All-Purpose Religion Thread

[MNVillan]

On 08/05/2022 at 12:09, Stevo985 said:

This is a real one that I’d love to see some sort of documentary on 

How real is Jesus Christ?

Like how much actual evidence is there for him and what he did. 
 

My presumption is he was a real person, and that some of the stuff he did was true, but obviously a lot of it is bullshit. 
 

So based on actual historic evidence, who was he and what did he actually do?

i find that fascinating

I’ll go against the grain here… it’s very likely he existed. The majority of modern scholars would agree. Here’s a book about it if you’re interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

Full disclosure, I am a Catholic. I got my undergraduate degree in history and spent a year in a PhD program at the Catholic University of America. So of course, I am “biased.”

Although there is no way to prove he existed, the evidence is favorable that he did. Arguments against his existence focus mainly on doubt and put the burden of proof on his existence, which I can’t do. But I do think it’s very probable Jesus was a real person.

Whether or not Jesus is God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. is of course where rationalization has to be suspended. Christians believe in it, non-Christians don’t. It’s a matter of faith.

[MNVillan]

On 08/05/2022 at 17:54, chrisp65 said:

It is quite annoying that whilst most Jews two thousand years ago had extensive written records, images and two point verification, this one has relied on oral history traditions for the first 50, 80, 100 years.

I’m not saying its defo a conspiracy, but if he’d been born in the UK, we’d have had decent contemporary records.

 

 

 

Well, early Christians were heavily persecuted. They weren’t able to record and proclaim their beliefs and history in public, because if they did they’d be put to death.

Early texts (no matter the subject) rely on many people to copy and pass on the texts to keep them alive. Christians did not have that luxury, so they relied on oral tradition.

[MNVillan]

On 09/05/2022 at 04:24, Chindie said:

Yes the mainstream opinion of those invested in the field is that there was a historical Jesus, but as said the evidence is basically them giving greater weight to the gospels and Roman references because Christianity exists. They then argue that this is no different to the standard of evidence held against other antiquity figures that we don't have hard evidence for the existence of but don't question the existence of. But that ignores that most of these figures we have harder facts for - take someone like Boudicca. We can't prove (to my knowledge) that she actually existed, but we do know that there were actions that tie up with Roman accounts of an actual rebellion by Britons at the time she is supposed to have lived, and the Romans involved make reference to her. That's subtly different to Jesus, where the evidence is more malleable - a religious sect grew telling stories of a guy, and the sect's stories tell his story with some recollections of guys that claim to have known him, and these Roman guys wrote about it later. There's nothing in it to say there was 1 guy, and his name was Jesus. It could be a collection of stories of different people. It could all be total bollocks (as opposed to mostly bollocks).

In respect of the super powers, iirc there's evidence that there were stories of Jesus were he had loads of powers that got edited out over time. I like to think there's a Superman Bible where he has laser vision.

What do you mean there isn’t anything to say there is no evidence there was one guy and his name was Jesus? Both biblical and non biblical sources use his name plenty.

i respect your skepticism about the religion, but if you don’t believe Jesus was a real person than surely you must be skeptical about Plato as well.

[sidcow]

3 hours ago, MNVillan said:

What do you mean there isn’t anything to say there is no evidence there was one guy and his name was Jesus? Both biblical and non biblical sources use his name plenty.

i respect your skepticism about the religion, but if you don’t believe Jesus was a real person than surely you must be skeptical about Plato as well.

Plato? He was made up by Walt Disney along with Mickey Mouse. Durr. 

[tonyh29]

6 hours ago, MNVillan said:

I’ll go against the grain here… it’s very likely he existed. The majority of modern scholars would agree. Here’s a book about it if you’re interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

Full disclosure, I am a Catholic. I got my undergraduate degree in history and spent a year in a PhD program at the Catholic University of America. So of course, I am “biased.”

Although there is no way to prove he existed, the evidence is favorable that he did. Arguments against his existence focus mainly on doubt and put the burden of proof on his existence, which I can’t do. But I do think it’s very probable Jesus was a real person.

Whether or not Jesus is God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. is of course where rationalization has to be suspended. Christians believe in it, non-Christians don’t. It’s a matter of faith.

I read a book many moons ago called Jesus , last of the Pharaohs  ... its a conspiracy theory type book , but no more far fetched than the Bible to be honest 

it puts Jesus as a descendant of the Egyptian royal line  ,and shows similarities between Egyptian time lines and the Bible time lines , we even have an Egyptian exodus to what is now Israel   ... I recall some TV show where they also matched Egyptian hieroglyphics to biblical events , so put together in context his proposal isn't as far fetched as it sounds   ..

 

but I don't recall his book offering any concrete proof that Jesus was real either 

 

[limpid]

7 hours ago, MNVillan said:

I’ll go against the grain here… it’s very likely he existed. The majority of modern scholars would agree. Here’s a book about it if you’re interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

Who do the majority of these scholars work for? Do they have to sign anything as part of their job confirming that they will not undermine the founding principles of the body they work for?

Cracking book title that. His name cannot have been Jesus (likely the common name Jeshua), but also, why would anyone think that any historical Jesus would have come from Nazareth? Only two gospels mention this (but not Mark from which 70% of Matthew is copied). Nothing extra-biblical. It was added to the story to fulfil a badly translated part of Jewish messianic prophecy widely accepted in the early church as referring to "the Nazarene" (Isaiah 11:1) which in fact should have been translated as "branch" (netser / NZR in Hebrew - you can see how the mistake happened). If the editors / authors / translators hadn't had to work that error in to fulfil prophecy, they wouldn't have had to add the census myth.

But I haven't signed an article of faith and I don't work for a religious institute. You might prefer the opinions of those scholars if they align with what you've been conditioned / primed to believe.

[Ingram85]

On 10/05/2022 at 15:37, Rds1983 said:

You guys seem more obsessed with God and Christianity then the people I knew in the Catholic society at Uni. It's been multiple days and pages now.

At least it’s the right thread. Or should they take it to things that piss you off? 

[MNVillan]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Who do the majority of these scholars work for? Do they have to sign anything as part of their job confirming that they will not undermine the founding principles of the body they work for?

Cracking book title that. His name cannot have been Jesus (likely the common name Jeshua), but also, why would anyone think that any historical Jesus would have come from Nazareth? Only two gospels mention this (but not Mark from which 70% of Matthew is copied). Nothing extra-biblical. It was added to the story to fulfil a badly translated part of Jewish messianic prophecy widely accepted in the early church as referring to "the Nazarene" (Isaiah 11:1) which in fact should have been translated as "branch" (netser / NZR in Hebrew - you can see how the mistake happened). If the editors / authors / translators hadn't had to work that error in to fulfil prophecy, they wouldn't have had to add the census myth.

But I haven't signed an article of faith and I don't work for a religious institute. You might prefer the opinions of those scholars if they align with what you've been conditioned / primed to believe.

You don’t have to sign anything, although I suppose people who believe in Catholicism are more inclined to work at a Catholic university than those who aren’t. The scholarship goes far beyond the school I attended though, and has an audience in non-religious schools.

I think you’re also missing the point about historical Jesus. I’m not trying to say that everything in the gospels is correct. All I’m saying is that Jesus the human was likely a real person. The details of his life (just like the details of any life from 2000 years ago) are, of course, murky.

[Rds1983]

50 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

At least it’s the right thread. Or should they take it to things that piss you off? 

My original post wasn't it was in the things you wonder thread were the discussion had been going on for about 2 days. It must have been moved by a Mod to kindly make me look like a crazy person moaning that people were discussing the subject on the thread. 

[MaVilla]

8 hours ago, MNVillan said:

I’ll go against the grain here… it’s very likely he existed. The majority of modern scholars would agree. Here’s a book about it if you’re interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

Full disclosure, I am a Catholic. I got my undergraduate degree in history and spent a year in a PhD program at the Catholic University of America. So of course, I am “biased.”

Although there is no way to prove he existed, the evidence is favorable that he did. Arguments against his existence focus mainly on doubt and put the burden of proof on his existence, which I can’t do. But I do think it’s very probable Jesus was a real person.

Whether or not Jesus is God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. is of course where rationalization has to be suspended. Christians believe in it, non-Christians don’t. It’s a matter of faith.

tbh i thought it was fairly well accepted that jesus existed, i cant quote sources, but im fairly sure there is a reasonable amount of evidence relating to it.

I suppose the genuine debate for me, isnt whether he existed or not, but whether he was what was claimed.

Personally i have no doubt he was a person who existed (in the pure human sense).

[limpid]

36 minutes ago, MNVillan said:

Jesus the human

Are you sure you are catholic?

[limpid]

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

tbh i thought it was fairly well accepted that jesus existed, i cant quote sources, but im fairly sure there is a reasonable amount of evidence relating to it.

I suppose the genuine debate for me, isnt whether he existed or not, but whether he was what was claimed.

Personally i have no doubt he was a person who existed (in the pure human sense).

There is no contemporaneous evidence. The closest we have are the letters from Paul (not all the letters from Paul, most scholars accept that many were heavily edited or even made up many years later - like casting the first stone), Paul claimed to see a vision of Jesus. The wording is easily interpreted as not referring to an actual person. The authors of Mark retold this about 30 years later to make this a man. More "evidence" was added when the authors of Matthew reworked Mark to add some apocryphal prophetic references from the Torah. Same for Luke and then about AD 100 some people wrote John which turned Jesus into a militant soldier figure.

For what it's worth, I think that Jesus is a composite of many similar messianic preachers grifting their way around the middle east at that time, codified to provide a narrative for the nascent Pauline cult. There is probably better evidence that Spider-man was an actual, identifiable person.

John the Baptist was almost certainly real though, Paul even more likely.

[Ingram85]

I don’t really care about the opinions of those who think the Dead Sea scrolls are the oldest known things (apart from the people who wrote them perhaps?) when you can go to a museum and see dinosaur skeletons. I’ve mellowed in my opinions of those who are religious over the years but I still think each and every one of them shouldn’t be allowed to vote on actual real life stuff when they are idiotic enough to believe in invisible vengeful sky fairies. 

[rjw63]

On 10/05/2022 at 15:37, Rds1983 said:

You guys seem more obsessed with God and Christianity then the people I knew in the Catholic society at Uni. It's been multiple days and pages now.

Nah that's the Gresford thread. Obsession at its finest.

[mjmooney]

53 minutes ago, limpid said:

For what it's worth, I think that Jesus is a composite of many similar messianic preachers grifting their way around the middle east at that time, codified to provide a narrative for the nascent Pauline cult. 

This. Wot I said in response to the original question. 

[Chindie]

10 hours ago, MNVillan said:

What do you mean there isn’t anything to say there is no evidence there was one guy and his name was Jesus? Both biblical and non biblical sources use his name plenty.

i respect your skepticism about the religion, but if you don’t believe Jesus was a real person than surely you must be skeptical about Plato as well.

I'm saying there isn't anything to suggest that, in reality, there was 1 guy called Jesus who inspired all this nonsense. As above I suspect 'he' is a compilation of random preachers in the Middle East at that time, of which perhaps one was actually called Jesus (though again as above that's potentially unlikely), that became canonically a single guy within the teachings of a cult that grew exponentially.

I can't say I've done much research on Plato but my understanding of him is there's numerous sources from a great many different people and places, on various subjects (iirc he got involved in everything from teaching to politics in his lifetime), including considerable amounts that can be credibly said are his actual works, and none of the sources cite anything particularly incredible to him. That's different to Jesus, whose existence boils down to some guys involved in the cult in his name said he existed (and whose accounts are problematic), a couple of Romans reporting on the cult relaying what they've heard decades after he supposedly died, which is barely better than nothing, and the existence of Christianity, which also is pretty much neither here nor there on there being an actual Jesus.

The fact scholars seem to view this as cast iron proof of a historical Jesus is pretty grim.

[Tegis]

12 hours ago, MNVillan said:

Full disclosure, I am a Catholic.

 This is the thread were religious VillaTalk-accounts go to die. Please be careful. I need you in the "North american sports" section.

[Ingram85]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61729392
 

Quote

Cineworld has cancelled all UK screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, after it prompted protests outside some cinemas.

The cinema chain said it made the decision "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition for The Lady of Heaven film to be pulled from UK cinemas.

The Bolton Council of Mosques called the film "blasphemous" and sectarian.

But House of Lords peer Baroness Claire Fox called the decision "disastrous for the arts [and] dangerous for free speech", while Health Secretary Sajid Javid said he was "very concerned about the growing cancel culture" in the UK.

In an email to Cineworld, reported by the Bolton News, the chairman of the Bolton Council of Mosques, Asif Patel, said the film was "underpinned with a sectarian ideology" and "misrepresents orthodox historical narratives and disrespects the most esteemed individuals of Islamic history".

It came after more than 100 people protested against the film outside the cinema earlier this week, the newspaper reported.

This is normal and totally healthy isn’t it. **** me lol. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by blandy
article extract added

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61729392
 

This is normal and totally healthy isn’t it. **** me lol. 

Islam is catching up, only 40 years behind Christianity now, not bad considering the Christians had a 600 year head start

 

[Brumerican]

On 12/05/2022 at 16:08, Tegis said:

 This is the thread were religious VillaTalk-accounts go to die. Please be careful. I need you in the "North american sports" section.

I haven't been branded Excommunicado by the Vatican yet so I'm still on the books.