3 ms·

Well yes, many, but they're Christian scholars.

by Nition 4y ago

rendall 4y ago
I wonder what the percentage would be of Biblical scholars who believe that Jesus was an actual person if we excluded those who believe, say, Moses parted the Red Sea or even those who believe Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Nition 4y ago
  Most scholars, even the non-Christian ones, believe that Jesus was an actual person. Whether he really performanced miracles is of course a very different matter.
  - rendall 4y ago
    The set of people I would exclude for shiggles include non-Christians. Except for the New Testament, there are only 2 other known possible references. One was altered by later Christians, and the other could have referred to a Jew named Chrestus. Without other external motivation, would this be enough to establish historicity?
  - hnbad 4y ago
    The problem with that statement is that if you take away all the supernatural claims and give some room for creative embelishments and naming inaccuracies you end up with not just one but several "actual persons" but their existence becomes entirely irrelevant to the existence of a historical "Jesus". It's a lot like the "god of the gaps": if you are willing to compromise on a definition of god that gives up on all supernatural claims in history and that only works through mechanisms indistinguishable from natural events, you're no longer talking about the same YHVH that painted fiery letters on a throne room, appeared in burning shrubbery, flooded the entire surface of the Earth and turned people into salt. I think trying to argue about external facts when studying religion is largely a moot point. It's neat when you can tie religious doctrine and historical accounts together but a religion doesn't cease functioning because its historical claims are inaccurate. The historical claims are entirely accidental to the religion itself and should be viewed as mythological, not empirical.
    - rendall 4y ago
      I have met Christians who both understand that argument - that religion and empirical science belong to two distinct, separate magesteria - and reject it. But when I try to dive in to understand why, I do not ever understand their answer.

Well yes, many, but they're Christian scholars.

by Nition 4y ago

Well yes, many, but they're Christian scholars.

I wonder what the percentage would be of Biblical scholars who believe that Jesus was an actual person if we excluded those who believe, say, Moses parted the Red Sea or even those who believe Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Nition 4y ago
Most scholars, even the non-Christian ones, believe that Jesus was an actual person. Whether he really performanced miracles is of course a very different matter.
- rendall 4y ago
  The set of people I would exclude for shiggles include non-Christians. Except for the New Testament, there are only 2 other known possible references. One was altered by later Christians, and the other could have referred to a Jew named Chrestus. Without other external motivation, would this be enough to establish historicity?
- hnbad 4y ago
  The problem with that statement is that if you take away all the supernatural claims and give some room for creative embelishments and naming inaccuracies you end up with not just one but several "actual persons" but their existence becomes entirely irrelevant to the existence of a historical "Jesus". It's a lot like the "god of the gaps": if you are willing to compromise on a definition of god that gives up on all supernatural claims in history and that only works through mechanisms indistinguishable from natural events, you're no longer talking about the same YHVH that painted fiery letters on a throne room, appeared in burning shrubbery, flooded the entire surface of the Earth and turned people into salt. I think trying to argue about external facts when studying religion is largely a moot point. It's neat when you can tie religious doctrine and historical accounts together but a religion doesn't cease functioning because its historical claims are inaccurate. The historical claims are entirely accidental to the religion itself and should be viewed as mythological, not empirical.
  - rendall 4y ago
    I have met Christians who both understand that argument - that religion and empirical science belong to two distinct, separate magesteria - and reject it. But when I try to dive in to understand why, I do not ever understand their answer.