Yes. There are numerous examples where it’s the skeptics and doubters who err, though you wouldn’t think so if you only read this Board or Skeptics.whatever.
Oops; I 've intruded into another thread. (Wasn’t this question asked before? What was Cecil’s answer? )
My views:
Q. Was there a Jesus of Nazareth crucified by the Procurator?
A. Yes, by Occam’s Razor. Any cult wouild have real martyrs to pick from, e.g. John the Baptist. It would be odd to invent a fiction, hoping no one would notice.
Q. Are the events described in his biographies (Mathew, Mark, Luke and Whathisname) true and actual?
A. Some but not all. Details on request.
You’re arguing from an idealistic POV. That in itself is illogical. Realism trumps idealism every time because realism takes facts into consideration whereas idealism only acts from beliefs and blind faith. I don’t have to tell you that anyone with beliefs who goes against someone with facts loses the case every time. That’s why our legal system is built of facts, not beliefs.
To stretch the point. It is not logical as Mr. Spock would say to believe in Jesus Christ when all the facts point to him at the least being a mere man who died a mortal death and at most was, as I said before, a figurehead invented so that Paul could hang on him his warped concepts of salvation by faith alone and predestination of certain individuals to eternal life and others to eternal death.
I don’t have to cite it. Every scholar knows it. But you can check it out if you care to. If you do find something that contradicts it, please do cite it. You’ll hate yourself if you don’t, trust me.
If you do not have a citation to support this claim, I am quite willing to dismiss everything you post as the result of an overactive imagination.
[/QUOTE]
But I haven’t seen a whole lot of reverence for facts in what you’ve posted here. What I’ve seen, it looks like to me, is someone who had a bad experience with fundamentalist Christianity and as a result is determined to believe whatever’s furthest from the traditional Christian understanding, regardless of what evidence or logic say.
There were many messianic pretenders in the time of Jesus (and before and after): Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah (leader of the Sicarii), Theudas. There is little doubt that these were real people, even though far less is known of some of them than Jesus. After all, why make them up? The same goes for Jesus, the only difference being that his followers successfully propagated his cult, transforming it from a purely Jewish movement to one that became predominantly Gentile. Without Paul it’s likely that Jesus the Nazarene would simply be another obscure name in the roll of claimants to messiahhood. And, paradoxically, there would probably be far less doubt that he was a real person.
True enough, it’s probably because the gospels get things so wrong in so many occasions, I mean downright obvious fabrications, it’s perhaps harder to dismiss the possibility that, well these guys were just going hog wild on this Jesus of Nazareth. Is it possible the myth is all that is left now? That nothing about his life is even remotely accurate?
Can we say that Jesus existed if there was some guy named Yoshua bar Joseph but he wasn’t born in bethlehem, wasn’t born around 6 BCE, wasn’t crucified by Romans, didn’t 'cause a stir in the Temple, never preached on the Mount, etc, etc?
That’s like claiming Superman existed 'cause there’s some guy names Clark Kent somewhere.
So, among the various men named Jesus or Yeshua, (of which there were many), you have been able to find five rebels, only one of them, (perhaps), with that name.
It is not a matter of getting you to retract one claim.
The point is that your posts are full of such nonsense. I make no claim that Jesus of Nazareth, portrayed in the Gospels, was real. But you have utterly failed to present any reason why anyone should doubt that there was such a man.
Your claim that there were “many” men named Jesus running around claiming to be messiahs has been dismissed buy your own presentations.
Your claims that the Jesus myth was simply a retelling of other myths has persistently failed as you have failed to demonstrate the actual connection or made claims that were vague enough to be true but too vague to have meaning.
You really need to go back and work on your argument, because you are simply failing, here.
Feeling generous I recalled the author of comparative religion with particular emphasis on separating Jesus from the Christ, read when I was small and sometimes went to spiritualist churches. It wasn’t easy since all I could recall was Arthur. Googling Arthur Spiritualist Jesus gets one a lot of stuff on Doyle and King Arthur. A lot of stuff.
So here’s Arthur Findley MBE, JP for the research of the OP.
As a hint he was preceded by many other people arguing this sort of stuff, notably German professors during the Enlightenment and for the period of the Higher Learning.
Yeah, that’s sound advice. I’m just not that rigorous, though. If I make mistakes they’re honest ones. I’d never deliberately deceive by stating something I know to be false but sometimes the time needed to investigate an obscure fact is so great that if I recall reading it somewhere I’ll just throw it out there. If someone wants to challenge it feel free to do so and I’ll try to fact-check it. If it’s too involved I’ll leave to the experts around here to prove me wrong. That’s my system. Sorry.
Your accusations, likewise are full of opinions not backed by facts. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: go back to my first few posts and show exactly where I didn’t tell the truth, by providing hard citations that prove me wrong. :dubious:
It’s easy to say, “You’re wrong here and you’re wrong there.” But go back and show me exactly where I’m wrong and why. Don’t ask me to produce proof for some of this. The fact I can’t dredge up pertinent facts to back claims doesn’t prove I’m wrong.
)