DiscussMormonism.com

Chap wrote:[I'm] not imply[ing] that Jesus did not exist, just that [I myself] know very little about him.

I think that might indicate that those that do believe in Jesus are at least as on firm ground as you are. Unless you want to go on and on about how much you don't know...and that that's reason enough to disbelieve.

Knowing very little is a little reason to not believe in Him.

It would probably save a lot of time to call things as they are. Some believe, and some don't. Those that do, have reason to do so. Those that don't, have reason to do so...based on the fact that they just don't know hardly anything about Him.

Regards,
MG

I don't believe in Jesus for the same reasons I don't believe in Ahura Mazda. When you understand why you don't believe in Ahura Mazda, you will begin to understand why others don't believe in Jesus.

mentalgymnast wrote:I think that might indicate that those that do believe in Jesus are at least as on firm ground as you are. Unless you want to go on and on about how much you don't know...and that that's reason enough to disbelieve.

Knowing very little is a little reason to not believe in Him.

It would probably save a lot of time to call things as they are. Some believe, and some don't. Those that do, have reason to do so. Those that don't, have reason to do so...based on the fact that they just don't know hardly anything about Him.

Regards,
MG

I thought i had learned of Jesus by reading his history in the Bible and Book of Mormon as well as years of Sunday teachings.

To find out how far out of touch BYU as well as the Church as a whole is with biblical studies was very disappointing. Given an environment that indoctrinated us to take it all literally made it all the worse. Note "the words in red"

RockSlider wrote:
I thought i had learned of Jesus by reading his history in the Bible and Book of Mormon as well as years of Sunday teachings.

To find out how far out of touch BYU as well as the Church as a whole is with biblical studies was very disappointing. Given an environment that indoctrinated us to take it all literally made it all the worse. Note "the words in red"

Those are huge issues for those exiting the church, Rock.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Chap wrote:[I'm] not imply[ing] that Jesus did not exist, just that [I myself] know very little about him.

I think that might indicate that those that do believe in Jesus are at least as on firm ground as you are. Unless you want to go on and on about how much you don't know...and that that's reason enough to disbelieve.

Knowing very little is a little reason to not believe in Him.

It would probably save a lot of time to call things as they are. Some believe, and some don't. Those that do, have reason to do so. Those that don't, have reason to do so...based on the fact that they just don't know hardly anything about Him.

Regards,
MG

What on earth is this guy trying to say?

What does he mean by 'believe in Jesus'? Does he mean as in 'I believe that there probably was a historical person whose activities underlie the stories told in the New Testament, even if those stories themselves have little historical content'? If so, sign me up.

Alas, I think that his 'believe' is more of the 'believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved' variety. In which case, not today thank you.

I have a question wrote: ...

I think there are two elements (maybe three) to the Jesus debate.
1. Did Jesus really exist?
2. Did Jesus actually do what the Gospels claim he did?
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes or no, what relevance does that have for us today?

I'd go for:

1. Probably yes.

2. Probably no.

3. In the light of the above, I'd say not much, unless you are interested in religion as the object of academic study.

Chap wrote:
What on earth is this guy trying to say?

Why don't you ask him?

Jersey Girl wrote:And they say there is no God. Hello, Aristotle.

Hello.

Jersey Girl wrote:Would you have expected pagan authors to invest time writing about Christ?

No, I would not. As an example of why, take another famous Jew from the 1st century A.D., Philo of Alexandria. He lived in the academic center of the Roman Empire, Alexandria. He is extremely important example of middle Platonism. We know from Josephus that he represented the case of Alexandrian Jews before the emperor Caligula. We have tons of his works on philosophy and biblical exegesis. How much did pagan authors write about him? Zero. Given all of this, why would we expect pagans to take notice of a Jew living in the backwaters of Galilee who probably never talked to a Roman until the day he died?

Jersey Girl wrote:Would you expect that there would birth/death records for Christ?
Where would we find birth/death records for Christ?

External to the Bible: no and nowhere. This Wikipedia article says that there are 21 birth certificates extant of Roman citizens and 34 from Greek Egypt. Given that I'm sure there were more than 55 people who lived in the Ancient Roman Empire, I'm guessing the odds of finding a birth certificate for a given individual is essentially zero.

Jersey Girl wrote:Where would we find documentation regarding his trial and punishment?

I wouldn't expect to find sources for that. We do have agreement on the manner of his death in the gospels and in Paul, plus corroboration that his death was punishment at the hands of the Romans in Tacitus and Josephus.

That we know anything about a Galilean peasant is astonishing, given the amount of evidence that does survive from antiquity on any given subject.

Aristotle Smith wrote:
I don't recall saying that about Julius Caesar and Jesus. In one of the linked threads I said this:

You didn't. You listed Jesus as one a handful of the most historically attested figures in history (presumably referring to classical antiquity and before.) This was said to buttress the assertion that throwing out the existence of Jesus means throwing out much of history with it. I view that as an exaggerated stance and just offered an example of a figure where a more complex web of information provides a much stronger case for existence. Perhaps I picked too good of an example, but my aim is to temper the strength of the claim. Pythagoras is an apt comparison.

EAllusion wrote:You didn't. You listed Jesus as one a handful of the most historically attested figures in history (presumably referring to classical antiquity and before.) This was said to buttress the assertion that throwing out the existence of Jesus means throwing out much of history with it. I view that as an exaggerated stance and just offered an example of a figure where a more complex web of information provides a much stronger case for existence. Perhaps I picked too good of an example, but my aim is to temper the strength of the claim. Pythagoras is an apt comparison.

Thanks for the clarification.