Posted: Mar 14, 2016 9:28 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:kyrani99 wrote:I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, a prophet, for two reasons:-
1. some of the statements he made require great insight, eg "the kingdom of heaven is within you",
2. Mohammed talked about Jesus and did not believe that he was crucified.
Do you imagine that you're actually deducing something, here? The bible already tells you that Jesus is a person of great insight and that he said those things. Your statement (1) amounts to saying you believe what the bible tells you, and maybe because the bible tells you that it is telling the truth.
Your statement (2) doesn't allow you to deduce anything, either. Mohammed might merely be repeating stories he's heard.
If you want to believe Jesus is a historical figure on the basis of this kind of 'reasoning', you might as well say you believe it because that's what you want to believe. Maybe you could make an argument; you just haven't done any more than rationalize it to yourself, so far. This gives off a whiff of expediency.
You can see the answer I gave to dejuror.
I DO NOT have confidence in Jesus as a historical figure "because of the Bible".
I would say comfortably 85% of the NT is fiction and a lot of it, whether it was intended that way or not, does harm. And another 10% of it has no real value. That leaves about 5% and maybe I am being optimistic to say even that, is valuable. Some of the words and teaching of Jesus point directly at Truth.
You should consider that a theist, a true theist, not someone parading as a theist (I have seen plenty of them out to deceive others and try to lay down the letter of the law to hurt others).. a true theist does not believe because of reason. They believe because of direct spiritual evidence. They can't explain it but so what? The enlightenment experience, even when fleeting, brings knowledge, but it is not the sort of knowledge that you can discuss intellectually. That is why there are koans, myths, parables and various other metaphors. They are all statements that to point to Truth, but which cannot be understood by the rational mind. Thus they read things that strike a chord with them.
For instance in discussion of the teachings of St Thomas you see theologians and academics try to use logic.
for example
J. D. Crossan, a scholar in contemporary historical Jesus research, writes:
"The six uses [of 'let him hear'] in Thomas have the double 'hear' in Gos. Thom. 8, 21 (as in Mark and Luke), but the single 'hear' in 24, 63, 65, 96 (as in Matthew). It is used mostly to conclude parables (8, 21, 63, 65, 96), but once to introduce an aphorism (24). Since Coptic has no participle, the opening is the equivalent of the Greek relatival format." (In Fragments, p. 70)
IMO and from my own spiritual experience, I can say to you that this intellectual reasoning does not lead to spiritual understanding. You do not gain anything meaningful from such reasoning. It is an attempt to apply logic and attempt to understand using reason but this is futile because the statements that point to Truth cannot be deciphered using logic and reason. They can only be understood through direct experience, enlightenment experience.
Unfortunately we surmise that if there is something true in a book then the rest might be true too. And if we see a fault in a book then we begin to doubt the rest as well. This is faulty reasoning. There can be a grain of truth in a book, in amongst a load of trash. There can also be faults in a book of facts.
It is a case of having the insight to recognize the gem in amongst the garbage and the garbage in the pot of gold.