Idle thoughts on the proof of an historical Jesus

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Diddymus: Thomas, I think the reason that Jesus faces so much more scrutiny is due to the allegations that are associated with him. For instance the belief that he is God, Father of Creation and Judge of mankind. Those that believe will go to heaven, those that don't will go to hell. The references for these beliefs in the Bible are very scarce and open for interpretation.

Diddymus Jesus is not God to most Christians he is the Son of God, I do not recall Jesus saying he was God in any writings? still I am not a strong Biblical student, however if people think Christians think Jesus is God they are misguided!
Izzy

At another website (Christian only) I innocently started a discussion: "Let's talk about the Trinity." Talk about open a can of worms. It appears that the doctrine of the Trinity and especially the nature of Jesus is perhaps the most controversial of all Christian doctrines.

I can assure you that there are a great number of references in the Bible as to the nature of Jesus, and the predominant viewpoint in the discussion (which is probably still raging) is that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

However many insist -- with Scriptural support -- that Jesus was God incarnate, and is in fact God Himself.

Unfortunately because of the nature of that website I cannot provide a link to the discussion. However when I last checked there were more than 150 posts as well as two spin-off discussions.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Diddymus: Thomas, I think the reason that Jesus faces so much more scrutiny is due to the allegations that are associated with him. For instance the belief that he is God, Father of Creation and Judge of mankind. Those that believe will go to heaven, those that don't will go to hell. The references for these beliefs in the Bible are very scarce and open for interpretation.

Diddymus Jesus is not God to most Christians he is the Son of God, I do not recall Jesus saying he was Godstill I am not a strong Biblical student, however if people think Christians think Jesus is God they are misguided! in any writings? Izzy

Then perhaps you should start cracking the book, and studying up. To most Christians Jesus is God, Son of God, Savior, Judge. And the Bible is pretty specific about it, both in the OT and the NT.

John 1: is a good start.

v/r

Joshua

[cyberpi]

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus is/was?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians'. If there were only 1 million Christians does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by intrepidlover

At another website (Christian only) I innocently started a discussion: "Let's talk about the Trinity." Talk about open a can of worms. It appears that the doctrine of the Trinity and especially the nature of Jesus is perhaps the most controversial of all Christian doctrines.

I can assure you that there are a great number of references in the Bible as to the nature of Jesus, and the predominant viewpoint in the discussion (which is probably still raging) is that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

However many insist -- with Scriptural support -- that Jesus was God incarnate, and is in fact God Himself.

Unfortunately because of the nature of that website I cannot provide a link to the discussion. However when I last checked there were more than 150 posts as well as two spin-off discussions.

Actually, very few denominations have problems with the Trinity, and those that do, number in less than 200 million people, as opposed to the 2.3 billion that call themselves Christian.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus is/was?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians'. If there were only 1 million Christians does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

Not my problem or opinion. Those are the statistics, based on those who identify by denomination, who's doctrine acknowledges or does not acknowledge the Trinity.

To state Jesus was, is a past tense indicative (was, but is no more). To state that Jesus "is" is present participle (current). That alone should give one an idea of what a "Christian" thinks of Jesus...

[cyberpi]

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus was too, and even is today without the flesh?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians' of any denomination. If there were only 1 million Christians of a denomination, does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus was too, and even is today without the flesh?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians' of any denomination. If there were only 1 million Christians of a denomination, does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

as well you should be...and they should be leary of you...who apparently would like nothing better than to place doubt in the minds of others.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

as well you should be...and they should be leary of you...who apparently would like nothing better than to place doubt in the minds of others.

Q, how are you able to see my motivations, or what is in the minds of others?

Am I equally able to see and speak for your motivations, what is in your mind, and for what you would like nothing better to do? Let me know if I ever try to, or if I ever have... because I know that I can't.

[wil]

I think it is all questioned. Whether Buddha existed is definitely questioned as I understand it. Mohamed, may or not be questioned as to his existence, but as to his motives and his life, morals...they've been attacked quite readily.

At to whether Moses, Abraham existed I know there are have been questions. As to whether the stories attributed to them are allegory, mythology or parables...the discussions are rampant. Whether we are talking Judaism, Christianity or Islam, as you travel from orthordoxy through the various sects and denominations of thought you'll get wide accounts.

I would contend that the majority don't think that Moses came down off the mountain with 5 books in hand any longer.

Jesus existence while widely held is potentially circumspect. As I understand it there is only one reference of his existence outside the bible and its veracity is so questionable that it can't count. So this leaves us with very few pages of stories, accounts that are in contradiction amongst the cannonized stories.

In today's world we'd say follow the money, and while we chant and dance and point fingers at the TVangelist and his wealth, or the Guru and his rollses...if we were to look at the multitrillion dollar empire that has been created in the name of Christ...the land holdings alone of prime downtown realestate owned by churches in just about every major city in the world...

Something is definitely amiss... I hesitate to think this is what Jesus thought would be going on 2000 years later....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Q, how are you able to see my motivations, or what is in the minds of others?

Am I equally able to see and speak for your motivations, what is in your mind, and for what you would like nothing better to do? Let me know if I ever try to, or if I ever have... because I know that I can't.

By reading your writings, a picture is painted, by you, for anyone to see. Same goes with the rest of us. Because of the partial anonimity we have in this kind of medium, we tend to be a bit less inhibited in saying what we think and believe or don't.

For my part, I speak my mind, and my motivations are quite transparent. My veiws are also well established I should think. If you are stating you are not known by your writings then, how can what is read be believed as authentic?

It is called inherent trust.

v/r

Joshua

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

By reading your writings, a picture is painted, by you, for anyone to see. Same goes with the rest of us. Because of the partial anonimity we have in this kind of medium, we tend to be a bit less inhibited in saying what we think and believe or don't.

For my part, I speak my mind, and my motivations are quite transparent. My veiws are also well established I should think. If you are stating you are not known by your writings then, how can what is read be believed as authentic?

It is called inherent trust.

v/r

Joshua

And so my point was... you've got one picture or painting, one reader from one writer, and a partial one at that. I submit again that if there were 1,000,000 alledged Christians in a single denomination, that you have seen less than 100 of the writers.. or painters. You have painted people by a denomination, but the people as individual souls have not painted themselves for you.

If my motivation were to place doubt, then it would be to place doubt that Jesus was NOT supernatural, to place doubt that people (souls) are NOT supernatural, and to place doubt that God and heaven is NOT here watching us today like fish in a pond... and that doubt would only be for those who believe NOT.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

And so my point was... you've got one picture or painting, one reader from one writer, and a partial one at that. I submit again that if there were 1,000,000 alledged Christians in a single denomination, that you have seen less than 100 of the writers.. or painters. You have painted people by a denomination, but the people as individual souls have not painted themselves for you.

If my motivation were to place doubt, then it would be to place doubt that Jesus was NOT supernatural, to place doubt that people (souls) are NOT supernatural, and to place doubt that God and heaven is NOT here watching us today like fish in a pond... and that doubt would only be for those who believe NOT.

It's called voting with their feet. By proxy those that continue to go to the churches of their choice, give consent to the way things are within that church.

If they do not give consent, then you have the equivelent of the Episcopal church splitting into two today (very public).

I do not see an "exodus" of Christians leaving their churches to form new versions of the faith that follow your way of thinking, hence my orginal point stands "we" believe, or "we" outnumber you.

Until such time...then...

v/r

Joshua

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It's called voting with their feet. By proxy those that continue to go to the churches of their choice, give consent to the way things are within that church.

If they do not give consent, then you have the equivelent of the Episcopal church splitting into two today (very public).

I do not see an "exodus" of Christians leaving their churches to form new versions of the faith that follow your way of thinking, hence my orginal point stands "we" believe, or "we" outnumber you.

Until such time...then...

v/r

Joshua

So by walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sin? Where have I seen that belief before? Maybe someone should seek a vote in each forum here to see if that is what people believe.

What is it about my thinking that you've judged as a non-Christian way of thinking?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So by walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sin? Where have I seen that belief before? Maybe someone should seek a vote in each forum here to see if that is what people believe.

What is it about my thinking that you've judged as a non-Christian way of thinking?

By walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sinners, and showing them how to dump the baggage of sin.

As far as judging you based on your thinking, I do not know if you are a Christian or a non-Christian...

v/r

Joshua

[Seeker_of_truth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Here and across similar forums often rages the debate regarding the historicity of Jesus, presented invariably as the Incarnate Son of God; a prophet; a messianic Jew; an apocalyptic messenger; a noble teacher; a lunatic; a trouble maker; a myth; an invention; a semi-historical personage, either an amalgam of or confusion of other, similarly suspect, characters.

Scripture as a 'reference source' likewise comes under continual examination, with the determinations that it is, in part or entirely, fabricated, and again, having been written sometime between 0-200 years after the event, it should be equally suspect.

+++

According to historians generally, there is more 'evidence' (circumstantial or otherwise) pointing to the existence of Jesus as Christianity regards Him, than there is for the existence of either Buddha or Mohammed.

The question arises, do the Buddhists contend with arguments that Buddha either never existed, or if he did his teachings is a complete fabrication? The earliest Buddhist scriptures date from at least 400 years after the death of their founder.

And likewise regarding Islam and the existence of Mohammed and the textual veracity of the Koran.

Then, of course, the Vedic texts could of course be the product of metaphysical insight, or mental disorder?

I wonder, can any Buddhists, Moslems or followers of Oriental traditions generally shed any light on this? Do all religions face this order of inquiry?

Or is it more to do with the general air of popular anti-establishmentism, skepticism and nihilism overtaking Western intellectualism?

Just a thought...

Thomas

I don't know about Buddha, but are you saying that (Historical evidence of Jesus)>(Historical evidence of Mohammad)?
If so than something is wrong.