Yeah, so was the idea that Chump would be our next POTUS.
I looked into whether Jesus was a real man or not a few months ago. You can wade through a mountain of historical documents you are not qualified to analyze or you can just ask what the majority of historians believe. The majority of historians believe that Jesus was, in fact, a real person.
I do think that the majority of those historians who believe Jesus was real have a stake in promoting the Christian religion. I see a mounting number of serious scholars who dispute that Jesus was a real person. I tend to side with those. One fact alone--that no person contemporary to Jesus (including himself) wrote about the man. Nobody. Strange at best. The Jesus of the bible is a fiction.
I was gonna say it's news to me that historians believe jesus was a real person historically. I was informed that as mike says the serious historians do not believe he was based on a real man named jesus. Historically pretty much the whole bible is a fabrication.
There's a big difference between a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics, and a Jesus who performed miracles. Proving that there was a Jesus constrained by the laws of physics doesn't lend credibility to the Bible. It actually demolishes it. Now which Jesus are the historians talking about? Just a guy named Jesus? Or a miracle Jesus? If it's the first, well, OK, maybe, why not? If it's the miracle Jesus, then that sounds like bullshit. If all you can do is prove there was a guy named Jesus, well whoop-de-doo. You haven't got Jack. And no one has been able to prove that, anyway. I've never understood the point of arguing about the existence of just a regular guy named Jesus. It's a waste of theological discussion and hurts Christianity more than it supports it.
So what if a man named Jesus did all miracles listed but that literal interpretation is a misunderstanding? Walked on water could be seen a metaphor for GOD and hovering over the void in Genesis. Healing the lame and blind can all be taken spiritually. Even reviving the dead can and does seem to refer to spiritual death or utter misdirection in ones own life coupled with the inability to change ones path though one may know of its erroneous direction. Jesus was a man. So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.Peace
So historians generally thinking that Jesus the man existed is indeed relevant in my opinion.Peace
I think I finally figured out where you are coming from, Pops. You like to think of life and religion and the bible and Jesus as metaphor's for how to live one's life. Am I correct?There was a gentleman named Charles Fillmore who founded the Unity Church. He authored a book that I think you would simply love! It is called The Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. In it he tells you how to take any story in the bible and turn it into a metaphor for your current situation in life. At the time I was a member of that church, I found I used that book quite a bit; I still own a copy. As a very brief example, I rendered the David vs Goliath story this way. David went from the mountain to the valley to meet Goliath. The mountains are when we are connecting with our inner self, assessing what it is we need. The valley is where the rubber meets the road. Saul offer David help of armor and weapons. David refused the help and used his own weapons; when tackling a huge undertaking search within and determine what works for you and the use those tools to the best of your ability. In the valley use those tools and have trust in your abilities when tackling your own goliath. My full rendition was over a page long, so this is simply a taste. I really do hope you look this book up--it is right down your alley!
Most experts in Norse history agree that there probably was an actual man named Thor, who was a local leader and could lift a lot of heavy weight. Some experts refute this, of course, but they aren't very good experts.
I'm sure you do, Pops. Your opinion holds that Jesus was a man, therefore you will say that the historians that agree with you are correct. That is simply wishful thinking, along the lines of believing the Tooth Fairy exists because you want her to. Same, same. There is no proof that the bibical jesus existed.
As a religion, I'm not going to complain about that. Metaphors are OK. It's not a claim of literal reality. As long as your interpretation isn't that it's also everybody else's interpretation, and that you realize that you're making a temporary interpretation based on an immediate need, that's cool. I start getting skeptical when theists wander beyond the bounds of what they know, conflating what they know, with what they want.
I said relevant.And we are talking about a person not a tooth fairy.