4 ms·

With Christianity we don't have much idea of what Christ wanted, Christ existence has an absolutely terrible historical source base. In fact I found it pretty e

With Christianity we don't have much idea of what Christ wanted, Christ existence has an absolutely terrible historical source base. In fact I found it pretty embracing how little there was. Christ probably existed (I would put it 75%/25%) but if he did he was a insignificant preacher The best we have really are a few of the letters of Paul and Paul himself was an apocalyptic preacher who never met Jesus when he was alive (he only 'met' Christ from revaluations). And he was clearly in conflict and had disagreements with other followers. Then the next reasonable documents is Mark and Mark is basically a classically written stories parables that are pretty clearly a bunch of myth making and a lot of stories that are just adapted from Greek or Jewish texts. And then Matthew is just Mark with some additional insertion done. And then Luke just adds even more stuff in. And then John just invents even more even crazier stuff and add on that. There is no evidence what so ever that Mark had any sources, his text has non of the hallmarks of an actually history as was practiced at the time. Its only much later that writers claim to have eye-witness accounts, and at that point those claims are simply not credible. So pretty much all Christians have a massive problem. Even things as basic as if the what we now call the Old Testament is valid is highly questionable.

docandrew 4y ago
Four separate eyewitness accounts (the gospels), all consistent with one another, is pretty good historical evidence as far as the ancient world is concerned.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Not isn't. Sorry but this is just a highly inaccurate statement. The gospel are absolutely not eyewitness accounts. Not sure if you learned that in Church or something, this is very much not what any scholar of those text believes. Even the 'scholars' in religious fundamentalist schools mostly don't agree with that. The gospel were not written by the people in the title, the titles were not even in any of the older scrolls, titles like 'Gospel of Mark' were later additions. And they are also not independent documents either. They are very clearly written with knowlage of one another. Mark is the template for all of them. Matthew previously thought to be independent is increasingly seen as Mark with some additional stuff insert into it. Luke clearly had both Mark and Matthew to work with and basically tried to make a fusion. John is clearly much considerably later and clearly had the other three. The only documents that are in reasonable living memory of a potential Jesus are the non-fake letters of Paul (most of them are not by Paul). And Paul himself even says that hadn't met Jesus (outside of visions) and Paul letters also don't give us much that matters in terms the historical accuracy of what went on in the region as he wasn't there. And don't believe the 'Acts of the Apostles' in the bible those are even less historical then the gospels.
skissane 4y ago
> With Christianity we don't have much idea of what Christ wanted, Christ existence has an absolutely terrible historical source base. In fact I found it pretty embracing how little there was. Christ probably existed (I would put it 75%/25%) but if he did he was a insignificant preacher Still better than what we have for Siddharta Gautama. Buddhist sources can't even agree on which century he lived in. Christian sources are unanimous in dating Jesus of Nazareth to within a decade, and the Jewish historian Josephus (writing approximately 60 years later) also confirms his existence. One of the two references to Jesus in Josephus has obviously been tampered with by Christian copyists, but the majority of scholars believe there was a genuine reference there prior to the tampering; and most scholars believe the second reference is entirely genuine. Also, the majority of secular scholars believe we can work out roughly what Jesus taught – although it seems likely that what he actually taught was much closer to 1st century Judaism than what Christianity later evolved into > So pretty much all Christians have a massive problem. Some Christians are big on arguing for Christianity based on the claimed historical accuracy of the New Testament – an approach called "evidentialist apologetics". You have correctly pointed out the massive problems with that approach. However, not all Christians argue for Christianity in that way – indeed, I think it is historically a minority, despite the huge fad for it in 20th century Anglophone Christianity (and especially evangelical Protestantism). Other Christians put greater emphasis on other arguments – philosophical arguments, arguments from religious experience, historical arguments that rely on the broad sweep of Christian history rather than just its first decade, etc. Maybe all those other arguments have problems too–but not these problems.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I know nothing of Buddhism as it has never interest me much. > Jewish historian Josephus In general we have a history in this field where early on almost everything was accepted and for decades more things have been stripped. Once upon a time it was consensuses that there was an empty tomb and that wasn't that long ago. This is a field absolutely dominated by fundamentalist scholars and a historiography that mostly made by strongly believing Christians. The history of the field is basically one of attempting to prove that Jesus existed, that Gospels are historical and so on. It took decades to remove and change the field an some things are still in flux, such a Q. Even if Josephus did write those things (or there were earlier things later changed) it would most likely have been writing based of reports from Christians so even if he the reference are real and refer to the actual Jesus as we understand it, its not great evidence because of course Christians tell him that. There is no evidence Josephus did any independent study or had any source other then Christians or maybe some of the Gospels like Mark. As I said, Jesus most likely did exist but the evidence isn't that great. > Also, the majority of secular scholars believe we can work out roughly what Jesus taught – although it seems likely that what he actually taught was much closer to 1st century Judaism than what Christianity later evolved into Even scholars don't have a unified agreement on what he taught. Most likely some for of Apocalyptic Judaism as you said. There were many of those kinds of Jewish cults during that time. And there is also evidence that these were partially overlapping and so on. The issue is that after his death and supposed resurrection he apparently appeared in vision to the Apostles and gave them knowledge (that is what they believed). And its very likely that they all at different kinds of visions that likely changed what he would have taught in live. So basically the very reason there is a Christianity (the believe in supposed resurrection) basically implies changes to the theology.

docandrew 4y ago

Four separate eyewitness accounts (the gospels), all consistent with one another, is pretty good historical evidence as far as the ancient world is concerned.

panick21_ 4y ago
Not isn't. Sorry but this is just a highly inaccurate statement. The gospel are absolutely not eyewitness accounts. Not sure if you learned that in Church or something, this is very much not what any scholar of those text believes. Even the 'scholars' in religious fundamentalist schools mostly don't agree with that. The gospel were not written by the people in the title, the titles were not even in any of the older scrolls, titles like 'Gospel of Mark' were later additions. And they are also not independent documents either. They are very clearly written with knowlage of one another. Mark is the template for all of them. Matthew previously thought to be independent is increasingly seen as Mark with some additional stuff insert into it. Luke clearly had both Mark and Matthew to work with and basically tried to make a fusion. John is clearly much considerably later and clearly had the other three. The only documents that are in reasonable living memory of a potential Jesus are the non-fake letters of Paul (most of them are not by Paul). And Paul himself even says that hadn't met Jesus (outside of visions) and Paul letters also don't give us much that matters in terms the historical accuracy of what went on in the region as he wasn't there. And don't believe the 'Acts of the Apostles' in the bible those are even less historical then the gospels.

skissane 4y ago

> With Christianity we don't have much idea of what Christ wanted, Christ existence has an absolutely terrible historical source base. In fact I found it pretty embracing how little there was. Christ probably existed (I would put it 75%/25%) but if he did he was a insignificant preacher Still better than what we have for Siddharta Gautama. Buddhist sources can't even agree on which century he lived in. Christian sources are unanimous in dating Jesus of Nazareth to within a decade, and the Jewish historian Josephus (writing approximately 60 years later) also confirms his existence. One of the two references to Jesus in Josephus has obviously been tampered with by Christian copyists, but the majority of scholars believe there was a genuine reference there prior to the tampering; and most scholars believe the second reference is entirely genuine. Also, the majority of secular scholars believe we can work out roughly what Jesus taught – although it seems likely that what he actually taught was much closer to 1st century Judaism than what Christianity later evolved into > So pretty much all Christians have a massive problem. Some Christians are big on arguing for Christianity based on the claimed historical accuracy of the New Testament – an approach called "evidentialist apologetics". You have correctly pointed out the massive problems with that approach. However, not all Christians argue for Christianity in that way – indeed, I think it is historically a minority, despite the huge fad for it in 20th century Anglophone Christianity (and especially evangelical Protestantism). Other Christians put greater emphasis on other arguments – philosophical arguments, arguments from religious experience, historical arguments that rely on the broad sweep of Christian history rather than just its first decade, etc. Maybe all those other arguments have problems too–but not these problems.

panick21_ 4y ago
I know nothing of Buddhism as it has never interest me much. > Jewish historian Josephus In general we have a history in this field where early on almost everything was accepted and for decades more things have been stripped. Once upon a time it was consensuses that there was an empty tomb and that wasn't that long ago. This is a field absolutely dominated by fundamentalist scholars and a historiography that mostly made by strongly believing Christians. The history of the field is basically one of attempting to prove that Jesus existed, that Gospels are historical and so on. It took decades to remove and change the field an some things are still in flux, such a Q. Even if Josephus did write those things (or there were earlier things later changed) it would most likely have been writing based of reports from Christians so even if he the reference are real and refer to the actual Jesus as we understand it, its not great evidence because of course Christians tell him that. There is no evidence Josephus did any independent study or had any source other then Christians or maybe some of the Gospels like Mark. As I said, Jesus most likely did exist but the evidence isn't that great. > Also, the majority of secular scholars believe we can work out roughly what Jesus taught – although it seems likely that what he actually taught was much closer to 1st century Judaism than what Christianity later evolved into Even scholars don't have a unified agreement on what he taught. Most likely some for of Apocalyptic Judaism as you said. There were many of those kinds of Jewish cults during that time. And there is also evidence that these were partially overlapping and so on. The issue is that after his death and supposed resurrection he apparently appeared in vision to the Apostles and gave them knowledge (that is what they believed). And its very likely that they all at different kinds of visions that likely changed what he would have taught in live. So basically the very reason there is a Christianity (the believe in supposed resurrection) basically implies changes to the theology.