|
Post by nathan on Mar 15, 2020 15:07:11 GMT -5
If that is true about Bart, that he believes in Jesus was a historical figure, But didn't many of you atheists on TMB said in the past believe Jesus is a Myth and we went round and round about it for years. So, you atheists on TMB believe Jesus is a historical figure now! Did many of you atheist on TMB have changed your minds that Jesus is a historical figure, now?
I have read books that lean in that direction, but I do believe he was historical. I can only speak for myself of course. I think who he became in the minds of Christians definitely changed over time, but I do believe that he was a historical flesh and blood person. Thanks, for your thought and belief.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Mar 15, 2020 16:06:04 GMT -5
Was your Gram professing? That is a really weird way to comfort a crying child. Yes, she professed in the 2x2s. Where did she get the idea that whipping a crying child was the right course of action to take?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2020 16:16:51 GMT -5
It’s always been obvious that the odd chap Review and Nathan represent ‘the slander box’ Christians on here. One can only go by what they read.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 17:52:00 GMT -5
Nathan think about it. If Bart does believe Jesus is a myth why was he debating a guy that does believe this? He does not believe Jesus was a Myth. He does believe Jesus was a historical figure and behind the Christian religion. End of story. If that is true about Bart, that he believes in Jesus was a historical figure, But didn't many of you atheists on TMB said in the past believe Jesus is a Myth and we went round and round about it for years. So, you atheists on TMB believe Jesus is a historical figure now! Did many of you atheist on TMB have changed your minds that Jesus is a historical figure, now?
During my entire time on TMB, I have never expressed that I do not believe in historical Jesus..
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 17:56:54 GMT -5
Yes, she professed in the 2x2s. Where did she get the idea that whipping a crying child was the right course of action to take? I have no idea. I’m still wondering at the inequality of the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 18:03:23 GMT -5
There are books out there supporting the mythicist position they may have read. I mentioned some of the authors in a previous post. I haven’t read any of them personally. I do not believe in the Christian god but I do not hold the mythicist position. I believe Jesus was a real historical figure or an amalgamation of historical figures. This seems to be the overall consensus among scholars who do textual criticism of the Bible. I do too. But I also think that who Jesus was changed in the minds of early Christians and evolved to the Christos that we see today. Different groups viewed him differently. This is obvious by the masses of documents claiming what other groups believed and how what they believed was different and therefore heretical. So it's not clear cut at all who he was, but I think he did exist. It seems to me that this is all intended by God/Jesus. Because Jesus poses the question would he find faith on the earth when he returned. He also told Doubting Thomas after Thomas literally handled his body, that Thomas seeing was believing but how blessed would be those that believed without seeing. That seems to me that the whole premise of Christianity IS faith in Jesus as our Saviour is what counts. Hebrews 11 really gets into how important faith is. Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 18:11:22 GMT -5
I do too. But I also think that who Jesus was changed in the minds of early Christians and evolved to the Christos that we see today. Different groups viewed him differently. This is obvious by the masses of documents claiming what other groups believed and how what they believed was different and therefore heretical. So it's not clear cut at all who he was, but I think he did exist. It seems to me that this is all intended by God/Jesus. Because Jesus poses the question would he find faith on the earth when he returned. He also told Doubting Thomas after Thomas literally handled his body, that Thomas seeing was believing but how blessed would be those that believed without seeing. That seems to me that the whole premise of Christianity IS faith in Jesus as our Saviour is what counts. Hebrews 11 really gets into how important faith is. Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness. Given what we can actually know about Jesus and his life from a historical perspective today, I don’t think a faith position is that easy..
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 18:18:28 GMT -5
It seems to me that this is all intended by God/Jesus. Because Jesus poses the question would he find faith on the earth when he returned. He also told Doubting Thomas after Thomas literally handled his body, that Thomas seeing was believing but how blessed would be those that believed without seeing. That seems to me that the whole premise of Christianity IS faith in Jesus as our Saviour is what counts. Hebrews 11 really gets into how important faith is. Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness. Given what we can actually know about Jesus and his life from a historical perspective today, I don’t think a faith position is that easy.. I think you’re right. However that is still the point. It couldn’t have been easy for Abraham at 100 years old to finally be told he’s going to sire a child. Then when asked to sacrifice that child, he had to have had an unshakable faith knowing full well that “God would provide the lamb”. That the promise Abraham would be the father of a multitude of people and God then ask for his son in sacrifice? No Abraham knew his son would be restored to him somehow. Just like Job said, “Even though he slay me, I will trust in him(God).”
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 15, 2020 18:35:40 GMT -5
If that is true about Bart, that he believes in Jesus was a historical figure, But didn't many of you atheists on TMB said in the past believe Jesus is a Myth and we went round and round about it for years. So, you atheists on TMB believe Jesus is a historical figure now! Did many of you atheist on TMB have changed your minds that Jesus is a historical figure, now?
During my entire time on TMB, I have never expressed that I do not believe in historical Jesus.. That is good to hear and know.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 15, 2020 18:50:06 GMT -5
It’s always been obvious that the odd chap Review and Nathan represent ‘the slander box’ Christians on here. One can only go by what they read. Are Review and Nathan birds of a feather?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 18:50:53 GMT -5
If that is true about Bart, that he believes in Jesus was a historical figure, But didn't many of you atheists on TMB said in the past believe Jesus is a Myth and we went round and round about it for years. So, you atheists on TMB believe Jesus is a historical figure now! Did many of you atheist on TMB have changed your minds that Jesus is a historical figure, now?
During my entire time on TMB, I have never expressed that I do not believe in historical Jesus.. Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 15, 2020 18:53:03 GMT -5
What you don't seem to get through your head is that there are atheists who actually believe there was indeed a historical Jesus. The same way that YOU believe there was a historical Muhammad. You didn't answer that question, did you? Do you believe that there was a historical Muhammad? Yes, I know there are atheists believe in historical Jesus but they don't believe Jesus is God/Divine. Did I say anywhere in my post that ALL atheists DO NOT believe in historical Jesus. It said many atheists on TMB do not believe in historical Jesus.
Yes, I believe the existence of Muhammad.No, you didn't say that. I was just reminding you that you concentrate primarily on the atheists of lowest esteem in your rating system.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Mar 15, 2020 18:58:01 GMT -5
During my entire time on TMB, I have never expressed that I do not believe in historical Jesus.. Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all? I remember having this discussion with Jason Landless. Part of the discussion was that wood was at a premium in the area where Jesus and his family lived. Wood workers carved elaborate decorations and furniture for the wealthy. Jesus family was hardly poor. As to being a historical figure. The Romans kept records. Jesus is not found in Roman records. Also, at most, Jesus was only known to approximately 2,000 in his lifetime. There were many who claimed to be the prophesied Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 18:58:31 GMT -5
Given what we can actually know about Jesus and his life from a historical perspective today, I don’t think a faith position is that easy.. I think you’re right. However that is still the point. It couldn’t have been easy for Abraham at 100 years old to finally be told he’s going to sure a child. Then when asked to sacrifice that child, he had to have had an unshakable faith knowing full well that “God would provide the lamb”. That the promise Abraham would be the father of a multitude of people and God then ask for his son in sacrifice? No Abraham knew his son would be restored to him somehow. Just like Job said, “Even though he slay me, I will trust in him(God).” That kind of faith would be impossible for me today. My brain just isn’t wired that way. It would be a constant fight against everything I have learnt over the years.
May also be a case of what presuppositions someone brings to the bible in light of Jesus to begin with. If someone was to pickup the bible already believing what other people have said about Jesus, that he is divine, the son of god, was resurrected etc, its possibly easier to have faith that these things actually happened and see it as the truth. For someone like myself who grew up in the faith, became atheist and learnt about the critical study of the bible, there are way to many questions that stand in the way of just having faith.
There are actually many scholars of the New Testament, that still have faith and are devout practicing Christians even after everything modern scholarship brings to light. I’ve heard professors say at the beginning of lectures that modern scholarship doesn’t have to lessen ones faith, that it can deepen their understanding of the bible. Is that a good thing? Can one take modern scholarship of the bible and still have faith? Absolutely, one just needs to find ways to come to terms it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2020 19:00:09 GMT -5
Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all? I remember having this discussion with Jason Landless. Part of the discussion was that wood was at a premium in the area where Jesus and his family lived. Wood workers carved elaborate decorations and furniture for the wealthy. Jesus family was hardly poor. As to being a historical figure. The Romans kept records. Jesus is not found in Roman records. Also, at most, Jesus was only known to approximately 2,000 in his lifetime. There were many who claimed to be the prophesied Jesus. try higher didn't he feed the 3,000 and the 5,000 thats at least 8,000 people who would have known of him....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 19:14:25 GMT -5
During my entire time on TMB, I have never expressed that I do not believe in historical Jesus.. Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all? Well to put another way, I have never suggested on TMB that i believe Jesus to be a myth. I believe him to a real person.
I understand what your saying though. However, if your going to believe in Jesus from a purely historical study, the way scholars study Jesus, your not going to worry about all the theological implications.. that’s not what scholars are about. They don’t go there. There is much to be learned about Jesus historically that brings to light to who he actually was while he was alive. And the real reasons he was crucified by the romans etc. Take away all the theology, and you have a real person that can and has been studied..
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 19:16:20 GMT -5
Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all? Well to put another way, I have never suggested on TMB that i believe Jesus to be a myth. I believe him to a real person.
I understand what your saying though. However, if your going to believe in Jesus from a purely historical study, the way scholars study Jesus, your not going to worry about all the theological implications.. that’s not what scholars are about. They don’t go there. There is much to be learned about Jesus historically that brings to light to who he actually was while he was alive. And the real reasons he was crucified by the romans etc. Take away all the theology, and you have a real person that can and has been studied..
I guess I’m trying to ask why would anybody want to consider studying him if not for the stories about what he did?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 19:23:36 GMT -5
I think you’re right. However that is still the point. It couldn’t have been easy for Abraham at 100 years old to finally be told he’s going to sure a child. Then when asked to sacrifice that child, he had to have had an unshakable faith knowing full well that “God would provide the lamb”. That the promise Abraham would be the father of a multitude of people and God then ask for his son in sacrifice? No Abraham knew his son would be restored to him somehow. Just like Job said, “Even though he slay me, I will trust in him(God).” That kind of faith would be impossible for me today. My brain just isn’t wired that way. It would be a constant fight against everything I have learnt over the years.
May also be a case of what presuppositions someone brings to the bible in light of Jesus to begin with. If someone was to pickup the bible already believing what other people have said about Jesus, that he is divine, the son of god, was resurrected etc, its possibly easier to have faith that these things actually happened and see it as the truth. For someone like myself who grew up in the faith, became atheist and learnt about the critical study of the bible, there are way to many questions that stand in the way of just having faith.
There are actually many scholars of the New Testament, that still have faith and are devout practicing Christians even after everything modern scholarship brings to light. I’ve heard professors say at the beginning of lectures that modern scholarship doesn’t have to lessen ones faith, that it can deepen their understanding of the bible. Is that a good thing? Can one take modern scholarship of the bible and still have faith? Absolutely, one just needs to find ways to come to terms it..
Yes, there are those who’ve questioned and learned and either gained faith, increased their faith by what they’ve learned. However the concept of true faith is really that one questions not but believes regardless. It seems especially in this day if one has a question about something, it’s too easy to find information pro and anti all over the place. And thats what is dangerous for those who have faith that questions. The faith that God gives us doesn’t come with questions. We are the ones who add the questions. So IMO, or the way I see it, is human questioning can weaken the gift from God. What good does it do to learn all the pros and cons about something if it doesn’t change it in the long run?
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 19:24:46 GMT -5
Well to put another way, I have never suggested on TMB that i believe Jesus to be a myth. I believe him to a real person.
I understand what your saying though. However, if your going to believe in Jesus from a purely historical study, the way scholars study Jesus, your not going to worry about all the theological implications.. that’s not what scholars are about. They don’t go there. There is much to be learned about Jesus historically that brings to light to who he actually was while he was alive. And the real reasons he was crucified by the romans etc. Take away all the theology, and you have a real person that can and has been studied..
I guess I’m trying to ask why would anybody want to consider studying him if not for the stories about what he did? I mean scholars certainly study the stories that surround Jesus, their just not interested in the theological aspects that surround the stories. Did Jesus followers believe he was divine after his death? Of cause they did. Do scholars believe he was divine after his death? That’s not a question that concerns a scholar..
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 15, 2020 19:31:26 GMT -5
That kind of faith would be impossible for me today. My brain just isn’t wired that way. It would be a constant fight against everything I have learnt over the years.
May also be a case of what presuppositions someone brings to the bible in light of Jesus to begin with. If someone was to pickup the bible already believing what other people have said about Jesus, that he is divine, the son of god, was resurrected etc, its possibly easier to have faith that these things actually happened and see it as the truth. For someone like myself who grew up in the faith, became atheist and learnt about the critical study of the bible, there are way to many questions that stand in the way of just having faith.
There are actually many scholars of the New Testament, that still have faith and are devout practicing Christians even after everything modern scholarship brings to light. I’ve heard professors say at the beginning of lectures that modern scholarship doesn’t have to lessen ones faith, that it can deepen their understanding of the bible. Is that a good thing? Can one take modern scholarship of the bible and still have faith? Absolutely, one just needs to find ways to come to terms it..
Yes, there are those who’ve questioned and learned and either gained faith, increased their faith by what they’ve learned. However the concept of true faith is really that one questions not but believes regardless. It seems especially in this day if one has a question about something, it’s too easy to find information pro and anti all over the place. And thats what is dangerous for those who have faith that questions. The faith that God gives us doesn’t come with questions. We are the ones who add the questions. So IMO, or the way I see it, is human questioning can weaken the gift from God. What good does it do to learn all the pros and cons about something if it doesn’t change it in the long run? I guess it all comes down to the reason one studies the bible. If ones on only reason is to gain access to heaven, then anything else doesn’t really matter. As it’s already been said on here, studying the bible in light of scholarship isn’t going to get you to heaven. It might deepen one’s understanding but not needed.
For those who don’t believe in heaven or god, studying all the pros and cons can be very rewarding..
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 19:34:08 GMT -5
Why would Jesus be a historical figure if there was no reason for him to be known? I mean after all he was born to fairly poor parents, he never accomplished anything to be noted for by way of inventions, political persuasions, or governance. His historicity is bent on the stories of unusual miracles such as healings and casting out demons, wasn’t it? The historians of that day say that his followers testified that he was not dead but alive. The tomb was empty, etc. So if we believe he was an historical figure, do we not have to believe the reason he is noted at all? I remember having this discussion with Jason Landless. Part of the discussion was that wood was at a premium in the area where Jesus and his family lived. Wood workers carved elaborate decorations and furniture for the wealthy. Jesus family was hardly poor. As to being a historical figure. The Romans kept records. Jesus is not found in Roman records. Also, at most, Jesus was only known to approximately 2,000 in his lifetime. There were many who claimed to be the prophesied Jesus. Joseph and Jesus were carpenters. Someone has already said that Jesus would have not done fancy woodwork but just basic carpentry. I had said I suspected that he did whatever woodworking that was required. Most of the Israel people in Jesus’ day would have not had money for fancy ornate things. Likely only the Romans would have need or desire for that. There is no indication that the Romans were cognizant of Jesus as anything but a Jew. So he likely did not do fancy woodworking. Not that his work that he did wouldn’t have been pretty or serviceable. According to what I’ve read, Roman records depict the crucifixion of Jesus as a Jew being crucified as an insurrectionist and thief. It seems he was given Barabbas ‘ profile. He was numbered with the criminals as prophesied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2020 19:37:15 GMT -5
It makes a pleasant change to be reading about some historical info of biblical times instead of ‘heaven and hell’ intoxication by the same posters all the time.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 19:37:29 GMT -5
I guess I’m trying to ask why would anybody want to consider studying him if not for the stories about what he did? I mean scholars certainly study the stories that surround Jesus, their just not interested in the theological aspects that surround the stories. Did Jesus followers believe he was divine after his death? Of cause they did. Do scholars believe he was divine after his death? That’s not a question that concerns a scholar.. I understand scholars disinterest in his eternal category. And his Apostles and disciples had a developing understanding of him. The most of them were uneducated men so their basic knowledge would be harder to arrive at a divinity of him then like Paul and Barnabus who was a Levite, both being quite educated in the scriptures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2020 19:42:50 GMT -5
It’s always been obvious that the odd chap Review and Nathan represent ‘the slander box’ Christians on here. One can only go by what they read. Are Review and Nathan birds of a feather? Well, ones a ‘reined in’ worker and one an Ex worker re this slander .......nice ? Not a good look for the wider group.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 15, 2020 19:46:54 GMT -5
I think you’re right. However that is still the point. It couldn’t have been easy for Abraham at 100 years old to finally be told he’s going to sure a child. Then when asked to sacrifice that child, he had to have had an unshakable faith knowing full well that “God would provide the lamb”. That the promise Abraham would be the father of a multitude of people and God then ask for his son in sacrifice? No Abraham knew his son would be restored to him somehow. Just like Job said, “Even though he slay me, I will trust in him(God).” That kind of faith would be impossible for me today. My brain just isn’t wired that way. It would be a constant fight against everything I have learnt over the years.
May also be a case of what presuppositions someone brings to the bible in light of Jesus to begin with. If someone was to pickup the bible already believing what other people have said about Jesus, that he is divine, the son of god, was resurrected etc, its possibly easier to have faith that these things actually happened and see it as the truth. For someone like myself who grew up in the faith, became atheist and learnt about the critical study of the bible, there are way to many questions that stand in the way of just having faith.
There are actually many scholars of the New Testament, that still have faith and are devout practicing Christians even after everything modern scholarship brings to light. I’ve heard professors say at the beginning of lectures that modern scholarship doesn’t have to lessen ones faith, that it can deepen their understanding of the bible. Is that a good thing? Can one take modern scholarship of the bible and still have faith? Absolutely, one just needs to find ways to come to terms it..
In case you don't realise it - Italics is harder to read than ordinary text.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 15, 2020 19:49:10 GMT -5
Yes, there are those who’ve questioned and learned and either gained faith, increased their faith by what they’ve learned. However the concept of true faith is really that one questions not but believes regardless. It seems especially in this day if one has a question about something, it’s too easy to find information pro and anti all over the place. And thats what is dangerous for those who have faith that questions. The faith that God gives us doesn’t come with questions. We are the ones who add the questions. So IMO, or the way I see it, is human questioning can weaken the gift from God. What good does it do to learn all the pros and cons about something if it doesn’t change it in the long run? I guess it all comes down to the reason one studies the bible. If ones on only reason is to gain access to heaven, then anything else doesn’t really matter. As it’s already been said on here, studying the bible in light of scholarship isn’t going to get you to heaven. It might deepen one’s understanding but not needed.
For those who don’t believe in heaven or god, studying all the pros and cons can be very rewarding..
Yes it can. Some just suck up knowledge like a sponge. It’s something we can have joy in. I remember when I got my diploma for college, it was the first time I really understood Maslow’s hierarchy theory of self-actualization. I’m not against learning as you say in a scholarly manner about Jesus. But is it for everybody to tackle such? If someone is weak in faith to start with, getting ahold of too many cons could be devastating to that faith, before said person gets around to the pros. I think that has happened more than the other way around. It’s a struggle for some to keep an open mind long enough to get through all the pros and cons before allowing the information to have some effect on one’s faith. You mentioned the scholars who’ve kept their faith anyway, I admire them because IMO, they were able to keep an open mind in their pursuit of the scholarly aspect. Very special people, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 15, 2020 20:15:23 GMT -5
Well to put another way, I have never suggested on TMB that i believe Jesus to be a myth. I believe him to a real person.
I understand what your saying though. However, if your going to believe in Jesus from a purely historical study, the way scholars study Jesus, your not going to worry about all the theological implications.. that’s not what scholars are about. They don’t go there. There is much to be learned about Jesus historically that brings to light to who he actually was while he was alive. And the real reasons he was crucified by the romans etc. Take away all the theology, and you have a real person that can and has been studied..
I guess I’m trying to ask why would anybody want to consider studying him if not for the stories about what he did? Well I can only speak for myself but I would like to know what triggered a religion like Christianity in the first place so studying about who it's based on is of interest to me to understand why Christians believe what they believe, what early Christians believed and how it has evolved over the centuries to what we see today. That interests me on a purely historical basis.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 15, 2020 20:17:47 GMT -5
Are Review and Nathan birds of a feather? Well, ones a worker and one an Ex worker re slander .......nice ? Both display dominating tendencies. (Don't anyone tell me Nathan isn't domineering).
|
|