All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Stevo985]

The scientific consensus is that Jesus almost certainly DID exist.

It's just that there's little to no evidence he was as depicted. You know all the magic stuff

Edited August 22 by Stevo985

[Rugeley Villa]

13 minutes ago, limpid said:

But you've ignored me correcting your claim of "peaceful". Or whether you believe in WW2 because you weren't there.

I wasn't piss taking in the slightest, just correcting your misconceptions through Socratic methods. 

I will always take the piss out of religions, but not the victims of religion.

Yes I believe WW2 happened and it’s proof the devil is among us . Also Jesus wouldn’t have said that in Matthew 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The scientific consensus is that Jesus almost certainly DID exist.

Scientific?

Certainly did exist?

Consensus

Just some of the words and phrases in that post that are highly questionable

[chrisp65]

If he didn’t exist, it’s a bit of a weird coincidence so many people have painted what is clearly the same person.

 

[blandy]

4 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Revelation.

Know thine enemy 

Just got to this post. Was thinking “I wonder if I’ll have to post an HMHB quote, or song, or if Simon will have got there first. You saved me the trouble of searching on the YouTubes.

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve had to go to that London today.

Last night I had a really quite impressive case of the squits.

I hope you had a good run.

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The scientific consensus is that Jesus almost certainly DID exist.

It's just that there's little to no evidence he was as depicted. You know all the magic stuff

If you look into it, the scientific consensus is flimsy as all ****. 

The likelihood is that, around the time of the beginnings of what we know as Christianity, there were a bunch of radical preachers, and elements of all of their thinking and preaching got packaged up into what we now know as the religion, and in doing so they made a composite character of all of them. Maybe one of those characters was called Jesus, but equally maybe not, and who knows which if any of the elements of the non-supernatural story applies to any of the constituent parts. Which ultimately makes the concept of a canonical, historical Jesus moot.

And even if you reject that, which makes no sense but it gives people comfort I guess, the rest of it is so obviously bullshit that whether a guy called Jesus was running around Palestine between 1 and 30 odd AD is neither here nor there. It just adds insult to injury.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Scientific?

Certainly did exist?

Consensus

Just some of the words and phrases in that post that are highly questionable

Scientific was the wrong word.

But the historical consensus is that Jesus existed. 

 

Quote

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified

here

 

Yeah it's wiki but the citations are there to support it

 

 

[Stevo985]

Just now, Chindie said:

If you look into it, the scientific consensus is flimsy as all ****. 

The likelihood is that, around the time of the beginnings of what we know as Christianity, there were a bunch of radical preachers, and elements of all of their thinking and preaching got packaged up into what we now know as the religion, and in doing so they made a composite character of all of them. Maybe one of those characters was called Jesus, but equally maybe not, and who knows which if any of the elements of the non-supernatural story applies to any of the constituent parts. Which ultimately makes the concept of a canonical, historical Jesus moot.

And even if you reject that, which makes no sense but it gives people comfort I guess, the rest of it is so obviously bullshit that whether a guy called Jesus was running around Palestine between 1 and 30 odd AD is neither here nor there. It just adds insult to injury.

This doesn't really contest anything I said.

All I said was the consensus was that he existed. All of the other stuff about him is almost certainly complete bollocks (apart from, apparently, that he was baptised and crucified which like you said is neither here nor there. It's meaningless)

 

My post wasn't meant to be some sort of defence of religion or an attempt to suggest Jesus really was who the bible depicts him to be.

Merely that the historical consensus is that a figure called Jesus existed. That's it

[one_ian_taylor]

5 hours ago, mjmooney said:

No it doesn't. There are a few writings that would indicate that there were any number of millennial cults and wannabe messiahs, of various names, around that time. The stories in the Bible are pretty obviously an edited mishmash of these stories, selected and massaged to suit the agenda of one particular group. Certainly, some of the philosophy attributed to this semi-fictional bloke is fairly progressive for its day (certainly compared to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament - although the Book of Revelations has a good go at bringing it back). 

If this character was going around saying basically "Be excellent to each other, dudes", that's laudable (but hardly unique). And it doesn't require a belief in any supernatural sky fairies. 

My laugh reaction to your post, was more to do with the Turin Shroud story - partly because it's palpably nonsense, but mainly the thought that only in Britain could the 'proof' of a divine miracle be celebrated with tea and cakes. 

 

I was under the impression that a decent chunk of it was at least partly inspired by various ancient Greek philosophers (which may still meant that is was pretty progressive for its dY)

[limpid]

9 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Yes I believe WW2 happened and it’s proof the devil is among us .

Which side was he on? The one with "God with us" on their belt buckles, or the "good" side that was made up of all religions (and none)?

9 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Also Jesus wouldn’t have said that in Matthew 

But he did. It's written as a quote. How do you decide which bits of the gospels are true and which aren't? I mean you can't just cherry pick or you can't claim that the Jesus you describe is historically accurate.

FWIW, I suspect there were many apocalyptic prophets around at the time. Probably more than one called Jeshua. I'm not sure why people decided to deify a failed one that stated that he would return (and the world would end) within the lifetime of some that heard him speak.

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I hope you had a good run.

It was touch n go at times. I had to make use of the public loos at Paddington.

It reminded me it was a long time since I’d watched the film Trainspotting.

 

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This doesn't really contest anything I said.

All I said was the consensus was that he existed. All of the other stuff about him is almost certainly complete bollocks (apart from, apparently, that he was baptised and crucified which like you said is neither here nor there. It's meaningless)

 

My post wasn't meant to be some sort of defence of religion or an attempt to suggest Jesus really was who the bible depicts him to be.

Merely that the historical consensus is that a figure called Jesus existed. That's it

Yes, but this essentially is the same as saying 'a man existed'. Well, great... but what's that got to do with anything?

When you say 'Jesus existed' you're saying more than just 'a guy existed'. Which is why I think my position is more accurate - essentially, yeah a guy existed, but so did other people, and we can't prove anything about any of them, so claiming 'Jesus' existed is nonsense and just let's the rubbish that's attached pretend it's got legs.

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes, but this essentially is the same as saying 'a man existed'. Well, great... but what's that got to do with anything?

When you say 'Jesus existed' you're saying more than just 'a guy existed'. Which is why I think my position is more accurate - essentially, yeah a guy existed, but so did other people, and we can't prove anything about any of them, so claiming 'Jesus' existed is nonsense and just let's the rubbish that's attached pretend it's got legs.

In the context of the discussion it’s accurate though. Claiming Jesus is a completely mythical figure is wrong. 
 

He was a real person, that people have attached a load of stuff to that isn’t true. 
 

In my opinion claiming he didn’t exist is worse because it just dismisses him as a whole and not can be contested, wrongly, by people who believe in him because there IS evidence that he existed. 
 

Acknowledging that a figure called Jesus that people have elevated to mythical status existed is correct. You just also have to acknowledge that that mythical stuff that people attached to him is nonsense. 

[Chindie]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

In the context of the discussion it’s accurate though. Claiming Jesus is a completely mythical figure is wrong. 
 

He was a real person, that people have attached a load of stuff to that isn’t true. 
 

In my opinion claiming he didn’t exist is worse because it just dismisses him as a whole and not can be contested, wrongly, by people who believe in him because there IS evidence that he existed. 
 

Acknowledging that a figure called Jesus that people have elevated to mythical status existed is correct. You just also have to acknowledge that that mythical stuff that people attached to him is nonsense. 

We don't know it's accurate (there may not have been someone called Jesus at that time, or more accurately someone called Jesus that met the basic requirements of what we believe 'Jesus' to be), and the problem is saying 'Jesus existed' isn't like saying 'Dave existed' - it has a lot of baggage that needs elaboration.

It's easier to say Jesus didn't exist. Otherwise the accurate way to say it would be something like 'A man may have born in 1AD, possibly in Nazareth, possibly called Jesus, who was probably Jewish, and we know nothing else at all about him, existed', to which saying 'Aha, see, Jesus was real' is a bit silly.

[bielesibub]

on the topic of Jesus, chatgpt gives the following response to the question 'what real evidence is there of Jesus?'
 

Quote

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, while not abundant, is significant enough that most scholars agree on his existence as a historical figure. The evidence comes from various sources, including Christian writings, Jewish texts, and Roman accounts.

### 1. **Christian Sources**
   - **The New Testament**: The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the letters of Paul are the primary Christian sources. While these are religious texts, they are also historical documents that describe the life, teachings, and crucifixion of Jesus. These writings were composed within a few decades of Jesus's death, suggesting they were based on eyewitness accounts or early traditions.
   - **Non-Canonical Christian Texts**: Other early Christian writings, such as the letters of early Church Fathers, also reference Jesus. While these texts are more theological in nature, they reflect the beliefs and traditions of early Christian communities.

### 2. **Jewish Sources**
   - **Flavius Josephus**: A Jewish historian writing in the late 1st century AD, Josephus mentions Jesus in two passages in his work "Antiquities of the Jews." The most significant passage is known as the *Testimonium Flavianum*, which describes Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, and mentions his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. However, this passage has been subject to debate, with some scholars arguing that it was later altered by Christian scribes. A less disputed passage refers to "James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ."
   - **The Talmud**: Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries also reference Jesus, although these references are brief and often polemical. They acknowledge his existence and execution but deny his divine claims.

### 3. **Roman Sources**
   - **Tacitus**: A Roman historian writing around 116 AD, Tacitus provides one of the earliest non-Christian references to Jesus. In his *Annals*, he mentions that Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome and notes that "Christus," the founder of the Christian movement, was executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.
   - **Pliny the Younger**: A Roman governor writing around 112 AD, Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan about how to deal with Christians. In his letters, he describes Christians worshiping Christ as a god, indicating the existence of a community that followed Jesus and viewed him as a divine figure.
   - **Suetonius**: Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around 121 AD and mentions disturbances caused by "Chrestus" in Rome during the reign of Emperor Claudius. This reference is more ambiguous, but some scholars believe "Chrestus" could be a reference to Christ.

### 4. **Archaeological Evidence**
   - **No Direct Archaeological Evidence**: While there is no direct archaeological evidence for Jesus himself (e.g., artifacts directly associated with him), there is significant archaeological evidence related to the broader context of his life. This includes findings related to the Temple in Jerusalem, the practice of crucifixion, and places mentioned in the Gospels.

### 5. **Scholarly Consensus**
   - **Historical Consensus**: The vast majority of historians and scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure. The evidence from multiple sources, including hostile accounts (like those from Tacitus and Josephus), strengthens the argument for his existence. While debates continue about the details of his life, the historical existence of Jesus is generally not in serious doubt among scholars.

In conclusion, while the evidence for Jesus is mostly textual and interpretative, it is sufficient to convince most historians that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived in the 1st century AD.

 

I think it's far easier to believe in there being a character called Jesus, far less easier to believe that he was some Apollo like half god type thing.

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Just got to this post. Was thinking “I wonder if I’ll have to post an HMHB quote, or song, or if Simon will have got there first. You saved me the trouble of searching on the YouTubes.

Believe it or not Pete, I actually did know that without the excellent Nigel Blackwell lyric (Shit Arm/Bad Tattoo btw).

I'm probably way too familiar with the Bible than I need to be, but as I said...know thine enemy.

Edited August 22 by Designer1

[fruitvilla]

While the myth of Christ is likely based on some bloke called "Yeshua" (יֵשׁוּעַ) is probably quite likely (who knows). It was a common name at the time. Now if we are trying to ascertain the reliability of Jesus's Biblical existence we need to ascertain contemporary references outside of the Bible. Using the Bible to determine the truth of the Biblical Jesus is a little circular. So the contemporary extra-Biblical references are, courtesy of ChatGPT:

1. Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120 AD)

• Source: Annals, written around 116 AD.
• Reference: Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions Jesus in his account of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, during the reign of Emperor Nero. Tacitus refers to Christians as followers of "Christus," who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. He describes Christianity as a "mischievous superstition" that spread from Judea to Rome.
• Quote: "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..." (Annals 15.44).

2. Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD)

• Source: Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93-94 AD.
• Reference: Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions Jesus twice. The first is a brief reference to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The second mention, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is a longer passage that discusses Jesus’ life and crucifixion. However, scholars debate the authenticity of parts of this passage, suggesting possible later Christian interpolation.
• Quote: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die." (Adjusted for debated interpolations).

3. Pliny the Younger (c. 61 – c. 113 AD)

• Source: Letters (Book 10, Letter 96), written around 112 AD.
• Reference: Pliny, a Roman governor, wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on how to deal with Christians. He mentions that Christians worship Christ as a god and describes their practices, including meeting before dawn and reciting hymns to Christ.
• Quote: "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."

4. Suetonius (c. 69 – c. 122 AD)

• Source: The Twelve Caesars, written around 121 AD.
• Reference: Suetonius, another Roman historian, briefly mentions "Chrestus" (a common misspelling of Christus, or Christ) in connection with disturbances caused by Jews in Rome during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). Some scholars believe this may refer to the expulsion of Jews from Rome mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
• Quote: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (The Twelve Caesars, Life of Claudius 25.4).

5. Mara Bar-Serapion (sometime after 73 AD)

• Source: Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion to his son.
• Reference: This Syrian Stoic philosopher mentions the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews, often interpreted as a reference to Jesus. The letter suggests that the Jews suffered because of this unjust execution.
• Quote: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished."

6. Lucian of Samosata (c. 125 – c. 180 AD)

• Source: The Death of Peregrinus, written around 165 AD.
• Reference: Lucian, a Greek satirist, makes a mocking reference to Christians and their worship of a "crucified sage." While his tone is dismissive, it confirms the existence of Christians who revered Jesus.
• Quote: "The Christians... worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."

These references, while not all uncontroversial or detailed, provide non-Christian attestations to the existence of Jesus and the early Christian movement, supporting the historical reality of Jesus as a person who lived in the first century. <end of chat>

Note none of these sources are exactly contemporary.

And the shroud? Again according to chat
To make a 2,000-year-old sample appear as though it is only 700 years old in terms of radiocarbon dating, you would need to mix the sample with approximately 64.9% modern carbon. This means that just over half of the carbon in the final mixture would need to be modern carbon.

[limpid]

14 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

While the myth of Christ is likely based on some bloke called "Yeshua" (יֵשׁוּעַ) is probably quite likely (who knows). It was a common name at the time. Now if we are trying to ascertain the reliability of Jesus's Biblical existence we need to ascertain contemporary references outside of the Bible. Using the Bible to determine the truth of the Biblical Jesus is a little circular. So the contemporary extra-Biblical references are, courtesy of ChatGPT:

1. Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120 AD)

2. Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD)

3. Pliny the Younger (c. 61 – c. 113 AD)

4. Suetonius (c. 69 – c. 122 AD)

5. Mara Bar-Serapion (sometime after 73 AD)

6. Lucian of Samosata (c. 125 – c. 180 AD)

So nothing contemporary and the closest to being contemporary is someone saying that he's heard this second hand (text which was inserted really crudely decades later).

All the others are so removed in time they are like people today claiming that they saw Elvis alive 40 years ago. Some of these are like people today claiming they knew Queen Victoria.

[fruitvilla]

8 minutes ago, limpid said:

So nothing contemporary and the closest to being contemporary is someone saying that he's heard this second hand (text which was inserted really crudely about decades later).

Yeah I agree ... but then to completely discount the New Testament and the Apocrypha is also a little unfair. Having said that no way would I recommend reading the New Testament as other than myth.