If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

The teachings in the New Testament show influences from the Essenes (a Jewish sect), Greek and Roman philosophy (familiar from the occupying Roman state), and possibly Buddhism (which was known in Egypt and Greece as early as 250 BCE). The teachings don't spring from nowhere. Jesus didn't make it all up on his own. He was clearly educated in a variety of important traditions.

Or,

There may be beliefs that have emerged independently in different cultures, perhaps reflecting recognition of a fundamental truth. For instance, my impression is that most cultures have some version of the Golden Rule. That does not necessarily mean that they learned it from studying another culture, but that it is generally recognized as a beneficial practice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Personally, as a Christian, my belief is that Jesus being equally God and man, was able to teach spiritual truths, and any overlap with other religions is their recognition of those aspects of the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

Aaaaand thanks for making the point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Denying Jesus ever existed, that his existence is a hoax, is a fringe belief - a conspiracy theory. Like there was a cult that began while he was alive, but it was a hoax because he never was alive. How ridiculous. Do you people believe Mohammed never existed too? LOL

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

That's the point. Who cares if a guy named Jesus actually existed in 1st century Judea? The story about him is not history; it's theology.

Agree totally. It doesn’t even matter if there was an actual dude named Jesus or not. Believers have faith in the story of Jesus - the theology.

Actually, there are a lot of guys named Jesus back then -- a popular name at the time among Jews. And there were a lot of itinerant preachers, too, like there were in the early days of the American west.

Also, the particular story of Jesus of Nazareth is strikingly similar to earlier myths of dying/rising gods. Born of a virgin, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

And some of these gods were even born on Jesus' birthday, Dec 25. https://www.nairaland.com/4251378/list-gods-born-virgin-25th

A lot of this is well known, has been discussed before here on DCUM and doesn't interfere with people's belief in Christianity, which, as a religion, is built on faith. Anyone who would question their religion because of facts, does not have enough faith.

Faith can be built back up after learning disturbing facts about your religion. Some people just don't believe the facts when they hear them. Others, who may not have been very faithful in the first place, leave religion.

That website is absurdly wrong. No one thinks Horus was born to a virgin. Some stories of his conception involve Isis impregnating herself with Osiris's dismembered penis, but they were married before that and she wasn't a virgin. His birthday was celebrated on one of the intercalary days, which were between the season of low water and the season of flooding, which is over the summer (the Nile flood begins in August).

Buddha was born to a couple that had been married for 20 years, not a virgin. His birthday is in April or May (lunar calendar dates move around) and he's not a God.

I'm sure the rest have similar problems, these things are usually just made up, but I only glanced at the first two.

Pretty please, can we talk about Horus’ golden penis again? And about the Mithras cult that didn’t reach Roman citizens until 200-300 AD?

It’s “cute” (you asked for it) that an atheist here no longer bothers reciting these hilarious supposed links to Jesus. These days she only tries to fob us off with vague allusions to these stories.

Groundhog, you’re a hoot and you don’t even know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

Aaaaand thanks for making the point!

Lame, do better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

Aaaaand thanks for making the point!

Lame, do better

It was “very likely” the perfect response to an inane comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

Aaaaand thanks for making the point!

Lame, do better

Nope, you did it perfectly for me. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

And whether or not Jesus existed, history does not and cannot opine on his divinity. That is beyond the scope of academic research, as any academician will attest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

And whether or not Jesus existed, history does not and cannot opine on his divinity. That is beyond the scope of academic research, as any academician will attest.

How is that any different than if Jesus were not divine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

And whether or not Jesus existed, history does not and cannot opine on his divinity. That is beyond the scope of academic research, as any academician will attest.

How is that any different than if Jesus were not divine?

no different. Historians can say, based on their research, that some people believed that Jesus was divine, but cannot say he was divine.

[Anonymous]

This thread isn’t about his divinity, just historicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

And whether or not Jesus existed, history does not and cannot opine on his divinity. That is beyond the scope of academic research, as any academician will attest.

How is that any different than if Jesus were not divine?

no different. Historians can say, based on their research, that some people believed that Jesus was divine, but cannot say he was divine.

I think that the important part of your response is the "no different" part.

So the evidence that Jesus was divine is the same as if he were not divine.

Which, then, is more likely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need to ask this on an internet message board. There is an abundance of real scholarly information explaining the likely origins - all of it very compelling and not that complicated. Once you've read it, it's pretty hard to imagine that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Just do some real research instead of listening to a bunch of random people on the internet.

Still, you're expressing your opinion based on the reading/research that you've done. Others could and do have a different opinion.

Also, some people conflate "historical" with proof of divinity. It is no such thing. It's simply likelihood of having existed.

For instance, there is no doubt about the historical George Washington or that he was the 1st president of the US. It's all well documented at a time, not so long ago, when such important events were well documented.

No one is saying that Washington was a god, but if they did, there is no way for history to record a supernatural event. History only deals with facts.

Can't say the same about Jesus.

But unlike 99% of this thread, the "reading/research that I've done" came with a couple of advanced degrees and is more than just an "opinion." There is an actual body of research on this topic - published, peer-reviewed research. Your opinion, based on nothing at all but what you thought up in your head or read on a message board, is not equal to actual academic knowledge. And if you aren't familiar with that body of work, which is vast and very compelling and not at all just a bunch of "opinions," then it's pointless to try to explain to you why it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that Jesus was a real human who existed.

And whether or not Jesus existed, history does not and cannot opine on his divinity. That is beyond the scope of academic research, as any academician will attest.

How is that any different than if Jesus were not divine?

no different. Historians can say, based on their research, that some people believed that Jesus was divine, but cannot say he was divine.

I think that the important part of your response is the "no different" part.

So the evidence that Jesus was divine is the same as if he were not divine.

Which, then, is more likely?

DP. I’m not sure I understand this. But if I’m reading this correctly, you’re trying to equate evidence for Jesus’ existence with evidence for his divinity and claiming that of you can’t prove one you can’t prove the other. This is your basic apples and oranges, and the second thing is definitely not related to the first.