Did Jesus Really Exist as a Person?

[sd'sker]

you cannot quote the bible. it is tautology; "i believe this book to be the truth, the light, and the way, because this book says that it is the truth, the light, and the way." believe what you want, but do not use those beliefs (based on faith, inherently unprovable) to make a logical argument for why those beliefs are true.

[TGHusker]

you cannot quote the bible. it is tautology; "i believe this book to be the truth, the light, and the way, because this book says that it is the truth, the light, and the way." believe what you want, but do not use those beliefs (based on faith, inherently unprovable) to make a logical argument for why those beliefs are true.

 

I quoted it because I believe it to be true. I understand tautology. The logical argument part - refer to my other post and the short list of authors who are much smarter than I.

[Husker_x]

Bare with me, as I have a few different threads of thought going around right now.

 

While it would be true that an omniscient God would have infinite resources to spread his message (you can call it simple, but let's be honest; if the message is real it surpasses all amount of human understanding), an effective author is one that can cater to his reader. So I mean, I don't think it's that God couldn't do any better, it's that we couldn't receive any better. I can be the most accomplished dog trainer in the world, but I won't ever be able to express to a dog about my job and my family in a way it would understand. That only says something about the dog, not about me. Same thing with God the Father and God the son - patriarchal language. A skeptic will look at that as evidence that they're a contrived human invention - I think it's just as logical that God would choose to reveal Himself in an approachable and comprehendable way; a sexless deity would have severely freaked people the f*** out.

 

You're a smart dude x, but one thing I think I see from your responses is that you don't really seem to give proper respect to the infinitely gaping chasm between the power/knowledge of a hypothetical deity and our own. Your arguments are educated but they seem to just make a supposed God out to be a dummy. And I agree with what someone above said - if God's messiah were to reveal himself today, in this age of information and technology, your argument is that it would help his cause but my belief is that it would actually worsen it. While we might have better information across the board, we also have humongous amounts of cynicism and skepticism from being spoon-fed these huge quantities and told to believe them. That's only part of the picture, admittedly, from my perspective (answering the question of why Jesus didn't come now instead of 2k years ago), since I'm content in trusting that part of the reason for his timing was providential and divine and not something so obvious.

 

Lastly, as far as muddying the waters and not being distinguishable from any other myth, a lot of that I admittedly don't have a concrete response to, but the resurrection is the distinction. Even if every single other element were the same down to names and dates and places compared to ever other religious faith, the resurrection is the crux.

 

In the first season HBO's Rome, there is a little scene between Mark Antony and Julius Caesar that's easy to gloss over, but I thought it was illuminating. At the time Caesar was fighting a civil war against Pompey Magnus. Antony, Caesar's close friend, is lobbying for a more aggressive strategy against Pompey, who Antony equates to "an apple ripe for the plucking." But Caesar’s reply, I think, foreshadows many of Antony's later tactical and political failures: "Pompey is not an apple, and I am not a farmer." Antony had drawn a false analogy, offering a simplistic military solution to a complex political problem. Monotheism has a similar problem with analogies in these debates. For example, the problem with the dog trainer-to-dog analogy is simply this:

 

A dog trainer is limited in his/her ability to teach a dog, but God is not limited in any sense, by any thing, ever. God is not a dog trainer.

 

I've never liked the "God is beyond our comprehension argument,” because it is essentially an argument from ignorance. You think God had a perfectly sane, albeit complicated reason for showing up in a way that would throw a shadow of doubt, confusion, and misinterpretation over his glorious coming for two thousand years? Okay, try me. What is the reason? What might the reason even be? Before you say something is beyond our comprehension, let's at least put it on the table.

 

Your point about the modern world's doubt and skepticism doesn't add up, either, because God is definitionally more than equal to the task of intellectual maggots like Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins (or Carrier) or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Lawrence Krauss or, least of all, little old Husker_x. This is God we’re talking about, right?

 

Roark put a little Problem of Evil spin on my argument, which is fine. My original point was more a Problem of Competence thing, but it works out anyway. God's power to spread a message is infinite, no matter how simple or complex. He is able to present it in any way he wants, including a kind of direct transmission to every person on the planet. He could, even if you're right about us not receiving it correctly, rewire the human brain so that it could receive the message (and if human beings have a problem receiving the message, how did you get it, while we’re on the topic?).

 

But revealing this message to a bunch of illiterates who would then have to pass it on to a Greek-speaking translator who would himself rework it into a different language, confuse it with elements of mythology, and then have that work transmitted by hand copies for centuries, leaving modern readers with scraps of copies of jumbled pseudo-history and contradictory accounts, is not the most optimal method of proliferating the most important message mankind has ever received. Especially when your celestial PR department has the resources of an omnipotent superbeing.

 

Fortunately, I have an alternative explanation that makes perfect sense: God didn't write it, or inspire it––never even intended it, because in all likelihood, he doesn’t exist. Human authors do this kind of stuff all the time--look at how many versions of how many sacred texts of how many religions there are. All of them just as inexplicable as the Bible.

 

Whoa that's a long reply.

[zoogs]

I'm just going to jump in here to say that HBO's Rome was excellent and it's a shame they had to shorten it. It was, however, nice to watch half the cast reprise their roles in John Carter.

[sd'sker]

Fortunately, I have an alternative explanation that makes perfect sense: God didn't write it, or inspire it––never even intended it, because in all likelihood, he doesn’t exist. Human authors do this kind of stuff all the time--look at how many versions of how many sacred texts of how many religions there are. All of them just as inexplicable as the Bible.

great post. and lest we forget that there have been many "christ" figures before jesus was ever presumed to have existed. and some of his greatest teachings came from confucius (read the analects). it would seem that jesus and his teachings are largely an amalgamation of myths and ideas popular at the time. christians were just the most determined to make it stick. and they accomplished that largely through theocracies (which, catholicism as largely existed more as a power structure than anything else throughout history) and wars.

[rawhide]

Yes, we Christians are a determined lot

 

still tickin'

[Goal-line]

The one thing, in general, that turns me off about "religion" is that most of the major "religions" claim that their way is the one and only way. More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any thing else. And, it is still going on today.

[MLB 51]

Yes, he does exists. The U.S. Government is trying to deport his ass back to Mexico with all the other illegal aliens.

[rawhide]

NO, he said Hey, Zeus

 

You know, don't piss me off unless you want a couple of lightning bolts in yoah ass.

[BigRedBuster]

The one thing, in general, that turns me off about "religion" is that most of the major "religions" claim that their way is the one and only way. More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any thing else. And, it is still going on today.

 

I agree with you. However, try to separate Christ, God and what they taught from what various humans have done to bastardize their existence for centuries.

 

You may decide to believe or not believe...that's perfectly your choice. But, it's sad when the actions of humans deters others from considering believing in God and Christ.

[Landlord]

The one thing, in general, that turns me off about "religion" is that most of the major "religions" claim that their way is the one and only way. More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any thing else. And, it is still going on today.

 

 

Why does people believing something they think is true and standing firm in it turn you off? Does it turn you off when people think extra-terrestrial abductions are real, or parents think spanking their kids is right, or believe in astrology, ghosts, karma?

 

Wars have been fought because men are wicked. Religion is one justification that they have and continue to use for their own gain. If it didn't exist, another would take it's place.

[TGHusker]

The one thing, in general, that turns me off about "religion" is that most of the major "religions" claim that their way is the one and only way. More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any thing else. And, it is still going on today.

 

 

Why does people believing something they think is true and standing firm in it turn you off? Does it turn you off when people think extra-terrestrial abductions are real, or parents think spanking their kids is right, or believe in astrology, ghosts, karma?

 

Wars have been fought because men are wicked. Religion is one justification that they have and continue to use for their own gain. If it didn't exist, another would take it's place.

Well stated. We need to look beyond how wicked people use religion (has they would use any other 'tool') to the benefits/graces provided by faith. Have to separate the 2. Separate Christ's teachings, for example, from the actions of both the sincere and the unsincere (those who use religion for their personal gain - whether it be a liberal or conservative politician, a greedy TV evangelist, or a war monger). Even the sincere in faith fail at times to live up to our highest ideals - but that shouldn't discredit the message or the desire to strive to live up to those ideals. There are hypocrites within the church (those who know what is right and purpose refuse to do so) and outside of the church - those who know how Christians should act but fail to act that way themselves. The law of God is written in all of our hearts per Romans chapters 1-3 - but we all fall short.

[T_O_Bull]

The History Channel does some great religious pieces.

[The Dude]

The History Channel does some great religious pieces.

There's no accounting for taste, I suppose.