking about".
Yes, I started with a different premise than the one you wanted me to use.
>Except the Josephus one is widely understood to be a later interpolation
Read the replies between me and the reasonable person.
> Tacitus quite clearly says that he's talking about the beliefs of Christians because of how they got blamed for a fire in Rome.
Yes, he does.
>and reject it based on rather simple logic and source comparison?
Source comparison has led to multiple contradictory conclusions on this subject, from mythological characters to contemporary political figures. If someone's tells your life story and inserts an anecdote that actually happened to Lincoln, does that mean you don't exist? Logic would say so, apparently.
>>1005897
>You can certainly go take a photo of them and show it to me, that'd be enough.
Maybe, although photos can be faked, and I can lie about who it is. At some point you make a reasoned conclusion that this is as certain as it can possibly get in this context and take the rest on the word of others and assumptions about the way the world works. I can be about as sure of Jesus as I am of Zoroaster.
>the first application of critical thought to things that were credulously accepted for no reason for thousands of years
No, it's a fringe theory with little academic basis but broad popular base. It's basically the atheist's Global Warming Conspiracy and Bush did 9/11.
>>1005927
>Maybe, although photos can be faked, and I can lie about who it is.
Absolute certainty is a complete red herring. I'm not in search for it. One can be reasonably sure.
>No, it's a fringe theory with little academic basis but broad popular base
Good thing you're dismantling it on the basis of its arguments, and not argument from popularity.
Basically, if Jesus doesn't exist, it throws doubt on everything else in the bible.
Your beliefs may or may not be able to accomodate that doubt, depending on literally you choose to interpret it.
>>1005144
>some interesting conclusions
Such as ...?
>>1005935
>Absolute certainty is a complete red herring. I'm not in search for it.
I agree, but that's what this "debate" or "argument" boils down to. It will always be possible to set a standard of proof higher than what can be achieved here.
>Good thing you're dismantling it on the basis of its arguments, and not argument from popularity.
I could of course just argue in the first place from how broadly accepted and rarely rejected the historicity of Jesus is, and it could just be rejected as a bandwagon and appeal to authority argument, and I could call the opposing view an argument from science, and we can both hang ourselves when someone mentions the fallacy fallacy. 4chan was never good.
Jesus likely lived, given the historical evidence. Asking why Christians care is a troll question, even while they could embrace Kierkegaard, and take a leap of faith. They don't have to, though, when it comes to this, given that a historical Jesus is the most likely explanation for accounts of him. The devil is in the details, though, and we can question how accurate the gospels are.
>>1005914
>Yes, I started with a different premise than the one you wanted me to use.
And a premise that has any grounding in external reality. The New Testament as a body contains an enormous corpus of historical, geographical, cultural, and theological* errors in it. This is well known to every secular study of early Christian writings.
Putting weight in documents that have been shown to get other basic facts wrong, like where things were, and which locals had which titles, stuff that would be known to most people in the time and place of its supposed composition, is extremely questionable.
>Read the replies between me and the reasonable person.
Yes, they are profoundly unpersuasive, given that they don't address the lack of inclusion in the Jewish Wars, where he deals with local religious proliferations at much greater details, they don't touch upon the total turnaround of his treatment of Annaeus, or the sudden alterations in the sort of Greek he uses, like how "poietes" is suddenly a doer of good deeds rather than a poet the way he uses the term everywhere else in his writing.
>Yes, he does.
Well then, now you know why he's talking about them.
> If someone's tells your life story and inserts an anecdote that actually happened to Lincoln, does that mean you don't exist? Logic would say so, apparently.
If someone claims that they're telling my life story and include an anecdote about Lincoln, and while writing this book completely garble the dimensions of Long Island, quote some of JRR Tolkien's writing and says that's stuff I came up with, and talk about how I was lawfully arrested by Bernie Sanders supporters, I would have grave doubts about the authenticity of such a work, and if such work is the only evidence that post-nuclear apocalypse scholars are using to reconstruct my existence, I would forgive them some doubts.
*Theological errors being defined as concerning the state of older Jewish theology, not statements about new Christian theology.
>>1005045
funny thing is that the "historical" Jesus that most historians agree on is a far cry from being the Jesus we all know. pretty much the only thing they agree on is he existed and he was crucified. they all discount different parts of his story and message in the gospels so that they all basically cancel each other out. there's no standard for what is genuine in the gospels because when it's filled with so much rubbish (don't get me started on psalm 22 meme) it's hard to see what isn't. the "historical" Jesus is a mere needle in the hay stack, if there even is one
>>1005959
>Putting weight in documents
I offered a hypothetical, I wasn't arguing from the documents. That's why I said "if, were" and didn't read. I'm doing that again because you still haven't gotten it.
Sure does look like a lot of words you wrote there though. I hope you enjoyed yourself.
>>1005954
>I agree, but that's what this "debate" or "argument" boils down to. It will always be possible to set a standard of proof higher than what can be achieved here.
The issue is whether the standard is reasonable.
>I could of course just argue in the first place from how broadly accepted and rarely rejected the historicity of Jesus is,
Which would be completely meaningless given that was likely accepted from mere fiat, and is falling apart with any inquiry. As there is historical precedent for.
>>1005979
wew lad, nice arguments
>>1005954
>I agree, but that's what this "debate" or "argument" boils down to. It will always be possible to set a standard of proof higher than what can be achieved here.
Do you think the standard of proof being "contemporary accounts and not MINIMUM 50 years post factum recollections by people who never met him" to be nitpicky?
>>1005979
>Backtracking this hard.
>>1005775
>I see in your view faith means "believe something whether or not it's true." In the view of people with faith it means "believe something because it's true."
>>1005801
>This is line of reasoning comes from atheists waving off two thousand years of accounts, chronicles and apologetics and saying "show proofs"
>>1005853
>For the most part they'll reject anything that's trying to tell you about Jesus because it has the agenda of trying to tell you about Jesus, so it can't be an unbiased account.
From the get-go your argument has been that Jesus is historically real, there is objective evidence to believe so, and that the voices to the contrary have been from sub-par academics and internet atheists trying to cause trouble rather than out of serious understanding of the material.
You're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
