I used to think that after I left Mormonism, I would still have Jesus to cling to. Now it seems like that is all just nonsense like all other religion.

Incredible Edible Jesus

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16087&page=327

The existence of Christ has been proven times and times by non-religious, historical sources. Even though, I know the Mo is a huge fraud, I have no doubts that Jesus existed.

The existence of Christ has not been proven by historical sources, and if it had been, you would give the sources instead of your testimony. You may believe in Jesus, but that's your faith, not fact. I don't have a problem with your belief, but you can't truthfully proclaim it as fact. I don't think you figured out that Mormonism is a fraud through a rational, logical process, or else you would be able to apply the same thinking to other areas.

99.99% of scholars believe Jesus did exist as a human being and they feel there is enough evidence Many of them are agnostic/atheist.

I don't care if they are atheist or how good of scholars they are, the only proof that counts is the actual evidence. Proof would be something like a receipt saying "Jesus son of Joseph bought this today". In the absence of such proof, Jesus may well have existed, but it is hardly an absolute fact. Somehow I doubt your 99.99% figure as well - has anyone actually polled 10,000 biblical scholars and found that 9,999 believe that Jesus existed and 1 does not? Or did you just make that number up? And what evidence is the scholars' belief actually based on?

You can read Ehrman's book. He does not say that it is absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he believes the evidence is there that shows a very, very high probability that Jesus existed. It took him several hundred pages to explain it but in short, he names sources in and out of the Bible, refutes claims made by many of the mythicists, and explains how historians make such determinations about ancient figures. He names all the historians who actually believe Jesus was a myth. There are exactly 3 of them and one of them does not have a graduate degree. I have read the percentage of scholars in many othersources so, no, I didn't make it up. I would suggest you read the book.

I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between a "very, very strong probability" and a proven fact.

And I never said otherwise.A strong probability in this case is that he almost certainly existed.

If there are 3 scholars who disagree, you would need to have 29,997 biblical scholars who agree that Jesus was a historical figure. When and where are the results of that survey published?

Read the book.

I'll be disappointed if I read the whole book just to find that only 98% of biblical scholars believe that Jesus existed as a human being.

Agreed. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and top Biblical scholar, just published a book on the subject."Did Jesus Exist?" The people who claim otherwise with 2 exceptions are not historians or Biblical scholars and many of them cannot even get basic facts straight.Believing that a human Jesus lived does not mean they accept his divinity, miracles or resurrection. That is an important distinction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2012 08:37AM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The people who claim otherwise with
> 2 exceptions are not historians or Biblical
> scholars and many of them cannot even get basic
> facts straight.

This implies that there are 2 historians/Biblical scholars, who can get basic facts straight, who disagree with the claim that Jesus existed. Which implies that the question is still open for debate. Jesus may well have existed as a human being, but it hasn't been absolutely proven one way or the other. Personally, I don't even care if he existed or not, but I get tired of people asserting their beliefs as facts.

sexismyreligion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bona dea Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The people who claim otherwise with
> > 2 exceptions are not historians or Biblical
> > scholars and many of them cannot even get basic
> > facts straight.
>
> This implies that there are 2 historians/Biblical
> scholars, who can get basic facts straight, who
> disagree with the claim that Jesus existed. Which
> implies that the question is still open for
> debate. Jesus may well have existed as a human
> being, but it hasn't been absolutely proven one
> way or the other. Personally, I don't even care if
> he existed or not, but I get tired of people
> asserting their beliefs as facts.

When the vast majority of experts in the field reach a consensus the debate is pretty much over. That is the way it is in all fields. History is my field and there is no real debate on the issue-just a couple of PHDs and one guy with a BA who think otherwise.Everyone else agrees.

Once the authorities have reached a consensus, there's no point in anyone looking at the evidence for themselves. The thinking has been done.
It's all about the majority opinion instead of fact. This methodology may work for biblical scholars, but it's way out of line with the principles of real science. I don't care at all about the final conclusion, I care about whether the method of reaching the conclusion is valid. Otherwise, all the degrees in the world don't mean anything.
What if someone discovered new evidence? Would you still stick to the consensus of the authorities?

"The Christ" is the Messiah, which is a supernatural being, in the same sense that Apollo or Osiris were supernatural. There is nothing to PROVE, in the historical or scientific sense, the existence of supernatural things. That's just the realm of belief and individual, unverifiable experience.

On the other hand, "Jesus" is a person who may have existed as a preacher. And whether the Jesus that existed was anything like the character described in the New Testament is still not a settled issue. And no one can say a Jesus was the Son of God or a manifestation of God until it is proved God exists.

Gnostism is interesting read about jesus surviving the cross.
Its either true or not just like mormonism is either true of false proberbly false, but jesus proberbly existed but did he resurrect that is the question?

Larry..

That is a rather gruesome proclivity, dontcha think? Any way you look at it, the guy's been dead a long time...

I was about the same as Mary Ann. I thought that I’d just find a new place to get some Jesus talk on Sundays.

But then I started thinking about how the only reason that people believe there is a Jesus, is because the Bible says so. Joseph Smith wrote a book, and we all believed what was written, even if it didn’t seem logical. People write the Bible, and we’d have to believe even if it seems crazy illogical. Seemed that they had about the same reason to believe in them.

After deciding that I couldn’t believe in Jesus just because someone wrote it in a book, then what logically makes sense? It seems that nothing makes logical sense when it comes to Jesus.

If God and he were not as constrained like the rest of us, why did they pick such a dumb way to introduce him to all of humanity? God could have used any past technology, or future technology. Why did he rely on some writings on skins or parchments etc.? Why didn’t he use DVD’s, or something even better. Why didn’t he come up with something more convincing than a book?

Believers would tell you that he did it that way on purpose in order to… But that argument only supports what little evidence supposedly exists. If some overwhelmingly better evidence was produced, they’d all change their minds on why it is the way it is all over again.

Truth is, it’s all based on some quite honestly crazy writing in an old book. Just like the Book of Mormon.

I don’t know if there is a God or a Jesus. If there is, I’ll be surprised. If there is, they came up with a really dumb plan to introduce the savior of the world to future generations. Not such an impressive God in that regard.

Bart Ehrman's controversial new book seems to have brought out a lot of people on both sides who think they know for sure, but I don't think there's enough evidence to know if there was a historical Jesus or not. It seems very much a sacred cow among many theologians that is not to be questioned. Whatever. It doesn't affect me at all either way.

Lately, I've been thinking about the things that Jesus supposedly taught. The idea of the Golden Rule, for example. I think that's a good philosophy to live by. I enjoy Christian holidays. I think there has been a lot of very nice music, art and architecture devoted to Christianity. I'm an atheist at heart, but I don't see the harm in celebrating the myth with other Christians so long as it doesn't start to create demands on my life.

Not this again, though I admit to starting a good many of these fights myself.

Bart Erhman a biblical historian in his book about "Historical Jesus" says the best evidence for Jesus is the earliest writings about Jesus.

Therefore the best evidence for a historical Jesus are

First the writtings of
1. Paul
2. Q which Matthew and Luke use
3.Mark
4.Matthew and Luke

So there you go. That is the best evidence for a "Historical Jesus" There is exactly ZERO contemporary writings of Jesus.

Go here to listen to Erhman say this for himself

http://archive.org/details/HistoricalJesus

Go to 8. Historical Criteria

If the New Testament is the best evidence of a historical Jesus then that is not good enough for me and many other rationalist.

Oh, please, he named a number of pagan and Jewish writers as well and had plenty of other points. Read the book.

Of Jesus.

None, zip, nothing.

You reread the book.

Listen to him say it for himself in the 30 minute audio clip I posted.

If you have issue with it take it up with him.

Erhman is the one who says the best evidence is the New Testament and it is the earliest and best evidence of Jesus.

But go ahead and post this evidence of Pagan and Jewish writers that predate Paul, Q, Mark, Matthew and Luke.

And please post anything that speak of Jesus that is contemporary from his lifetime.

Go ahead..... Do it

I've seen very interesting circumstantial evidence which goes either way. For myself, I tend to believe that he didn't exist, although there are some candidates which might fit the bill. They certainly weren't named Jesus.

I tend to believe that he is a compilation of local heroes from the time and area legends. It took a few hundred years for him to morph into what we have today.

Mary Ann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used to think that after I left Mormonism, I
> would still have Jesus to cling to. Now it seems
> like that is all just nonsense like all other
> religion.


Even if Jesus existed, would that atonement/blood sacrifice plan really make sense for a supreme intelligent being to do? Be glad, you can now leave behind the craziness of it all.


> Incredible Edible Jesus

Actually, as Puddle of Mudd sings:

baby Jesus never sleeps
when you're being a sinner
yeah he'll eat you for dinner

Devotion comes from the word "Devotio"

A Roman ritual where you would sacrifice yourself to the Gods for to benefit others.

Look up "Devotio" and see how this Roman practice my have been the origin of the atonement.

I think there is evidence he existed, but I simply don't know if I trust it. This was so long ago and so many people had a vested interest in presenting this person to the world that I could easily put the "evidence" into the fabricated category.

On a gut level, I think someone like him existed, taught some good things, and then died.

The end.

If you find yourself troubled that you can no longer cling to someone who never existed, then I would look into why you felt you needed to cling to him in the first place.

If Jesus existed, and I do believe he was a comic book hero, why no hard evidence of his existance? Think about it....Centuries before his "arrival" they were predicting him coming. Why no hard evidence?