You don’t accept Christ as a historical person too?
Lol
Okay so anything prior to the invention of photograph is unreal.
This is well established.
I didn’t say there wasn’t some guy with that name. Biblical scholars agree that we can’t get back to who that was or reconstruct a consistent philosophy. Are there any miracles in the NT that you don’t believe in?
I believe all miracles in NT.
Also I assume you’ve seen this right? 
I inferred you did, based on what you’ve said so far. So, i really don’t care about Jesus being an historical figure or not. It has very little to do with what is in the Bible.
You keep picking fights.
“Fights” are good. They keep us sharp 
Yes I then take a leap of faith as the Ego-Based Gentleman from Planet Earth mentioned earlier and I believe in the Jesus of the Bible because the Historical Jesus is my anchor.
I like dialog. I learn by defending my POV and listening to challenges. But you make assumptions about me. Then I have to respond so we can move on. That is getting old
I thought you were joking there but if you think that these are “fights” instead of challenges then I don’t know what to tell you.
I mean I make direct questions, and I also accept direct questions which I do answer.
That’s the best type of dialogue.
And as I mentioned I don’t bring these questions from a mean-spirited debate but simple questions which tell us something more about what we’re doing here spinning around this planet.
You didn’t respond to the part where i said you make assumptions. You also dismiss things I say with no reason. You make claims and don’t back them up. You dismiss an idea because of the person saying it.
Maybe you don’t intend to be, but those things make you difficult. “Pedantic” might be the right word.
I don’t make assumptions man.
I respond based on what you say.
Wow, that’ caught me by surprise. Perhaps it shouldn’t have.
So you have no use for one of the foremost academics on the ‘historicity’ of Jesus?
In fact, it sounds like pure revulsion.
Want to discuss it?
In On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (2014), Carrier continues to develop his Bayesian analysis of the historicity of Jesus.[61][62]Carrier described his work as “the first comprehensive pro-Jesus-myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review.”[[63]]
The essence of his argument is that there is insufficient evidence, in the context of Bayesian probability, to believe in the historicity of Jesus. Furthermore, Carrier posits that as a celestial figure, Jesus was probably known originally only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture, which were then elaborated into an allegorical person, communicating the claims of the gospels.
The allegorical aspect of Jesus was then lost during the struggle for control of the Christian churches during the first century. Noting that the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death, Carrier claims that the gospels are “wildly fictitious”, and proposes that the Gospel of Mark is really an extended meta-parable.[64]
He further claims that post-biblical writings mentioning Jesus should not be regarded as independent sources for his existence, since they may have relied on the gospels for their information.[65] Apart from the hero archetype pattern, Carrier contends that nothing else in the Gospels is reliable evidence for or against the historicity of Jesus.[66]
How to Successfully Argue Jesus Existed (or Anything Else in the World)
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 17, 2017
In conjunction with my Critical Thinking course this month, and in light of a number of casual debates I’ve been in lately, I’ve drawn up this twelve step advice, which actually applies to all arguments for any conclusions in any subject whatever. But I’ll use defending the historicity of Jesus as the key example. The first rule is pretty obvious…
1. Tell the truth.
2. Consensus is a weak argument.
3. Take logical soundness and validity seriously.
4. Distinguish fact from inference.
5. Confirm your inferences aren’t assumptions.
6. Do not straw-man or ignore opposing arguments.
7. Justify all your assertions about probability.
8. Check your factual assertions.
9. Be your own best critic.
10. Control for cognitive biases.
11. Take seriously the likelihoods of the evidence.
12. Take seriously the prior probabilities.
Can you share some examples of this “something more” than merely “spinning around this planet.” I hear vague suggestions, hints, but why can’t you simply spell it out?
Right. If Jesus ever existed, he didn’t exist as portrayed in the Bible nor did he exist as most Xians believe he did.
Wikidpedia is not a reliable source.
Hello eli1, I have been trying to pick up where you are wanting to go with your postings. The waters are muddy. A couple questions to help clear the water. When you speak of Christ, are you talking about Jesus? The divine Son of God, the Anointed King, and the Messiah is Christ. Jesus is one of my favorite heroes of history. And yes he did exist. The way I understand religion is that you have Jesus’s religion and then you have Christ’s religion. This is where religion branches off into two separate pathways. Jesus’s religion is what we call Gnostic. NT is what is becoming known as Flavian pathway (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). Let me clear this up. “known” in the scholar sector. Not the “belief” sector. Please let me know which pathway sector you are on.
What does science have to do with “Why does the universe exist?” It is just a question that has been asked by almost every living person on earth at some time. I used to wonder myself until reading pre-history religions. The gods said that earth and everything here was made from star dust. And that how the universe came to exist, mankind may never know. Afterwards, it just seemed like a waste of time to ponder on rhetorical questions and accept the pathways of the creator gods which is logical until we have better science.
You posted, “The goal is to have a discussion where we can understand reasoning and thought processes of how people think and if they’re being consistent with it.” Hope I stayed within your parameters.
Point being, I bet you know there is no way today that science can answer some questions. Therefore, you are bringing up the universe question is to make a point. And that is where it gets muddy again. If you are trying to paint Christianity as being nontechnical. That will not work. The only way to logically explain Genesis. Would be to use science, which has not yet had an acceptable hypothesis due to the fact that the scientific method to do this requires a logical system of reasoning and a better historical timeline. People cannot agree on this method. But it will not be long until artificial intelligence will come up with a hypothesis that will be acceptable. That said, the belief system is very consistent and follows the simplest and least questionable and answerable responses.
Started out almost on track. The hypothesis or hypotheses, include understanding how myths developed, how oral traditions were passed on, how our minds detect agency in everything, how we evolved from “fight or flight” creatures into social animals, and more.
History always needs interpreting. As soon as words as said, we ask what they meant.
At one time, the scholarly consensus was that Moses was a real person. The Bible Unearthed is a really good source if you are interested.
Nono Mike, that is not a true statement at all.
Science does have an acceptable hypothesis and historical timeline, which is completely different than the biblical account.
I present you with Robert Hazen and instead of using his account that biochemistry already begins in deep space cosmic clouds, you try to dismiss his entire demonstrable account of abiogenesis altogether.
That won’t do at all!
We can now create bacterial robots and if humans can artificially create something , the universe has most likely already done it for a few billion years.
Morning all. Let me get this round of coffee.
I’m sorry but I don’t think it would be interesting or enjoyable for me to discuss this with you because you’re being extreme.
There have been hundreds of arguments in this topic and it seems that you’ve set your mind on one: that Jesus was not historical.
Good for you.
By your own reasoning then we shouldn’t believe anybody else around these times.
Alexander the Great? Never happened !
Of course. The central message of the Bible or Quran or maybe Buddha is that we do have a relationship with a creator and that we are not here randomly spinning around.
That’s basically the essence of many religions.
True. But we have to cite something and they do a good job in summarizing a topic.
Also CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews are not good sources but we have to cite them sometimes because they have exclusive stuff.
This is very good stuff and I like it.
Beginning from your last sentence, which summarizes my position should also explain your other questions.
But let’s begin with the definition of Jesus.
Jesus Religion and Christ Religion are not like you’ve described them.
Jesus Christ is the son of God a divine person. That’s the person that I believe. That’s the person of the Bible.
Jesus Christ as a historical person, is the person who existed and lived 2000 years ago. This is a person who is not divine and most of the Bible is disregarded here.
So during my journey when I was searching, I found a lot of great info on Jesus as a historical person and then I made the leap of faith onto Jesus the biblical person. That’s the pathway I’m on.
It’s a bit hard to answer the rest of your post because I don’t get your logical conclusion but let’s try.
Science is us humans asking HOW, which typically explains The Why sometimes.
So when I was looking for existential Whys, I was looking at science too, but I didn’t find anything and their most logical answer which I appreciate is “I don’t know”.
This of course didn’t seem satisfactory to me and others who want to know more, and my journey led me into a faith system or religion.
So to me this was absolutely worth the time and journey and now I love it. It puts things into perspective.
Absolutely. I know and I’m well aware of the fact that we can’t answer some questions for as long as humanity exists but my post above should answer this here too.
I wasn’t satisfied with “I don’t know”
I’m going to disagree here because I’ve said before that the Bible is definitely non technical and I’ve accepted that fact.
The Bible is not an engineering book which explains thermodynamics, tectonic plate movements or quantum mechanics. The Bible is a relationship book which explains a relationship to our creator.
So I guess we agree here or I don’t understand what you mean?
Something about a beam and a speck in somebody’s eye, or something. Some guy, Matthew, said it.
1 Like
And who did the gods talk to?
It is true that we are made of stardust but not from a divine caress, but by a violent supernova which are not a result of godly intervention but from “gravity”.
And that has been definitively proven and thereby “corrected” the original "intuitive " account.
When there is a demostrable scientific explanation it replaces the “speculative” concept of Divine Intervention or Intelligent Design.