K
Kaninchen
Guest
No, it’s about a text and characters in a text.
Only if one takes the text to be scripture/reportage.
No, we can also deduce that he was a character in a story.
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
Even secular scholars agree that the evidence that a Jewish preacher named Jesus of Nazareth did exist is about as good as the circumstances could have allowed. Non-Christian writers mention him as a fact of history in materials written within a few decades of his death–that is, within the lifetime of people who could have said that no such person ever preached as described by those who were putting him forward as worthy of worship. He was denounced as illegitimate, he was dismissed as a scoundrel, his followers were considered pig-headed lunatics, but doubt about his existence seemed not to have been among the detraction points used against Christianity. (Christian writings attesting to his existence date to earlier than that, of course, but these were not dismissed as utter fabrications about an imaginary person by contemporaries who were adversarial towards the new religion.)
Those who doubt his existence seem to be atheists of rather recent vintage.
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Yes, it was a bit of a schoolgirl error, wasn’t it?
That there was a real peripatetic rabbi somewhere behind the character of ‘Jesus’ is something I’ve said many times in the past 12 years here so my short statement was, well, too short and a hostage to rhetorical fortune.
As to New Testament ‘Jesus’ and, hence, the rest of your reply, it’s a character in a story.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
In your opinion, was the Biblical Moses a character in a non-historical account?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Ah but that’s not the core problem, the question is whether one can ‘prove’ these things or not.
Was ‘biblical Moses’ a character in a non-historical account? Well, on the one hand, meanwhile on the other hand, while on quite another hand (everything in Judaism is an argument) . . . partly.
P
PetraG
Guest
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt. 7:6)
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Gosh, I’ve been called a “pig”, I’m terribly upset, it’s totally non-Kosher.
P
PetraG
Guest
It’s a metaphor meaning that it is a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn’t want to hear a bit of what you’re saying. It is pretty good advice.
The more modern version is this: Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. You’ll just frustrate yourself and annoy the pig.
Another I like is: A honorary degree is like the tail of a pig. It looks good, but it doesn’t add any weight to the pig.
Pigs are too much maligned. It’s not kosher to eat people, either, after all, or horses or dogs or cats…
Last edited:
J
JanetF
Guest
People died horrific deaths in the name of Christianity and didn’t go back on their version of events. No one does that for a lie, so I’m in.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m quite aware of that, my astonishment was tongue-in-cheek.
P
PetraG
Guest
I’m relieved, because I didn’t mean to offend you! Sometimes, it is the most peaceful to just break off a line of discussion that is destined to go nowhere. I can see how you’d take it otherwise, though!!
(I have that problem here…)
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, that’s not as clear an issue as is often suggested - the chain of ‘evidence’ about the early martyrs (including Apostles/Disciples) suggests legend rather than proof. It’s an interesting study, by the way, one that one of CAF’s most ‘dynamic’ apologists challenged me to once - he hadn’t been aware of the ‘chain’ either.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
CAF can be a minefield! It’s often difficult as an outsider because what starts off as what seems just an interesting topic for discussion can become terribly hurtful to some believers.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
People have died horrific deaths in the name of Islam too, and Buddhism, not to mention Judaism. Are you “in” all of them?
J
JanetF
Guest
Not the same thing at all. The apostles actually lived with Jesus for 3 years, witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection. They died horrific deaths because of their beliefs. Anyone else would have recanted at the opportunity to save themselves, if what they had been teaching were not true.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
That’s the problem, the evidence that they did so is tenuous.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
My mistake. I didn’t realise that by “people”, you meant “the apostles” only. Still, I’m not sure you strengthen your case thereby. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Are you suggesting that dying for a faith you haven’t witnessed the origin of is easier than dying for one you have? I’m a bit confused here.
E
Elf01
Guest
No. She’s responding to the people have died for other religions objection.
That is valid. The apostles being willing to die for their beliefs is evidence that they believed it, not evidence that what they believed is true.
The evidence that it is true is that, if they had stolen the body of Jesus, they would know what they were preaching was not true and would not be willing to die for it.
The other possible explanations are the apostles did not die or a mass hallucination of some kind.
Janet feel free to corect me if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Last edited:
- Status