IanS wrote:
The question is - what is the evidence that any of these people ever knew that any of their Jesus beliefs were actually true?

RealityRules wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Owdhat wrote:Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

That's somewhat contradictory but, yes, a legend was worshipped.

You're essentially advocating 'adoptionism

proudfootz wrote:Odd to see so many leaping aboard the bandwagon that's going nowhere.

'Jesus is special because I wish it were so' is a pretty succinct argument, though.

MS2 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Odd to see so many leaping aboard the bandwagon that's going nowhere.

'Jesus is special because I wish it were so' is a pretty succinct argument, though.

Who said Jesus is special? Who said they wished it were so? Where is this bandwagon?

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:
The question is - what is the evidence that any of these people ever knew that any of their Jesus beliefs were actually true?

No, that's your question. It is not the question, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Owdhat wrote:The legend turned into a divine being. and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

"Stories that never happened can be infinitely more powerful than stories that did"

Tom Holland: 1:09:26 .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8n5oGYECE

"Dear King Agbar, Sorry you are feeling sick, and I cant make it right away. I'm booked for ascension.
I'll send one of the apostles over soon to heal you. Thanks for Believing in Me when you haven't
even seen me! That's a really admirable quality! I wish there were more people like that, Jesus."





https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic ... edia_(1913)/Legend_of_Abgar

'Happy art thou who hast believed in Me, not having seen me, for it is written of me that those who shall see me shall not believe in Me, and that those who shall not see Me shall believe in Me. As to that which thou hast written, that I should come to thee, (behold) all that for which I was sent here below is finished, and I ascend again to My Father who sent Me, and when I shall have ascended to Him I will send thee one of My disciples, who shall heal all thy sufferings, and shall give (thee) health again, and shall convert all who are with thee unto life eternal. And thy city shall be blessed forever, and the enemy shall never overcome it.'"

According to Eusebius, it was not Hannan who wrote answer, but Our Lord Himself.

Owdhat wrote:
I did not say he existed as a fact, I said the religion that at its heart had.... There's a difference.

His existence is the best explanation of the material that we have - is my position .

Abgar Ouchama to Jesus, the Good Physician Who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting:

I have heard of Thee, and of Thy healing; that Thou dost not use medicines or roots, but by Thy word openest (the eyes) of the blind, makest the lame to walk, cleansest the lepers, makest the deaf to hear; how by Thy word (also) Thou healest (sick) spirits and those who are tormented with lunatic demons, and how, again, Thou raisest the dead to life. And, learning the wonders that Thou doest, it was borne in upon me that (of two things, one): either Thou hast come down from heaven, or else Thou art the Son of God, who bringest all these things to pass. Wherefore I write to Thee, and pray that thou wilt come to me, who adore Thee, and heal all the ill that I suffer, according to the faith I have in Thee. I also learn that the Jews murmur against Thee, and persecute Thee, that they seek to crucify Thee, and to destroy Thee. I possess but one small city, but it is beautiful, and large enough for us two to live in peace.

When Jesus had received the letter, in the house of the high priest of the Jews, He said to Hannan, the secretary, "Go thou, and say to thy master, who hath sent thee to Me: 'Happy art thou who hast believed in Me, not having seen me, for it is written of me that those who shall see me shall not believe in Me, and that those who shall not see Me shall believe in Me. As to that which thou hast written, that I should come to thee, (behold) all that for which I was sent here below is finished, and I ascend again to My Father who sent Me, and when I shall have ascended to Him I will send thee one of My disciples, who shall heal all thy sufferings, and shall give (thee) health again, and shall convert all who are with thee unto life eternal. And thy city shall be blessed forever, and the enemy shall never overcome it.'" According to Eusebius, it was not Hannan who wrote answer, but Our Lord Himself.

A curious legendary growth has sprung up from this imaginary occurrence.

proudfootz wrote:

MS2 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Odd to see so many leaping aboard the bandwagon that's going nowhere.

'Jesus is special because I wish it were so' is a pretty succinct argument, though.

Who said Jesus is special? Who said they wished it were so? Where is this bandwagon?

FFS!

Owdhat said:

"...of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed..."

WTF do you think that's supposed to mean?

Jesus is special because the religion that worships him is unique to the billions of religions.

I pointed this out already here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2255258

After I showed how Owdhat's argument is nonsensical self-refuting shit two posters thumb-upped it.

There's your 'bandwagon'.

Glad I could explain things for you.

You're welcome!

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:
The question is - what is the evidence that any of these people ever knew that any of their Jesus beliefs were actually true?

No, that's your question. It is not the question, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

No. It is THE question.

Owdhat wrote:Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

MS2 wrote:

RealityRules wrote:That's somewhat contradictory but, yes, a legend was worshipped.

You're essentially advocating 'adoptionism

MS2 wrote:Rubbish. Why do you feel the need to assign religious positions to those you disagree with?

adoptionism = the view that Jesus Christ was, at least initially, only a mortal man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheph ... hristology

Adoptionism: ... Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception ...

Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion") simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man.

Jesus was born in a normal way like the rest of us, to his parents, Joseph and Mary ... Jesus kept God's laws so well that on his baptism, God 'adopted' him as his son, and sent him to the cross as a truly innocent, perfect sacrifice, to atone for the sins of all mankind, to fulfil promises made in the Jewish scriptures.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christi ... onism.html

RealityRules wrote:
But you're right MS2: Jesus is only known and framed from a special religious position.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:
The question is - what is the evidence that any of these people ever knew that any of their Jesus beliefs were actually true?

No, that's your question. It is not the question, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

No. It is THE question.

Weird. How do you know it is THE question? Was there a memo I didn't get?

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
No, that's your question. It is not the question, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

No. It is THE question.

Weird. How do you know it is THE question? Was there a memo I didn't get?

Yes, actually it does seem there is a message, an explanation, that you are definitely not getting!

What counts in any logical honest 21st century educated discussion, is what genuine evidence exists to support the claim that is being made. And the claim which you, Owdhat and all other HJ people are making, is that it's logical and sensible for you to believe that Jesus was probably a real person.

IOW - what you and Owdhat are trying to say is that you believe in Jesus by putting your trust in the religious faith beliefs of the biblical writers ... biblical writers whose only "evidence" was their religious faith in a figure entirely unknown to any of them! You are trusting to 1st century religious faith (and that was actually faith in the constantly supernatural).

If you are going to express positive belief in something, then you can only reasonably do that on the basis of genuine reliable evidence of that which is being claimed. Otherwise what you are actually doing expressing a faith belief.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:


No. It is THE question.

Weird. How do you know it is THE question? Was there a memo I didn't get?

Yes, actually it does seem there is a message, an explanation, that you are definitely not getting!

Perhaps you'd better go open a new thread where you can promote your message then. Because this thread is and always has been one where people can argue whatever points they wish about and relevant to 'Historical Jesus'.

What counts in any logical honest 21st century educated discussion, is what genuine evidence exists to support the claim that is being made. And the claim which you, Owdhat and all other HJ people are making, is that it's logical and sensible for you to believe that Jesus was probably a real person.

I can't speak for Owdhat, but that isn't the claim I make in this thread. I've told you this before. The claim I make is that of the various possible explanations for the surviving evidence from the period, the best one appears to me to include a man called Jesus who did some preaching, gathered a few followers and got crucified.

I've told you repeatedly that this does NOT equate to a claim that that surviving evidence makes the sort of case that would deliver a guilty verdict in court.

IOW - what you and Owdhat are trying to say is that you believe in Jesus by putting your trust in the religious faith beliefs of the biblical writers ... biblical writers whose only "evidence" was their religious faith in a figure entirely unknown to any of them! You are trusting to 1st century religious faith (and that was actually faith in the constantly supernatural).

You've been told repeatly that equating what I think about a simple historical question to religious belief is bollocks. Your insistence on repeating it only looks like propaganda on your part.

If you are going to express positive belief in something, then you can only reasonably do that on the basis of genuine reliable evidence of that which is being claimed. Otherwise what you are actually doing expressing a faith belief.

There you go with the bollocks again. I think HJ is part of the best explanation of the evidence that has survived. That is what good history does. It looks for best explanations of evidence from the past. If I thought that there was a better explanation without HJ but continued to believe in HJ anyway, then you would have a point. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT.

MS2 wrote:
There you go with the bollocks again. I think HJ is part of the best explanation of the evidence that has survived. That is what good history does. It looks for best explanations of evidence from the past. If I thought that there was a better explanation without HJ but continued to believe in HJ anyway, then you would have a point. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT.