A Question for the masses...

Which of the following was Jesus???

  • Liar

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lunatic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lord

    Votes: 15 100.0%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Dark Virtue said:
There really was a Robin of Locksley, but to believe he ran around in green tights with his Band of Merry Men, robbing from the rich to give to the poor, thwarting the Sheriff of Nottingham and splitting arrows with his own would be down right WRONG. There's a grain of truth in there, but through the years it has grown to make the original man to be larger than life.
Click to expand...
So whats wrong about actually believing that?
 
Just a little thing called research.

Which I did previous to my last post...just to be sure.
Click to expand...

Excellent, but then, I would not expect anything less. :)

So you are basing your opinion on the written testimony of someone else...

Gen
 
DarthDapor said:
So whats wrong about actually believing that?
Click to expand...

Because you would be believing in something that isn't true.

Come on Darth, stop being intentionally obtuse. You are making this discussion more difficult than it needs to be.
 
Genesis1315 said:
Excellent, but then, I would not expect anything less. :)

So you are basing your opinion on the written testimony of someone else...

Gen
Click to expand...

Yes, as many sources as possible.

If I wanted to research the holocaust, I wouldn't limit my research to German historians of the 1940's.

It's also important to question the validity of those sources and not accept them blindly.

Now that you have baited the trap and I have walked right in, would you mind making your point? :)
 
Dark Virtue said:
Because you would be believing in something that isn't true.
Click to expand...
And you know its not true because...

Dark Virtue said:
Come on Darth, stop being intentionally obtuse. You are making this discussion more difficult than it needs to be.
Click to expand...
Difficult for whome? Is it realy that hard to answer a question?
 
There's a lengthy discussion on this topic here

Ultimately, I think we can all agree that there was an historical Jesus. The problem that DV and most aethiests have is accepting his divinity as documented in the NT.

I would challenge everyone to apply the science of textual criticism to the NT (just as any other historical documents from antiquity) and I think we can all agree that the books of the NT pass with flying colors.

There's also the fact that Paul was writing to Jesus' contemporaries when discussing the resurrection and addressing those same readers by saying they were among those that saw Jesus resurrected. There's no way Paul would write about a mythical event to hundreds of thousands of contemporay readers that also new the truth about not only His existence, but His resurrection.

DV, I hope you're not "now" clinging to the "Jesus Myth" argument as holding any true scholarly merit?

I'm cetainly up for picking up where we left off, but I think it's fruitless at this point. To state that the "Jesus Myth" has any true scholarly merit or support is frankly quite funny. :)

There's no real debate whether the historical record points to Jesus. In the end, we're all faced with C.S. Lewis' trilemma: He was either "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

*edited for grammar
 
Last edited:
Yes, as many sources as possible.

If I wanted to research the holocaust, I wouldn't limit my research to German historians of the 1940's.

It's also important to question the validity of those sources and not accept them blindly.

Now that you have baited the trap and I have walked right in, would you mind making your point?
Click to expand...

First, I apologize for the delay, excessive heat and no central air is a bad combination for network stability...

so then....following your logic, both sides need to be examine, correct? Other than other religions, who has disproved the divinity of Christ?
 
Watcher said:
There's a lengthy discussion on this topic here

Ultimately, I think we can all agree that there was an historical Jesus. The problem that DV and most aethiests have is accepting his divinity as documented in the NT.

I would challenge everyone to apply the science of textual criticism to the NT (just as any other historical documents from antiquity) and I think we can all agree that the books of the NT pass with flying colors.

There's also the fact that Paul was writing to Jesus' contemporaries when discussing the resurrection and addressing those same readers by saying they were among those that saw Jesus resurrected. There's no way Paul would write about a mythical event to hundreds of thousands of contemporay readers that also new the truth about not only His existence, but His resurrection.

DV, I hope you're not "now" clinging to the "Jesus Myth" argument as holding any true scholarly merit?

I'm cetainly up for picking up where we left off, but I think it's fruitless at this point. To state that the "Jesus Myth" has any true scholarly merit or support is frankly quite funny. :)

There's no real debate whether the historical record points to Jesus. In the end, we're all faced with C.S. Lewis' trilemma: He was either "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

*edited for grammar
Click to expand...

I like the way you phrase your arguments...no matter what I decide, I come out looking bad :p

I disagree that there is 100% scholarly proof that points to a divine Jesus. If there was, there would be no need for debate and there would be actual, contextual proof.

I am not "clinging" to the "Jesus Myth" as you put it. I am willing to accept that a historical Jesus did, indeed, exist, but I simply don't have enough evidence to state that he was divine. That's where the "myth" part comes in.

If I accepted the NT as proof of Christ's divinity, then I would also have to accept quite a few other religious texts based on historicity. Since you're not willing to do that either, I don't think I have to explain myself any further.

To further complicate things, the Bible does a poor job of distinguishing between factual events and allegory. If Christians can't come to a conclusion on what's real and what's not, then nonChristians would haven an even tougher time doing so.

I'll have to do dig through that thread again, it's been a while since I've been through it.
 
Gods_Peon said:
Kind of contrary to you position of being content with "I don't know" isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

As I've stated, I'm willing to admit there was a historical Jesus. The "I don't know" part comes into play while trying to attribute divinity to him. That's also where the myth part comes in.
 
Genesis1315 said:
First, I apologize for the delay, excessive heat and no central air is a bad combination for network stability...

so then....following your logic, both sides need to be examine, correct? Other than other religions, who has disproved the divinity of Christ?
Click to expand...

Who has disproved the existence of Leprechauns or unicorns?

The onus is on you to prove a) His existence and b) his divinity

The question you're asking is a trick question. No one can factually disprove the divinity of Christ just as no one can prove his divinity.
 
Dark Virtue said:
I just told you why it wasn't true.
Click to expand...
Oh! I see, I'll rephrase the question. Why is it wrong to think it actually happend in that exact way?

Dark Virtue said:
Difficult for ME. I've already answered the question, but your arguments keep going round and round.
Click to expand...
Its either that or... <_< >_> ...Your hoving trouble answering the question.
 
DarthDapor said:
Oh! I see, I'll rephrase the question. Why is it wrong to think it actually happend in that exact way?


Its either that or... <_< >_> ...Your hoving trouble answering the question.
Click to expand...

I've answered the question quite adequately several times, and I will not do so again.

Maybe you're the one having problems understanding the answer.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Not exactly.

As I've stated, I'm willing to admit there was a historical Jesus. The "I don't know" part comes into play while trying to attribute divinity to him. That's also where the myth part comes in.
Click to expand...

So you are left with Liar or Lunatic by eliminating Lord as myth. You still have yet to answer the OPs question.
 
I'll go for lunatic - since I believe that the Jesus in the bible is an amalgamation of historical figures.

That would be a split personality... ;)
 
Who has disproved the existence of Leprechauns or unicorns?

The onus is on you to prove a) His existence and b) his divinity
Click to expand...

I would actually think the opposite. I have experienced Him. I see the evidence of His work. There are multiple sources who can verify His existence beyond me.

I have never actually experienced holding, seeing touching, etc a gold brick, but that doesn't mean they exist.

In response to the historical evidence of an event, I would consult all who knew of the event (your example, the holocaust) not just the winners or loosers. Those who lived through it, were effected by it etc. So I take a collection of books, written about one thing, but all by different authors. All are on the same topic, and show a little different perpsective, but carry an underlying theme on the specific topic. There are those who have also written on the same topic, outside of the original books mentioned here. Countless others have also been able to teach on and expand on ideas contained within....


(and this will come around to support the topic of this thread)
 
Eon said:
I'll go for lunatic - since I believe that the Jesus in the bible is an amalgamation of historical figures.

That would be a split personality... ;)
Click to expand...

...and yet you didn't vote. Explain? :)
 
Dark Virtue said:
I've answered the question quite adequately several times, and I will not do so again.

Maybe you're the one having problems understanding the answer.
Click to expand...
<ahem> you said:
Dark Virtue said:
Because you would be believing in something that isn't true.
Click to expand...
This really doesn't answer the question. How do you know it isn't true? You've told me what you think the robbin hood story is, now tell me how you know its not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top