Spirituality
02 Aug 05
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehmmmm...I think I've just been told to STFU. 😛
I think you've established there's no incontrovertible evidence for the HJC, David.
The only remaining question is on whom the burden of proof rests--those who say "prove he lived" or those who counter "prove he didn't".
Call in a professional historian, I can't give you the answer to that.
I'll desist, as it doesn't seem to warrant any further discussion in this thread. I realize the idea that JC was M is not popular, in fact I seem to have drawn scorn from theist and non-theist alike. If I happen across anything relevant to this topic in the future, I reserve the right to resurrect it like a....well, archtypical Saviour figure.
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CI enjoyed this thread (thank you David C) but I don't think it can go any further. Start another one on the MJC or archetypes or something. I'll join in the fun.
hmmmm...I think I've just been told to STFU. 😛
I'll desist, as it doesn't seem to warrant any further discussion in this thread. I realize the idea that JC was M is not popular, in fact I seem to have drawn scorn from theist and non-theist alike. If I happen across anything relevant to this topic in the future, I reserve the right to resurrect it like a....well, archtypical Saviour figure.
Althought the discussion is not closed (for me) until I find out where the burden of proof lies.
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDitto. I found your (Davic C's) arguments interesting, but far-fetched on some occasions, like I mentioned before.
I enjoyed this thread (thank you David C) but I don't think it can go any further. Start another one on the MJC or archetypes or something. I'll join in the fun.
Althought the discussion is not closed (for me) until I find out where the burden of proof lies.
I believe the evidence that does exist changes the burden of proof to the MJC camp. It may be thinner than most people think, but (IMO) it is still sufficient for applying the use of Ockham's Razor to transfer the burden of proof to the MJC camp.
I find that the creation of the myth around such a character does not require a mythical personality and that it is more likely to have developed around a real person.
19 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousePeople, including New Testament scholars, do debate this subject. While very few classics professors would dispute that Plato existed, there is some debate about whether Socrates did or not.
I don't think people really dispute whether Jesus the man existed.
I think the main debate is his claim to be the messiah. Thats the
crux of it. Nobody disputes the idea Plato, Plutarch, Erasthenes,
and the rest existed. What is differant is they don't claim to be the
son of god.
Note that this doesn't mean that the expert opinion is evenly distributed on either issue.
I would also point out that among scholars of the New Testament, whether Jesus was in truth the son of God is not promising research. That is purely a religious question, and as such, is a topic for apologists, preachers, and missionaries. I find it both arrogant and naive when xtians think that non-religious scholars sit around sweating bullets about whether Jesus' claim to divinity is a true claim.
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by telerionOriginally posted by telerion
People, including New Testament scholars, do debate this subject. While very few classics professors would dispute that Plato existed, there is some debate about whether Socrates did or not.
Note that this doesn't mean that the expert opinion is evenly distributed on either issue.
I would also point out that among scholars of the New Testament, whe ...[text shortened]... us scholars sit around sweating bullets about whether Jesus' claim to divinity is a true claim.
People, including New Testament scholars, do debate this subject. While very few classics professors would dispute that Plato existed, there is some debate about whether Socrates did or not.
Note that this doesn't mean that the expert opinion is evenly distributed on either issue.
I would also point out that among scholars of the New Testament, whether Jesus was in truth the son of God is not promising research. That is purely a religious question, and as such, is a topic for apologists, preachers, and missionaries. I find it both arrogant and naive when xtians think that non-religious scholars sit around sweating bullets about whether Jesus' claim to divinity is a true claim.
Religious question Tel? Apologists, preachers and missionaries are just otherly employed people who have since been convinced that Jesus was in truth, the Son of God. That's why they ap, pre and missio!
No, we fundies don't think those scholars are sweating bullets over Jesus' claims, but we think that all people should. Sweat, that is, but only to the point of being relieved of the anxiety by coming to accept His rightful claim and receive His gracious offer of forgiveness. Scholars (like economists) are people too, and need to apply truth personally to their lives, just like the rest of us.
It's not arrogant for any of us to believe what we believe is it? Certainly not. It's just a matter of fact that we all believe certain things. But wherever there are contradictory ideas, only one can be true. We all need to sweat a little before we are absolutely sure about where we settle.
21 Aug 05
No, we fundies don't think those scholars are sweating bullets over Jesus' claims, but we think that all people should.
I would admonish you not to assume that simply because you are a self-proclaimed evangelical fundy that you speak for all who do so.
Many such people, including apologists in their big money propaganda pieces, make it sound as if scholars (even geologists 🙂 ) are locked in some sort of self-denial campaign trying to rationalize the abundant evidence for Jesus' divinity. Some of these people I have even met personally. Ironically, not a single one of them that I met actually knew any one who worked in academia.
Religious question Tel? Apologists, preachers and missionaries are just otherly employed people who have since been convinced that Jesus was in truth, the Son of God.
Well not exactly. Add "Christian" to the beginning of that claim and then it is true. These scourges of society come in all sorts of brands.
It's not arrogant for any of us to believe what we believe is it?
If what you believe is arrogant than yes. For example, is it arrogant of me to believe myself to be everyone's intellectual superior in every way? Of course it is! (It is also false.)