Did Jesus Exist?

[Dejarma 5,333]

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You can believe it  to be fictional, or real .

yep.. now what?

[Sherapy 31,579]

32 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And therein lies your problem. Jesus the man was likely a real person whereas Jesus Christ/the Annointed is unevidenced. Using the title “Christ” unnecessarily conflates the two. 

cormac

I can remember way back when I seriously investigated the question of Jesus Christ how there is literally very little  evidence. 
 

And how many just assume he was a real person. I did to once. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy

[Will Do 6,784]

 

Jesus of Nazareth was a "character" alright.

That's why they killed him.

 

 

[Sherapy 31,579]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Jesus of Nazareth was a "character" alright.

That's why they killed him.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Jesus of Nazareth was a "character" alright.

That's why they killed him.

 

 

The historical Jesus was crucified. Did you miss that part?

[Habitat 8,594]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

The historical Jesus was crucified. Did you miss that part?

Huh ? You said the historical Jesus was a myth . How do you crucify someone that did not exist ?

[cormac mac airt 15,183]

18 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I can remember way back when I seriously investigated the question of Jesus Christ how there is literally no evidence. 
 

And how many just assume he was a real person. I did to once. 

 

 

Granted that the evidence for the existence of Jesus, via the accounts of such men as Tacitus and Josephus, is at best circumstantial I still err on the side of  caution in not declaring the man fictitious. After all there are no extant textual or physical remains of your 85th Great Grandfather either but I don’t believe you’d question his existence. Separating the man from the myth is the bigger problem IMO. 
 

cormac

Edited January 25, 2020 by cormac mac airt

[Sherapy 31,579]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Granted that the evidence for the existence of Jesus, via the accounts of such men as Tacitus and Josephus, is at best circumstantial I still err on the side of  caution in not declaring the man fictitious. After all there are no extant textual or physical remains of your 85th Great Grandfather either but I don’t believe you’d question his existence. Separating the man from the myth is the bigger problem IMO. 
 

cormac

I do accept the evidence for the historical Jesus. 
 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy

[Sherapy 31,579]

11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Huh ? You said the historical Jesus was a myth . How do you crucify someone that did not exist ?

No, I said the biblical Jesus is a myth. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy

[cormac mac airt 15,183]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I do accept the evidence for the historical Jesus. 

I realize that dear lady. Consider it a pet peeve of mine to NOT want to see people using the Christ title to unnecessarily conflate the two lines of thought as if they are one and the same, as MW and others often do. 
 

cormac

[Habitat 8,594]

Just now, Sherapy said:

No, I said the biblical Jesus is a myth. 

You could say the same about any biography, they are never 100% unvarnished truth. I would say what you are saying is that the supernatural part was just "poetic licence". Can't allow that woo being possible !

[Sherapy 31,579]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

I realize that dear lady. Consider it a pet peeve of mine to NOT want to see people using the Christ title to unnecessarily conflate the two lines of thought as if they are one and the same, as MW and others often do. 
 

cormac

Indeed dear sir, good point. 

[Sherapy 31,579]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You could say the same about any biography, they are never 100% unvarnished truth. I would say what you are saying is that the supernatural part was just "poetic licence". Can't allow that woo being possible !

Nope, it is about the evidence for me, not the woo. 
 

You know Habbie, it is best I speak for me, cuz you suck at it. 

[Habitat 8,594]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Nope, it is about the evidence for me, not the woo. 
 

You know Habbie, it is best I speak for me, cuz you suck at it. 

You certainly haven't produced any evidence to support the "myth" idea, it is seemingly based on your rejection of the supernatural, can't see why you would accept a historic Jesus, and not accept a biblical Jesus that was stripped of the supernatural aspect, what would the sticking point be, that would cause you label it "myth", if not that supernatural part ?

[cormac mac airt 15,183]

I tend to find it hilarious when someone thinks something being possible automatically means it must be probable or likely as well. It doesn’t. 
 

cormac

[Sherapy 31,579]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You certainly haven't produced any evidence to support the "myth" idea, it is seemingly based on your rejection of the supernatural, can't see why you would accept a historic Jesus, and not accept a biblical Jesus that was stripped of the supernatural aspect, what would the sticking point be, that would cause you label it "myth", if not that supernatural part ?

Meaning there isn’t much evidence to consider.  I have to say I don’t know a thing about Jesus, what he thought, what he believed blah blah blah.

 

I agree with Cormac possible doesn’t mean probably. 
 

 

[Habitat 8,594]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Meaning there isn’t much evidence to consider.  I have to say I don’t know a thing about Jesus, what he thought, what he believed blah blah blah.

 

I agree with Cormac possible doesn’t mean probably. 
 

 

You are not having one of your better days, If you don't know anything about this character, how do decide what is real about it ? Doesn't make sense, and I have no idea what Cormac imagined he was alluding to, either. 

[Sherapy 31,579]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are not having one of your better days, If you don't know anything about this character, how do decide what is real about it ? Doesn't make sense, and I have no idea what Cormac imagined he was alluding to, either. 

I don’t, hence the mythical Jesus, a character in a book at this point. 

Maybe Cormac is over your head. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker 6,727]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Try again: 

Both Testaments state overwhelming IMO that the Judeo-Christian God IS Omniscient. So either you're lying or the Bible is lying, which is it? 

cormac
 

Some of the writers clearly believed god was triple O. but others did not. Also many of the stories in the bible only make sense if god was NOT 03 OR if he was evil Given that the writers clearly did not intend him to be seen as evil,  he was thus unable to overrule humans, and allowed them free will  He had a plan B and sometimes a plan C, depending on how humans behaved  

[Mr Walker 6,727]

23 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I tend to find it hilarious when someone thinks something being possible automatically means it must be probable or likely as well. It doesn’t. 
 

cormac

I pointed out tha t some posters were saying it was impossible and just pointing out why it was not impossible Once it is known to be possible, probability depends on other factors from  context to any evidence, to what we know about how  humans behave  

[Mr Walker 6,727]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I can remember way back when I seriously investigated the question of Jesus Christ how there is literally very little  evidence. 
 

And how many just assume he was a real person. I did to once. 

 

 

In my case, as with all expert opinion, i accept it unless there are evidences to discredit it  It is not an assumption but  the academic consensus.

if you do not accept it, you require very compelling reasons to go against so much expert opinion  

In the case of christ  there is almost universal professional  understanding that he was a real preacher and teacher who was crucified because his message offended the conservative jewish leadership of the time and they feared his growing popularity

I dont know if anyone  JUST  assumes the magical christ was real, but if so, that is a belief based assumption.    

[Sherapy 31,579]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In my case, as with all expert opinion, i accept it unless there are evidences to discredit it  It is not an assumption but  the academic consensus.

if you do not accept it, you require very compelling reasons to go against so much expert opinion  

In the case of christ  there is almost universal professional  understanding that he was a real preacher and teacher who was crucified because his message offended the conservative jewish leadership of the time and they feared his growing popularity

I dont know if anyone  JUST  assumes the magical christ was real, but if so, that is a belief based assumption.    

???
 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy

[cormac mac airt 15,183]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

In my case, as with all expert opinion, i accept it unless there are evidences to discredit it  It is not an assumption but  the academic consensus.

if you do not accept it, you require very compelling reasons to go against so much expert opinion  

In the case of christ there is almost universal professional  understanding that he was a real preacher and teacher who was crucified because his message offended the conservative jewish leadership of the time and they feared his growing popularity

I dont know if anyone  JUST  assumes the magical christ was real, but if so, that is a belief based assumption.    

Except that you are wrong since “Christ” is a title and NOT a name. Conflating the title with the name doesn’t make you right. 
 

cormac

[Mr Walker 6,727]

46 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I realize that dear lady. Consider it a pet peeve of mine to NOT want to see people using the Christ title to unnecessarily conflate the two lines of thought as if they are one and the same, as MW and others often do. 
 

cormac

Christ is  a title for this particular bloke. Like Mr is a title  for me 

They go together as a label/identifier for the man not the magician 

I am not Walker 

I am Mr walker.

 Jesus was Jesus Christ,  even if that label was attached after his death 

It doesn't mean he was anything more than a man. 

[Habitat 8,594]

Just now, Sherapy said:

Ugh, Not talking about the historical Jesus, Walls. 
 

 

This is doing my head in, historical Jesus's, real Jesus's, mythical Jesus's, I say let's call the whole thing off !

[Piney 72,599]

Just now, Habitat said:

This is doing my head in, historical Jesus's, real Jesus's, mythical Jesus's, I say let's call the whole thing off !

Watch 'American Gods'.