Hack, Secular scholars dont bother to address the christ figure. They have little interest in the topic. Little secular scholarship is wasted on such religious issues. I doubt you can come up with History Department chairs at major US puvlic universities that would even mention your christ figure in any of their course listings.
"Hack, Secular scholars dont bother to address the christ figure."
That would be to ignore one of the most influential historical questions of all time. For every uninterested secular party you might point me to there are plenty that are...regardless of theistic or atheistic leanings. And why would it not fascinate the secular? It's not a religious question.
Historians accept that Jesus was a real figure simply becuase they don't subscribe the rigorous need for evidence that say science does. Historians believe that Jesus was a real person because other people believed he was a real person. That's about it.
However, if we put Jesus in his proper place, then all we can say is that there is not enough evidence to say whether or not Jesus was a real person. Myself, I'm about 60% Jesus is mytholigical and 40% Jesus was a real historical person.
I didn't realize science was in the business of proving a persons existence. IF it was however, and it used the strict criteria that might eliminate Christ...other very widely accepted and popular historical figures like Plato would also be deemed legendary rather than real.
Yes, it could, However, the problem that believers don't seem to understand is that Plato, Julius Caeser, and the like were all men. Believers want us to accept a magical god-man existed, on the order of say Hercules and Dionysus. Nobody believed they were real, but for some reason people believe Jesus is. As I've stated prior, it's possible Jesus never existed and was always a figure of mythology like all the other god-men were.
What you are admitting here is that you want to reject that Christ existed...not based on the comparable evidence but on the claims of what these men did. Caesar did very human, ruler-like things and therefore could have and most likely did exist. Christ has much more documentation of having lived but since he performed miracles, couldn't have existed, right?
No, this is what I am stating. Believers cannot accept that Jesus was just a man. They must have that he existed and was everything they believe him to be. Yes, it's possible that Jesus, as a man, existed. But what you are forgetting is that Scholars do not accept his miracles. They don't accept magic. Believers, who might be Scholars do, but not secular Scholars.
Because Jesus is so tied-up w/ magic and fantasy, then its reasonable to suggest he was always a mythological figure.
(continued) Going further, take a good look at believers today and it's pretty obvious that believers don't want a real man. They don't want Jesus the man, that may have existed. They want "Jesus the Fantasy". Look at all the white, blue-eyed Jesus pictures there are. Look at all the silly pictures of Jesus riding dinosaurs, of Jesus making paper-airplanes w/ kids, etc. "Jesus is your friend!" -Right. he's your imaginary friend. Believers don't want a real Jesus. They prefer mythology
If Jesus was just another man or just a myth then my dedication to Him is rather pathetic. Paul says as much in the NT.
My reason for pointing out in this video that he was provably historical is that many skeptics won't even acknowledge that much. Its a place of potential common ground to start from if we can at least both agree upon this point.
The way I look at it is this: There's not enough evidence to claim that Jesus did or didn't exist. However, since believers cannot except Jesus as a normal man, then I am inclined to believe that he is purely a mythical figure, like all the other god-men such as Hercules and Dionysus. Otherwise it's also possible that Jesus was a normal man that was transformed overtime into a mythical figure, which is the stance of most non-Christian Scholars.
(continued) What I cannot say is that Jesus was probably a historical man. I cannot say that because that would require faith and not evidence, for there is no hard evidence to suggest that Jesus ever walked the earth. The Gospels read like myths and contain far to many contradictions and fantastical stories (ex-zombies rising from their graves at Jesus' crucifixtion in Matt.).
(continued) I'm not sure if you know, but the only "evidence" for Jesus existance is the gospels and Josephus' 2 passages, with one being the result of Christian tampering. So that's it. There is no other evidence. If you want to base your life on 4 short stories that contain mutliple contradictions, and 2 small passages from Jospheus, w/ one being Christian tampering, then go for it. Just be honest about it. Right now, most Christians aren't honest about their religion.
You may have mentioned this before, but I think that Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is an awesome resource when it come to providing evidence regarding the Christian faith.
Believing that a character known as Jesus existed and taught is one thing and not something I personally have a problem believing he may have been 1 person or he may have been a composite of many teachers of the time. Believing that a person went around teaching and doing miracles healing the sick ,lame, raising the dead etc. etc. believing that is another thing. Again, that jump across the Mississippi, just can't do it.
i'm not sure he could've gotten so famous so fast, under those circumstances, unless something incredible took place. because there were plenty of others doing similar things, or at least known for some kind of healing, magic tricks, esoteric teaching, and whatnot, but don't achieve the same kind of recognition over the centuries. he's mentioned by name by a nonsympathetic historian of the time. the spread of Christianity itself is a factor that convinces me. divine nature of the Bible, etc.
not to argue with you, i'm just pointing out some things that i personally find convincing, if that's the word. umm, impressive, persuasive. i've had other things for the convincing.
weberly "i'm not sure he could've gotten so famous so fast,"
Even Today we have people such as Sai Baba that have millions of follower that consider him a living god.
The Gospels were not written till a Generation after Jesus's Alleged death, And It was Hundereds of years before it reached the Billions of Souls in Asia and the Americas; Fast you say? Com'On!
I wonder if you mean to compare this Sai Baba (someone I've not personally heard of) to Christ not only in popularity but in longevity of that fame? Surely you will at least conceed that Christ has passed what few others have...the test of time.
*Please note the word few...I did not say ALL. I can already anticipate the next jab.
My point was simply to address how ridiculous it is to say the jesus was popular in His time ( He wasnt) But even if he had a Million Followers during his life It Proves Nothing. I would Expect someone as Amazing a Jesus was said to be To atleast aquire few Literate Devotees to give a first hand account of his life.
This most basic and prelininary evidence does not exist!
If you havent heard of Sai Baba who do you know He is Not a God???
You can't claim the test of time when Christianity isn't the oldest reliigon in the world. The Hindu fait is far older than Christianity or even Judaism.
The test of time is simply an assertion that its not a fly by night, flash in the pan. It is simply one of many criteria one might expect from a genuine faith practice. It is not enough on its own merit though and I realize that.
Nobody is arguing that Christianity isn't a religion. "The test of time" is pointless and means nothing and nobody should be attempting to use it. Millionsof people can and do often believe in crazy things. The fact that sheer numbers of people over 2,000+ years believed in Jesus doesn't make him real if he never existed.
Christianity isn't the oldest religion. Judaism isnt' the oldest religion. Jesus is but one among a multitude of magical god-men that people have believed in.
You've joined in on an argument that started from a different point than you are now headed. Someone in an older thread above was trying to argue that a guy named Sai Baba has millions of followers believing that he is the Messiah. The test of time arguments stemmed from that as I see evidence of many "wanna be's" that are a flash in the pan over the last century and even further back than that. I agree that this is not an aspect to hang a solid argument on for believing in Christ.
Of course Sai Baba is not the messiah because there is no messiah. All religions are false. However, the Sai Baba example is good because it shows that large numbers of people can be made to believe anything. In most cults, when the savior-figure fails to appear at the given time then the cult dies. -Not Christainity. Jesus made it clear that he would return in the lifetime of his first disciples. That didnt' happen. 2,000+ years later believers still think he will return anyday now. -Mythology
The "disingenuous" comment at the end of your video was climactic and oh so true, Edge! It always amazes me how when "Christ" is analyzed, all good scholarship goes out the window.
Hack, Secular scholars dont bother to address the christ figure. They have little interest in the topic. Little secular scholarship is wasted on such religious issues. I doubt you can come up with History Department chairs at major US puvlic universities that would even mention your christ figure in any of their course listings.
intermediatespecies 2 years ago
"Hack, Secular scholars dont bother to address the christ figure."
That would be to ignore one of the most influential historical questions of all time. For every uninterested secular party you might point me to there are plenty that are...regardless of theistic or atheistic leanings. And why would it not fascinate the secular? It's not a religious question.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Just another hack trying to convince us that there actually was a historical jesus.
intermediatespecies 2 years ago
If you deem me a hack...I seem to be in good company of both secular and religious scholarship.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Historians accept that Jesus was a real figure simply becuase they don't subscribe the rigorous need for evidence that say science does. Historians believe that Jesus was a real person because other people believed he was a real person. That's about it.
However, if we put Jesus in his proper place, then all we can say is that there is not enough evidence to say whether or not Jesus was a real person. Myself, I'm about 60% Jesus is mytholigical and 40% Jesus was a real historical person.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
I didn't realize science was in the business of proving a persons existence. IF it was however, and it used the strict criteria that might eliminate Christ...other very widely accepted and popular historical figures like Plato would also be deemed legendary rather than real.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Yes, it could, However, the problem that believers don't seem to understand is that Plato, Julius Caeser, and the like were all men. Believers want us to accept a magical god-man existed, on the order of say Hercules and Dionysus. Nobody believed they were real, but for some reason people believe Jesus is. As I've stated prior, it's possible Jesus never existed and was always a figure of mythology like all the other god-men were.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
What you are admitting here is that you want to reject that Christ existed...not based on the comparable evidence but on the claims of what these men did. Caesar did very human, ruler-like things and therefore could have and most likely did exist. Christ has much more documentation of having lived but since he performed miracles, couldn't have existed, right?
TheEdge012 2 years ago
No, this is what I am stating. Believers cannot accept that Jesus was just a man. They must have that he existed and was everything they believe him to be. Yes, it's possible that Jesus, as a man, existed. But what you are forgetting is that Scholars do not accept his miracles. They don't accept magic. Believers, who might be Scholars do, but not secular Scholars.
Because Jesus is so tied-up w/ magic and fantasy, then its reasonable to suggest he was always a mythological figure.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) Going further, take a good look at believers today and it's pretty obvious that believers don't want a real man. They don't want Jesus the man, that may have existed. They want "Jesus the Fantasy". Look at all the white, blue-eyed Jesus pictures there are. Look at all the silly pictures of Jesus riding dinosaurs, of Jesus making paper-airplanes w/ kids, etc. "Jesus is your friend!" -Right. he's your imaginary friend. Believers don't want a real Jesus. They prefer mythology
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
If Jesus was just another man or just a myth then my dedication to Him is rather pathetic. Paul says as much in the NT.
My reason for pointing out in this video that he was provably historical is that many skeptics won't even acknowledge that much. Its a place of potential common ground to start from if we can at least both agree upon this point.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
The way I look at it is this: There's not enough evidence to claim that Jesus did or didn't exist. However, since believers cannot except Jesus as a normal man, then I am inclined to believe that he is purely a mythical figure, like all the other god-men such as Hercules and Dionysus. Otherwise it's also possible that Jesus was a normal man that was transformed overtime into a mythical figure, which is the stance of most non-Christian Scholars.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) What I cannot say is that Jesus was probably a historical man. I cannot say that because that would require faith and not evidence, for there is no hard evidence to suggest that Jesus ever walked the earth. The Gospels read like myths and contain far to many contradictions and fantastical stories (ex-zombies rising from their graves at Jesus' crucifixtion in Matt.).
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) I'm not sure if you know, but the only "evidence" for Jesus existance is the gospels and Josephus' 2 passages, with one being the result of Christian tampering. So that's it. There is no other evidence. If you want to base your life on 4 short stories that contain mutliple contradictions, and 2 small passages from Jospheus, w/ one being Christian tampering, then go for it. Just be honest about it. Right now, most Christians aren't honest about their religion.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
"Believers cannot accept that Jesus was just a man."
Exactly or else they would not be "believers".
TheEdge012 2 years ago
You may have mentioned this before, but I think that Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is an awesome resource when it come to providing evidence regarding the Christian faith.
jmaconattack 3 years ago
I can't test this in science, therefore, it is not true.
LOL.
strongvine 3 years ago
I already knew Jesus was a real person but this only make my believe stronger thank you and god bless TheEgde012
cavmanchris 3 years ago
Believing that a character known as Jesus existed and taught is one thing and not something I personally have a problem believing he may have been 1 person or he may have been a composite of many teachers of the time. Believing that a person went around teaching and doing miracles healing the sick ,lame, raising the dead etc. etc. believing that is another thing. Again, that jump across the Mississippi, just can't do it.
Ender1zero1 3 years ago
i'm not sure he could've gotten so famous so fast, under those circumstances, unless something incredible took place. because there were plenty of others doing similar things, or at least known for some kind of healing, magic tricks, esoteric teaching, and whatnot, but don't achieve the same kind of recognition over the centuries. he's mentioned by name by a nonsympathetic historian of the time. the spread of Christianity itself is a factor that convinces me. divine nature of the Bible, etc.
weberly2 3 years ago
not to argue with you, i'm just pointing out some things that i personally find convincing, if that's the word. umm, impressive, persuasive. i've had other things for the convincing.
weberly2 3 years ago
"he's mentioned by name by a nonsympathetic historian of the time"
Who?
Ender1zero1 3 years ago
oh gosh, it's been awhile, i think Justinian.
weberly2 3 years ago
Nope Justinian was not a contemporary of Jesus.
Ender1zero1 3 years ago
i didn't mean to imply that he was contemporary.
weberly2 3 years ago
but that he's reliable his historian from waaay back then.
weberly2 3 years ago
if he is not a contemporary of Jesus there is no way he can be counted as proof of the existence of Jesus IMO
Ender1zero1 3 years ago
not saying it's proof, just persuasive.
weberly2 3 years ago
weberly "i'm not sure he could've gotten so famous so fast,"
Even Today we have people such as Sai Baba that have millions of follower that consider him a living god.
The Gospels were not written till a Generation after Jesus's Alleged death, And It was Hundereds of years before it reached the Billions of Souls in Asia and the Americas; Fast you say? Com'On!
gusb232 3 years ago
lol, okay.
weberly2 3 years ago
I wonder if you mean to compare this Sai Baba (someone I've not personally heard of) to Christ not only in popularity but in longevity of that fame? Surely you will at least conceed that Christ has passed what few others have...the test of time.
*Please note the word few...I did not say ALL. I can already anticipate the next jab.
TheEdge012 3 years ago
My point was simply to address how ridiculous it is to say the jesus was popular in His time ( He wasnt) But even if he had a Million Followers during his life It Proves Nothing. I would Expect someone as Amazing a Jesus was said to be To atleast aquire few Literate Devotees to give a first hand account of his life.
This most basic and prelininary evidence does not exist!
If you havent heard of Sai Baba who do you know He is Not a God???
gusb232 3 years ago
Ok The Christianity has been around longer than a Few other popular religions?
So WHat?
Does the Fact that Jews and Buddhist Hindus and many other Religions Have been around Longer Convey anything about there Truth value?
we agree NO!
gusb232 3 years ago
The test of time is not a measure of validity. Islam has been around 1500 years and many other religions have "stood the test of time".
camino1ca 3 years ago
You can't claim the test of time when Christianity isn't the oldest reliigon in the world. The Hindu fait is far older than Christianity or even Judaism.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
The test of time is simply an assertion that its not a fly by night, flash in the pan. It is simply one of many criteria one might expect from a genuine faith practice. It is not enough on its own merit though and I realize that.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Nobody is arguing that Christianity isn't a religion. "The test of time" is pointless and means nothing and nobody should be attempting to use it. Millionsof people can and do often believe in crazy things. The fact that sheer numbers of people over 2,000+ years believed in Jesus doesn't make him real if he never existed.
Christianity isn't the oldest religion. Judaism isnt' the oldest religion. Jesus is but one among a multitude of magical god-men that people have believed in.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
You've joined in on an argument that started from a different point than you are now headed. Someone in an older thread above was trying to argue that a guy named Sai Baba has millions of followers believing that he is the Messiah. The test of time arguments stemmed from that as I see evidence of many "wanna be's" that are a flash in the pan over the last century and even further back than that. I agree that this is not an aspect to hang a solid argument on for believing in Christ.
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Of course Sai Baba is not the messiah because there is no messiah. All religions are false. However, the Sai Baba example is good because it shows that large numbers of people can be made to believe anything. In most cults, when the savior-figure fails to appear at the given time then the cult dies. -Not Christainity. Jesus made it clear that he would return in the lifetime of his first disciples. That didnt' happen. 2,000+ years later believers still think he will return anyday now. -Mythology
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Good video, brother!! Thanks and God bless!!
Genesis
Genesis2Jesus 3 years ago
The "disingenuous" comment at the end of your video was climactic and oh so true, Edge! It always amazes me how when "Christ" is analyzed, all good scholarship goes out the window.
brainouty 3 years ago
Excellent, Edge.
Start with the "GodMan."
Hebrews 12:2
justchemicalz 3 years ago