existence of Jesus, the theological figure
Hello my name is Silas and I have a screename on youtube, called YeshuaIsMyLord. This forum is dedicated to discuss issues regarding the existence of the Jesus Christ of faith. And whether the Jesus in various religious theology ever existed. The following below is the conversation I have had on: www.youtube.com/JohnLArmstrong, so far:
 |
YeshuaIsMyLord (10 minutes ago)
No problem John,? I will.
|
 |
JohnLArmstrong (1 hour ago)
Silas, can I? suggest we take this discussion to my website forum? It's
better for this kind of exchange of ideas. The link appears in this channel description. Christians, Muslims and other religious people are welcome to post on my forum. |
|
|
YeshuaIsMyLord (2 hours ago)
Have you read Lee Strobel's The Case for Easter? If so, what do you think of it? Since? I am reading it now.
|
|
|
YeshuaIsMyLord (4 hours ago)
I will see what I can do, and just as a? sidenote I prefer being called Silas and not by my youtube screename. Thanks.
|
|
|
JohnLArmstrong (19 hours ago)
@YIML:
You're using folklore to prove mythology and following that up with special pleading. Prove the disciples (1) existed (2) were persecuted for their beliefs and (3) went to their deaths refusing to recant. When |
|
|
YeshuaIsMyLord (20 hours ago)
If Jesus Christ never resurrected can you explain why so many
Christians were willing to die such horrible painful? deaths, who believed that the did witness the resurrection? Again I stated this question. Thanks. |
|
|
YeshuaIsMyLord (20 hours ago)
A Christian? friend of mine stated that if Christianity is false then
why did so many early Christians who claimed to have known Jesus and witnessed his resurrection why did they die such horrible deaths? |
Glad you could make it.
I'm curious about your profile. You're an ex-Muslim who's become a Christian. What convinced you that one religion was any more valid than the other?
I've read Strobel's "Case for Christ" and listened to his "Case for Faith" but not this book you mention. Strobel, for all his claims of hard nosed journalism and professions of doubt, can be counted on to offer a very one-sided view to say the least. His style is usually to play up nerf-ball questions which he tosses to fundamentalist apologists and the views of skeptics are never presented, except in strawman fashion. His works that I have read are so chock full of logical fallacies and flimsy rationalizations that I eagerly quote him in my own book, usually under the heading "Lee Strobel Tries to Explain".
<< issues regarding the existence of the Jesus Christ of faith.>>
Before I can consider the issue of faith in the real Jesus or the mythical Christ, I must clear up the issue of faith in the book, or books, that are our primary source of information.
I have laid-out three gold-trimmed, leather-bound books on the table before me: The Holy Bible; The Holy Koran; and the Holy Book of Mormon. Each of these books has millions of believers. Each has a long historical lineage. Each claims to be directly inspired by God. Each records the testimony of witnesses. Each describes miracles and suffering martyrs. Each has something to say about Jesus.
Now my question to you is this: how can I decide which, if any, of these Holy Scriptures to believe when they contradict each other? What source can I trust to tell me the truth about "the Jesus Christ of faith"?
Since "faith" cannot be alsolutely proven by anyone here, no one may be able to provide you with an answer to your question. Many of these so called Holy Texts have contradictions, gross inconsistencies, and error, and personally, I don't have a lot of confidence in any of them anymore.
All of these texts were written by men, and many who will cling onto these texts will claim to the world that they were "inspired" by the true Creator of the Universe! Others will use the ancient texts to prove their so called, spiritual legitimacy. One religious group seems to condemn another, especially over the issue of Jesus Christ, or Messiah. The historical record concerning Jesus Christ appears to be very poor, which John has most pointedly illustrated in his videos. Over the centuries this hotly debated issue has been a bloody one, as well. For these and many other reasons, I will never be part of any of these groups again. Religion, in general, essentially divides, and it probably always will!
Personally, I have chosen to put many religious beliefs and religion off to the side, and put my trust in the true Creator alone. We can love the Creator and His creation. We can treat fellow beings with respect. We can boldly claim to others, as deists, that we may not have all the right answers about life, but we don't have to be hypocritical in our lifestyle! Yes, a more simple approach about this issue may be needed.
Some of course, will not let go of religion, and they should be afforded that right. Personally, I have chosen to put religion, as well as many other preconceived notions (which divide) to the side. Making the decision to abandon religion has proven to be very satisfying and liberating!
May God's gift of reason light our way!
I have gone through your book, God vs. the Bible, and feel that you have a very strong poitn and have actually irrefutably proven that according to the Bible the reason why we have sunrise and sunset is because of the sun's movement. But my question is that, since we also know that the sun moves on the milky way and is not completely stationary, could it be that the earth's movement is dependant upon the sun's movement? Could it be that the Bible is talking about something scientific that we haven't discovered yet? Have you ever tried discussing that very passage in the Book of Joshua with any Jewish rabbis also, as well as Christian priests/scholars? I hope my comments do make sense, if not please ask me to clarify.
The only criteria of truth I would say is that if you seek God and try coming closer to Him, you will find him, thats basically what all three montheistic religions say. If trying to find and seek God again, I find myself getting drawn to another path other than Christianity, then I would believe that even this criteria is wrong and there is no way to knwo the truth. In that sense I might agree with you to some extent, but as to rejecting the existence of a Jewish man named Jesus, upon whom many fables could have been created later one is something that one cannot do. Jesus TO SAY THE LEAST could indeed have been a great man, whom people after his death could indeed have made fables and stories about and elevated him to the status of an infallible god. I believe that the brief reference of Jesus as the brother of Christ is indeed an authentic reference as I have done a bit of research on it, but like you I don't believe in the Testimonium Flavanium either. But there is so no solid evidence to disprove the brief reference of Jesus made by Josephus as the brother of Christ to be an interpolation. But as an open-minded person I do accept the possibility of correction and of being wrong. Thanks for your time.
Josephus has another alleged reference to Jesus where he introduces "the brother of Jesus, James".
Jesus (Yeshua) was a common name then. Josephus later clairifies he's refering to Jesus Bar Damneus or son of Damneus. This is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
Josephus has another alleged reference to Jesus where he introduces "the brother of Jesus, James".
Jesus (Yeshua) was a common name then. Josephus later clairifies
he's refering to Jesus Bar Damneus or son of Damneus. This is not the
Jesus of the Gospels.
Another interesting angle to look at that reference from is the fact that James is the subject matter, yet Jesus is mentioned first. That is definitely out of the norm. The traditional way to identify a person by his relation was to say something like, "James, the brother of Jesus." The fact that "the brother of Jesus" precedes the name of the character being discussed makes me wonder if Christians also tampered with this text.
The "Testimonium" is a well-known forgery, so why wouldn't they doctor this passage up too? Especially if an early Christian copyist didn't realize that the reference was to Jesus Bar Damneus, he could quite easily assume that Josephus meant the Jesus of the Gospels when he got to this text. Thus, the copyist could have decided to pay honor to Jesus by naming him first, changing Josephus' phrase, "James, the brother of Jesus," to, "The brother of Jesus, James."
I'm speculating, of course, but it seems very reasonable to me.
If you don't mind can you please tell me where it days that because I do see the reference of the other Jesus, but in the passage Josephus talks about James being the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. Was Jesus Bar Damneus ever believed to be the Christ? Why doesn't Josephus say James, the brother of Jesus Bar Damneu, rather than say James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ? Make sense?
Back when I read that document in order to get the context, it specifies Jesus Bar Damneus in the next paragraph or so.
Current copies does say "the so-called Christ" which seems really strange to me. He was speaking to a Roman audience who might not have understood the concept of a messiah without an explanation. Putting that aside, assuming the audience was savvy enough with Judaism, why Josephus introduced Jesus first and then James. Since he was writing about James, it would make more sense to write, "James, the brother of Jesus..." regardless of whether he was referring to Jesus Bar Damneus or the Gospel character.
If Josephus was speaking of Jesus the Gospel character, why not introduce this character and tell us more about him? If we throw out the TF, which personally I do as the whole paragraph is suspect, then we have Jo introducing Jesus and then saying nothing about him. If he was so important as to introduce another character as his brother, why couldn't we have a short description as to why he was so important.
If, however, you accept that "so-called Christ" was an interpolation, then the whole part makes sense. He's talking about Jesus Bar Damneus.
I think it does say James, the brother of Jesus first of all, but then again I will check again. As to why Jo doesn't give more information about this Jesus character, maybe because he didn't think Jesus was that of an important charcter to talk about in detail as much as he might have thought his brother, James was. Maybe also Jesus wasn't that famous religous leader Jesus of the Gospel and like you said an insiginifcant religious leader of which even little reference to could be more than enough. But like I said I will also try going going back.
I think it does say James, the brother of Jesus first of all, but then again I will check again.
No, it lists Jesus first. It's in Antiquities 20.9.1, and here is how the phrase is stated:
...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others....
Source: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm
I personally very seriously doubt that Josephus wrote that that way. Traditionally, the subject would be mentioned first, then the identifying relation. For example, see Josephus' mention of "Aaron, the brother of Moses" in Antiquities 20.10.1. Similarly, see the mention of "Germanicus, the brother of Caesar" in 20.8.1.
The fact that Antiquities 20.9.1 reads the way it currently does, listing Jesus before the actual subject James, implies to me that the text of 20.9.1 was tampered with by a Christian who wanted to honor Jesus by putting his name first. The original could have simply mentioned James, or it could have said, "James, the brother of Jesus," but I find it difficult to believe that Josephus (who was not a Christian, by the way) would have deviated from the norm in this passage to mention Jesus first.
The original could have simply mentioned James, or it could have said,
"James, the brother of Jesus," but I find it difficult to believe that
Josephus (who was not a Christian, by the way) would have deviated from
the norm in this passage to mention Jesus first.
The above statement I would say is the only thing that could be correct, whereas the rest is speculation. I went to the link: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm. And Jesus, the son of Damneus, is only addressed as Jesus, the son of Damneus, no where do we see evidence of the Jesus who is the brother of James to be called Jesus, the son of Damneus. This what I have noticed going through Chapter 9 in the above link. Josephus talks about another Jesus in Chapter 9 as we see below:
And now Jesus, the
son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in
the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which
account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another;
for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently
came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other.
This proves that the Jesus,
who was called Christ is a different and seperate from the rest of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus's book.
Some translate it as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" and others translate it as "Jesus,
who was called Christ". Which one is it?
The above statement I would say is the only thing that could be correct, whereas the rest is speculation.
I am not sure what you mean by "the only thing that could be correct." Are you saying that it is correct that Josephus deviated from the norm in this particular passage, or are you saying that I am correct in suggesting that it is not likely that Josephus would have deviated from the norm?
At any rate, I agree that there is speculation inolved. I had already acknowledged that myself. Speculation or not, though, if you want me to believe that this one specific time Josephus would have had cause to deviate from the norm, then you need to suggest what that cause was. Personally, I see no reason why he would, and given the fact that it is well known that early Christians altered texts (even in Josephus' work), it makes perfect sense to see this as another text that has probably been tampered with.
And Jesus, the son of Damneus, is only addressed as Jesus, the son of Damneus, no where do we see evidence of the Jesus who is the brother of James to be called Jesus, the son of Damneus.
Yeah, when I read through it myself, I wasn't totally convinced that the statement about "Jesus, who was called Christ" was referring to "Jesus, the brother of Damneus." Maybe so, but I am personally more inclined to think that it was a Christian interpolation.
Speculation, yes, but not unreasonable or unwarranted speculation at all.
When I said the only thing I think is correct, I was agree with you on the possibility that a Christian interpolater moved Jesus's name in order to give Jesus more importance than James, I agree with that, but that still doesn't disprove the idea that Jesus wasn't mentioned at all. It could be like you yourself stated that Josephus might hvae indeed mentioned Jesus, but a Christian interpolater moved his name to give Jesus more importance (sorry to sound redundant....). So in this case, Jesus was probably mentioned and therefore probably existed, though as one of the least popular religious figures of his time.
When I said the only thing I think is correct, I was agree with you on the possibility that a Christian interpolater moved Jesus's name in order to give Jesus more importance than James, I agree with that,
That's cool, we're on the same page there.
but that still doesn't disprove the idea that Jesus wasn't mentioned at all.
I think you meant to say that it doesn't prove the idea that Jesus wasn't mentioned at all. At any rate, it neither proves nor disproves it, but it does mean that this part of the text is suspect.
It could be like you yourself stated that Josephus might hvae indeed mentioned Jesus, but a Christian interpolater moved his name to give Jesus more importance (sorry to sound redundant....). So in this case, Jesus was probably mentioned
Might have, might not have. Your insistence that "Jesus was probably mentioned" is just as speculative as anything I've speculated. The text is definitely suspect, probably tampered with, and therefore unreliable.
and therefore probably existed, though as one of the least popular religious figures of his time.
Maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. As I stated above, the text has most likely been tampered with. A text that has been tampered with is unreliable, and therefore this passage doesn't amount to much in the way of evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Take care....
Well the Lee Strobel book I am trying to read now is what you would call an easy read, its not even a thick book at all. As to why I converted from being an ex-Muslim to a Christian is bceause I tried to come closer to God and around the same time I started having Christianity constantly draw me closer and closer towards it at one point. Whatever this thing was that was trying to draw me I don't know, but I tried resisting it and never could and eventually I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord. That's my testimony in a nutshell. A woman told me once that this force that was drawing me to the faith was no other than the Holy Spirit. As a deist, how would explain this phenomenon scientifically and in terms of reason.
Quote: As a deist, how would explain this phenomenon scientifically and in terms of reason.
Short answer:
It's probably just in your mind.
Long answer:
These spiritual experiences are common and occur with all different faiths and perspectives. Christians sometimes feel it when praying to Jesus, Buddhists might as they meditate and I feel them as I behold the beauty of nature or take in the scope of the universe at a planetarium.
Recently, a Muslim posted on one of my videos that anyone who sincerely seeks God will become a Muslim. I can only assume he/she would argue similar feelings that have drawn him/her to Islam.
I won't ridicule you for having them but let's recognize them for what they are. They are feelings and convictions, not evidence.
Humans have thrown their lives away for so many worthless purposes that I find the 'argument from martyrdom' to be particularly senseless.
Consider how many Germans died for Hitler...or Japanese for their emperor who they considered a 'god.'
Your jesus is no different....and certainly no more real.
You do have a point there, in regards to our fellow human beings giving their lives out of uselessness. However, my Christian friend tells me that the reason why so many Christians died is because of they believed that Jesus really did rise from the dead. If I remember and wish I will indeed ask him for where he got his sources from and will indeed try showing them to you.
Many people will use Messiah as a "litmus test" to determine who gets a ticket to heaven and who doesn't. This is just another major stigma that troubles me greatly about all of the "revealed religions". Bailey Smith (a follower of the late Jerry Falwell) boldly stated (in Flemming's God Who Wasn't There Video) that "God does not hear the prayer of the Jew." What gives him the right to say who God hears the prayers of? Many orthodox Jews today deny that Jesus was the real Messiah. Some even believe that King David, or some other person, will come on the scene and become the true Messiah. The "official" christian position is this. You must believe that this man was God, or, you will be damned to hell. I am not so sure about that anymore. Other groups who think they have the truth believe that Messiah existed, but he was not divine or deity. When you see such diverse views as these, the obvious inference is "we are right while everyone else is wrong!" I have a serious problem with that! Many have died over these positions and the subject, indeed, has a very bloody history. I have researched this extensively, and each person should research this issue themselves before making any conclusions. What a mess this is today!
Everyone, of course, cannot be right here! All of us today, are human and mortal! The historical evidence, despite Lee Strobel's book is sketchy. Ed Humphries, an avowed atheist, presents some very strong evidence that Jesus never existed, or, if he did indeed exist, he was NOT a God-man or deity. While I an not an atheist, Mr. Humphries website appears to present some credible evidence to this effect. What a confusing mess this is!
I am happy to say that if a true Creator does exist, many on this earth may not have the Eternal's perspective. I believe that it is the true Creator, and the Creator alone, and not necessarily anyone's precious, but (segregated) religious beliefs that will determine the eternal destiny of mankind.
My friend, the christian community indeed, may NOT have a LOCK to absolute truth on this matter.
John, I am very happy that I have not been banned from presenting my deist views here! May God's gift of reason light our way!
Quote:
<<As to why I converted from being an ex-Muslim to a Christian is bceause
I tried to come closer to God and around the same time I started having
Christianity constantly draw me closer and closer towards it at one
point. Whatever this thing was that was trying to draw me I don't know,
but I tried resisting it and never could and eventually I accepted
Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord.>>
This personal testimony reminded me of a recent post on another forum which discussed St. Augustine's "reasons" for converting from Manicheism to Christianity. Note especially, "why could not the offending passages in the Manichee scriptures have been intellectually rehabilitated in the same way as their fellows in the Old Testament?" Here it is, FWIW.
Not to belabor the same point, I was this very morning reminded again of the common "appeal to Reason" on religious topics. In Philosophy Now magazine, "Charles Natoli considers whetherSt. Augustine
In his discussion of the brilliant Pagan's conversion to Christianity, the author raises a pertinent question : "But in the clash of reason with reason, what if either side can avail itself of essentially the same arguments?" Apparently, Augustine was inherently a rationalist, "because the Manichees promised him reasons in lieu of faith" But later he rejected the dualistic---good god, bad god---worldview of Manicheanism, in favor of the tripartite---Father, Son, Holy Ghost---deity of Christianity.
In his book, On the Usefulness of Believing, Augustine gave his logical reasons for winnowing the chaff of Mani, and gathering-in the "wheat" of Christ. Yet the article's author logically asks, "why could not the offending passages in the Manichee scriptures have been intellectually rehabilitated in the same way as their fellows in the Old Testament". He noted that even the impeccable Reason of a towering genius could be enslaved to the petty passions of the heart. "For our reason, like the rest of our humanity, is part and parcel not of an Ideal world . . ." but of a dispiriting Real world full of reasons to doubt.
Therefore the author concluded that a paragon of reasoning was ultimately ruled by a human heart, which "hath reasons that reason does not know". And that was just one of many reasons why the saint was motivated to reject a doctrine (supposedly) based on Reason, and accept one based on Faith. "The former always left his heart with doubts, and the latter conferred a certainty which left his heart nothing more to desire".
Reason alone is not sufficient to winnow the wheat from the chaff. In the struggle between heart and head, Certainty is a sign that the heart has won. Yet Doubt is a sign that Reason is still in charge. Like physical pain relative to Life, the discomfort of doubt performs a necessary service to Mind. When the internal "clash of reasons" causes Cognitive Dissonance, pangs of doubt warn us of impending false beliefs. Tentative doubt doesn't feel as good as absolute certainty, but it's necessary to avoid permanent damage to the belief system.
I will always respect your testimony. You have presented arguements for converting from one form of belief to christianity, but, I for one, tend to side with John, as a critic of the Bible and christianity.
There are indeed, many pro-christian sites on the world wide web that would be very conducive to your views. We deists use much more than reason to believe as we do, and I suspect many here will never go back into the christian movement again.
May God's gift of reason light our way!
I do appreciate your words, but like I said I also wanted to know the Deist/freethinker/scientific understanding of what I was going through that led me to the christian faith.
You are asking a psychological question that I may not be qualified to answer. Religion is a powerful force in this world, and it can also be very controlling. Unfortunately, many in the revealed religions such as christianity believe that "they are right, and everyone else (including many of us deists) are wrong!". Yes, the deistic viewpoint about this subject may be "incompatible". I don't think that christianity and deism "mix". Yes, there may be some similarities, but in my mind, there may be too many significant differences between the two. Why? Faith is faith, but facts (such as those in the GodvstheBible book) are facts!. Any persons "faith" of course, can never be absolutely disproven by the observer. Let me give you a simple example... A person could believe that God is a bottle of ketchup, and no person on this earth could absolutely disprove such a belief. Facts, however, are another different matter, and this is one of the main reasons I am in the deism camp. Let me also say this.
You have every right to stay in the christian faith, if you want to. Perhaps you could go to several deism websites, and there are several on the internet. Study Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson's writings. Read apologetics that are both for and against christianity. In my mind, this is "homework" that you need to do on your own. No matter what I believe that we as individuals need to do most of the thinking, and not necessarily let others, such as the religious hierarchy, do our thinking for us. That indeed, could be both a tragic and dangerous thing.
The final decision about where you are in your beliefs are yours, and yours alone. I really wish that all of those who are in the "revealed" religions (such as christianity) would be as accepting of us (on this website) as we may be of them, but clearly, that is NOT the case! Many christian websites will close an open debate with deists but websites such as this one, obviously, do not. I have experienced this first hand. Primarily because of the excessive dogmatism from these religionists, I will never, ever go back into the christian faith again!
May God's gift of reason light our way!
Quote:
<< As to why I converted from being an ex-Muslim to a Christian is bceause I tried to come closer to God >>
In what sense are you closer to God as a Christian than as a Muslim? Is it the idea of God taking the form of a man that appeals to you? The Hebrew Yahweh and the Muslim Allah are rather cold abstractions, which is why their worshippers had to be repeatedly warned about falling into idolatry. For Christians, Jesus may provide some of the conceptual concreteness, and emotional warmth of an idol. A god in human form seems more real and approachable than a faceless, formless spirit in heaven.
As I wanted to come closer to God, I felt something drawing me to Christianity it was an overwhelming feeling, which also gave me a feeling of comfort, as a Christian I have believed it was the Holy Spirit who was the cause of this drawing to the faith and giving me a feeling of peace alongside. Hope I answered your question/s.