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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's not what I typed. It's a pretty simple point: That the evidence for Jesus' divinity is no different than what it would be if he were not divine.

[Anonymous]

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

+1, and there is never evidence of divinity. Divinity cannot not be measured scientifically. Divinity is a matter of faith.

The extent of belief that Jesus is divine can be measured by counting the number of people who believe that, but divinity itself cannot be measured scientifically.

[Anonymous]

The evidence would be the gospels, if you’re comfortable believing that the stories about the dove at baptism, miracles and resurrection were accurately conveyed for a few decades until somebody wrote them down. Many are comfortable with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The evidence would be the gospels, if you’re comfortable believing that the stories about the dove at baptism, miracles and resurrection were accurately conveyed for a few decades until somebody wrote them down. Many are comfortable with that.

Apply that to all of these then? There is evidence for all of the claims in these, by your standard. Please respond.

Bahá'i
The Seven Valleys And The Four Valleys
These are two distinct texts of the Bahá’i faith written that were by Baha’u’llah, the founder of the Bahá’i faith. The Seven Valleys, written in the year 1860 in Baghdad, explains the journey of the soul through seven stages of life that focus on finding the right path. The Four Valleys, written in the year 1857 in Baghdad, states qualities of the mystical wayfarers as the observance of laws of religion, journey to God by using logic and reason, with love of God and journey through reason, obedience and inspiration.

Buddhism
The Tipitaka
The Tipitaka was written around 1st century BCE, and is authoritative mainly in the Theravada Buddhism. Their focus is on the dress code, certain dietary rules to be followed, and the teachings of the Buddha.

Christianity
The Bible
The Bible is considered a divine inspiration that records the relationship between God and humankind. The sacred text dates back to 4th Century from when copies have been preserved in the Vatican Library, and includes the holy writing related to Jesus. It is regarded by Christians as the inerrant word of the God.

Hinduism
The Vedas And The Upanishads
The Vedas in their written form were compiled around 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. It includes the original texts known as Mantra and the commentary portion as Brahmana. It includes four Vedas with teachings, like the procedures of wedding in the Rig Veda, sacrificial rites in the Yajur Veda, chanting of songs of praise in the Sam Veda, and philosophical and political issues are a part of the Atharva Veda. The Upanishads, also known as Vedanta, are considered as ends of Vedas, and are spiritual contemplation of the same.

Islam
The Quran And The Hadiths
The Quran in Islam is regarded as the word of God that is revealed to Muhammad, and the Hadiths contains the saying of the Muhammad and his followers, as this is a kind of narrative. These are authoritative texts in Islam.

Jainism
The Agamas
The Agamas are based on the tirthankara, which is itself related to the body of doctrines that come through authoritative teachers. These are fixed truths and a tradition without any discernible origin.

Judaism
The Tanakh And The Talmud
The Tanakh is a collection of Jewish texts, and some of its source material serves as the basis for the Christian Bible's Old Testament. Many of the same divine teachings from the Bible are recorded in it. In the Talmud, rabbinic teachings are described which tell about the meaning of work and the prohibition of different types of work.

Shintoism
The Kojiki
This text, first translated into English in the year 1882 and first written in Japanese, is a record in the Shinto religion which explains the customs, ceremonies, and magical practices followed in Japan by Shintos.

Sikhism
The Guru Granth Sahib
This sacred text, first compiled between the years 1563 and 1606 by Guru Arjan, the fifth Sikh Guru, also includes the teachings of 13 Hindu Bhakti movements’ saints, and two from Islam.

Taoism
The Dao De Jing
It is a Chinese philosophical text, authored by Laozi in the 6th Century B.C.E. The Dao De Jing denotes many of the most important philosophical teachings of the religion in 81 chapters.

Wicca
The Book Of Shadows
The text includes magical rituals found in the Neopagan religion known as Wicca. The Wicca movement proliferated in early 20th Century England, and has now spread across large parts of the English-speaking world.

Zoroastrianism
The Avesta
The Zoroastrian Avesta includes the law, teachings, and liturgy from the prophet Zarathushtra, and includes hymns, prayers, and minor texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

DP here. It's called "a discussion". There are not "goalposts". Because it's not a "game".

The discussion of his divinity is relevant to this thread because no one has claimed to deny the likely existence of historical human Jesus.

Are you admitting you can't show evidence of Jesus' divinity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The evidence would be the gospels, if you’re comfortable believing that the stories about the dove at baptism, miracles and resurrection were accurately conveyed for a few decades until somebody wrote them down. Many are comfortable with that.

Sure, they are comfortable -- because they have faith.

Faith is not evidence.

The stories of Jack and the bean stock and Santa with his sleigh have been accurately conveyed for generations - in writing, even - but no one believes they are factual. No one but little kids, that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

Yup. There is zero evidence of his divinity. (or anyone's)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

Yup. There is zero evidence of his divinity. (or anyone's)

For those that believe the gospels were ultimately based on reliable accounts (Q or quelle traditions), the story of resurrection is convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

Yup. There is zero evidence of his divinity. (or anyone's)

For those that believe the gospels were ultimately based on reliable accounts (Q or quelle traditions), the story of resurrection is convincing.

They “believe” out of faith. Not historical records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

Yup. There is zero evidence of his divinity. (or anyone's)

For those that believe the gospels were ultimately based on reliable accounts (Q or quelle traditions), the story of resurrection is convincing.

resurrection is physically impossible. Belief in that is totally a matter of faith.

It actually seems somewhat insulting to religion to depend on an ancient account to back up your faith. This implies that without these "reliable accounts" you wouldn't believe.

DO you have a reliable account of the ascension? Are you waiting for one before you will believe that Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he may have existed in history.

Moving the goal posts again? Now we have to prove he is divine? What does that have to do with his existence?

Chill TF down. No one asked you to prove his divinity.

I was just commenting on the prior posts about divinity & historicity.

Historicity - of anyone --can be proved by checking the historical record. Proving divinity is impossible via historical records. Belief in divinity only comes via faith.

Yup. There is zero evidence of his divinity. (or anyone's)

For those that believe the gospels were ultimately based on reliable accounts (Q or quelle traditions), the story of resurrection is convincing.

resurrection is physically impossible. Belief in that is totally a matter of faith.

It actually seems somewhat insulting to religion to depend on an ancient account to back up your faith. This implies that without these "reliable accounts" you wouldn't believe.

DO you have a reliable account of the ascension? Are you waiting for one before you will believe that Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God?

Keep posting, honey. The rest of us will keep wiping your spittle off our screens.