You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A Christmas Day board game took an unusual twist when the topic fictional characters popped up.
My sister in law had written down Jesus Christ.
Massive family argument ensues...
Can people point me to some balanced views either way?
Ooof
A fictional representation of a real person is perfectly common and doesn't necessarily call into question the existence of the individual on which that representation is based or intended to parody.
Good answer. I couldn't resist saying a VERY fictional representation but that wouldn't help
I think it shows a lack of common sense and social skills. Does she always put her foot in it like that?
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
We had the same scenario years ago. Ours was with the names stuck to your forehead.
The person who wrote it believed he was fictional like father Christmas and the person with jesus on their head was a church going Catholic.
In my opinion, the evidence is there that he existed. The real question is did he do all the stuff mentioned in the bible?
I'm an ancient aliens fan so Ill leave it there. 🤣
On the balance of probabilities Jesus was a real person, born about 4BC and died about 33AD and was crucified.
He was Jewish scholar and religious leader, was tried by a Jewish council who turned him over the to the Romans for judgment.
There’s a lot less evidence to prove the accounts in the gospels, and they were mostly written 50 years or so after his Death, but had been changed continually since, partly because of translators own interpretations of older texts and often by people in power to suit their own ends. But they have never been ‘sold’ as being his words or ‘Gods’.
So, IMHO not Fictional. He’s a bit like Andy McNab (forgetting for a moment that’s not his real name) real person, but the Bible is probably about as accurate at Bravo Two Zero.
I’m an ancient aliens fan so Ill leave it there
At least there can at least be a debate about whether JC existed, so the Christians are one up already.
the Bible is probably about as accurate at Bravo Two Zero.
i quote like that as a quote.
Can people point me to some balanced views either way?
LMAO. Good luck with that.
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had.
Superstar...until he hit that slick
Have a look at Richard Carrier on youtube. If anyone knows then he knows.
Probably a real person, just not all he's claimed to be.
God would be a fictional character though.
I suspect he was real but his achievements were massively inflated. Like many stories of olden days, they are based on a fact but the story is embellished.
Think there is a Jesus mentioned by a Roman historian (Josephus, History of the Jews?) written about 70AD, which ties in with one of the posts above. Both Jewish and Muslim texts refer to him as being a prophet of theirs, so it seems likely there was a real person upon whom the whole Bible thing got pinned.
If you want to wander down some blind alleys, I think he is mentioned in the Gnostic gospels, the ones the Catholic church decided not to include in the Bible, but you end up popping up in the Da Vinci Code 😄
they are based on a fact but the story is embellished.
Yes, for example the truth was a nice bloke turned up with some bread and fish and shared them around with a few people.
Given that there is no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of JC and as mentioned above the first mention is 35 years after his “death” I’d go with he’s a fictional character.
Can people point me to some balanced views either way?
Can't you just Google it for yourself?
50 years or so after his Death, but had been changed continually since, partly because of translators own interpretations of older texts and often by people in power to suit their own ends. But they have never been ‘sold’ as being his words or ‘Gods’.
I believe it’s closer to 30 years & that the texts have changed by a very small percentage since they were written. Luke’s gospel was specifically written to detail Jesus ministry through investigation of eyewitness reports
Yes, for example the truth was a nice bloke turned up with some bread and fish and shared them around with a few people.
Pity he didn't teach them to fish, they'd have been set up for life then.
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
Nah, he rode a Street Triple with a loud exhaust.
There's nothing in the actual historic record from the time (which are extensive) indicating an actual person existed.
The whole shebang of christianity can be traced back to sun god worship. The vast majority of the really good bits (virgin birth, death, resurrection) can be found on hieroglyphs inside the pyramids of Egypt - so about 2500 years beforehand. (Which is why many previously devout christian egyptologists abandoned their faith).
If you're looking for "balance" you cannot get it when people's belief is bound up so tightly in it. - Remember: believing is a verb - something you do - which is "thinking something is one way, despite evidence to the contrary".
There's overwhelming evidence that all of the religions of the world are a crock of made up shit. Made up shit that make people feel good, maybe, but made up shit nonetheless. Not least christianity - the origins of which can be clearly traced back many more years before Zero AD than we are past it.
I'd personally feel secure in the knowledge that your family member is correct, that christianity is dying out in the civilized west (whilst the catholic church continues to forbid condom use in devote AIDS-riddled parts of Africa, resulting in untold suffering (including baby-rape)) and that we're beginning to emerge from this fog of violent, misogynist idiocy.
But you'll believe what you want either way. 🙂
Jesus was a real person, born about 4BC
Seems like he was ahead of himself.
Can people point me to some balanced views either way?
Jesus Christ the son of god is the figment of people's imagination. Wither someone called Jesus Christ actually lived at that time isn't relevant to anything.
Massive family argument ensues…
So you'd thought you'd share the love by starting one here lol
OP did you all manage to patch up your differences or were you all left with simmering resentment?
There’s nothing in the actual historic record from the time (which are extensive) indicating an actual person existed.
Really? Other than the Bible i thought there is little surviving today from that period. Do you have any references which are relevant to first century Jewish/Roman/other around Israel?
Jesus Christ fictional?
Doesn’t matter either way.
It’s the message that’s the important bit, not the messenger.
Oh he existed. He was crucified by the Romans. He was a dude, whatever you believe. Give me a a better role model, ever ?
@perchypanther
I'd agree with that if only christians would.
I don't think there's much in the teachings of Jesus that any reasonable person could disagree with. However, all the 'virgin birth', 'eating the (literal) body of christ', 'ascension into heaven', 'walking on water', 'feeding 5000 with a few fish', stuff means that it does matter. I believe in being kind to my fellow humans (except Crystal Palace supporters), resurrection, damnation for virtuous pagans, original sin, not so much.
@Loughan
There are extensive historical records for that period. some of them even mention Jesus - though probably not as many as you'd expect for someone who caused so much fuss. There's a good list here: https://reasonsforjesus.com/a-list-of-extra-biblical-sources-for-the-historical-jesus/of non-biblical mentions of Jesus
lol @ 'easily' link - "Ooops... Error 404
Sorry, but the page you are looking for doesn't exist."
... nope, nothing at all this time.
Well there we have it ladies and gentlemen - we finally have proof.
One more try:
https://reasonsforjesus.com/a-list-of-extra-biblical-sources-for-the-historical-jesus/
"First name?"- "Jesus."
"Surname?"- "Christ."
"Oh come on, really!"
"Nah just kidding, it's Josephson"
My understanding is that he's the son of Santa Claus so I guess it depends what your stance is on him.
I think it shows a lack of common sense and social skills. Does she always put her foot in it like that
Or she was bored of the game and pretty clever and knew what she was doing 😉 By throwing that in there and causing an argument its either going to bring the game to an end or provide some good entertainment so win win situation 😂
It’s the message that’s the important bit, not the messenger
I just love the irony in a carpenter meeting his end by way of wood and nails. If he was real then the bible does him a serious disservice. Turns what seems to be a top bloke in to a third rate super hero.
Was watching documentary on BBC a while back on Jesus Christ apparently there is no account of Jesus before age 30.
However, the speculation was that Jesus was in Afghanistan before that which is rather logical considering Roman empire stretch to near Afghanistan (Alexander the Great fought his last battle there?) so he could be on his "gap" year there, like any of young people today travelling to see the world.
Other speculation that they could not find his body after his crucifixion was because he was not dead and someone actually help him escape back to Afghanistan. Hence, there is a tomb in Afghanistan that the locals say is that of Jesus.
Therefore, Jesus was a real person according to the historians on the documentary.
Really? Other than the Bible i thought there is little surviving today from that period
The bible is not a historical record of the day. Most of it was written some time after what we know as the start of the new testament.
The bible is not a historical record of the day. Most of it was written some time after what we know as the start of the new testament.
Indeed.
Whatever evidence may or may not have survived today, the bible is not it. It is, at best, based on decades- or even centuries-old Chinese whispers. Had Jesus actually existed, he was already a myth / legend by the time anyone got around to picking up a quill. And that's before we consider that it was written in a language which requires interpretation rather than direct translation.
It's certainly plausible that Jesus existed, but his escapades and the whole "son of god" schtick not so much. For instance, it's not hard to see how the feeding of the five thousand came about by word of mouth over a century of embellishment passing on the story of a nice bloke who shared a packed lunch with his mates one afternoon. And of course, once something like that gains traction it's natural to allocate "Jesus did it" to good deeds etc done by others or even made up entirely.
It's much more recent history and we're still not really sure if Robin Hood existed. I highly doubt that anyone can really say with any certainty whether JC did or didn't.
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities; NOT some wacky "Bible colleges") who themselves had studied at the feet of professors before them - all of whom have been subject to the review process by scholars in corresponding fields who are not themselves Christian, or even necessarily people of faith, but none of whom across centuries of scholarship have managed to distil the existence of Jesus down to the admirably simple formulae conjured up by the good folk of STW.
If only I - and all of them - had have had access to internet fora and social media years ago, we could have saved ourselves so much time.
Thanks, though. Better late than never.
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
In the time it's taken you to whine about it you could've shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead.
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts
the thread is only 10 hours old! That’s hardly dedicating your life!
i jest. I’m interested to hear what you have to say.
Careful Saxonrider, they don't like it up 'em!
In the time it’s taken you to whine about it you could’ve shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead.
Not really. I was talking to @molgrips about this exact thing during a ride the other day. People have so many ideas about history and religion, it is extremely difficult to stay on top of them all. Anyway, what I wrote, above, was not directed at you, or any of the genuinely curious-but-conjectural posts; it was more concerned with some of the absolutist nonsense that appeared on the first page.
But you're right. I shouldn't just throw out a sarcastic comment without being willing to put some time into an actual response. I am in the midst of doing so, and will have more to share later. In the meantime, I hope everyone carries on. There is a lot of bullshit flying about, but I wouldn't have it any other way. 🙂
I would only ever want people to realise that when they proffer opinions, there is generally a much, much bigger story than is often realised. Same goes for most academic fields.
I would only ever want people to realise that when they proffer opinions,
I think - well, I'd hope - that most people do understand that. Rather with text-based communication it's easy to lose that sort of nuance and infer things that people don't mean. It's often how arguments start.
For my part, I was just rolling around ideas really.
Given that there is no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of JC and as mentioned above the first mention is 35 years after his “death” I’d go with he’s a fictional character.
He was probably in South America, going by the name Viracocha.
A pale skinned, bearded man who dissappeared after walking west over the Pacific, and spent his days dressed in robes, preaching about how to live your life, and, generally performing miracles
In the time it’s taken you to whine about it you could’ve shared some of your oarsum knowledge instead
iirc he has done many times before on these sorts of threads and in quite a reasonable manner as well. His point is a little grumpy but valid all the same
If Jesus really did exist, I bet his surname wasn't Christ.
Everyone seems to be an Expert on the bible, just wondering how many of you have actually read (and understood) it?
Yes i believe in God and Yes i believe Jesus was who he claimed to be, and its from over 30yrs of weighing up all the sides i can find, but as in most things on here, Too many experts and no real experts.
Happy new year
The trouble is that many people don’t understand the metaphors, which has little to do with whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, more to do with the predictably banal STW comments about the New Testament.
Comments often made by the same people who religiously lie to their children every year about the existence of Father Christmas.
Where’s my ironing?
Wither someone called Jesus Christ actually lived
Jesus, son of Joseph, the carpenter. Christ is a later appellation, not a name as such, more a title.
I am not a scholar... 😬
Anyway untill SR arrives with an undoubtedly interesting theologic history lesson, Wikipedia's take on Jesus the historical character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Everyone seems to be an Expert on the bible, just wondering how many of you have actually read (and understood) it?
Oh the arrogance. As it happens I was raised in a catholic household and attended catholic schools. Was baptised, took confession, communion and confirmation. So whilst I can’t quote the bible chapter and verse it’s safe to say that my opinions do not come from a place of ignorance.
I’m sure many other posters can tell similar tales.
gonefishin - same background as you know and I'm aligned with your comments.
As for SaxonRider's knowledge and experience - Michael Gove said that we've had enough of experts....only joking 😉
To avoid any confusion it might be best to refer to Jesus Christ by name, not initials, as we wouldn't to give the impression that Jeremy Corbyn (JC) is Christ.
History is not the same as theology.
Was there an actual person (or several people) about whom legends grew up that became the story of Jesus of Nazareth? IMO probably. All the theology? don't believe a word of it. Sorry Saxonrider I do enjoy discussing religion with you and commend your good humour when doing so but if one does not believe and has no faith then all any religion is is myths, rituals and (sometimes dubious) morals
@Lawmanmx
Yes, I've read the bible. I was given a NT by the Gideans, and I always read stuff that I'm given (well, not so much these days, but when I was a kid). I then sent off to get the OT when I'd finished.
Are you including the OT in your weighing up?
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
I think he realised he should get rid of it after he pulled a skid, probably trying to impress the ladies, and killed a kid, then bumped his head on a dustbin lid....
SaxonRider
Subscriber
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities; NOT some wacky “Bible colleges”) who themselves had studied at the feet of professors before them – all of whom have been subject to the review process by scholars in corresponding fields who are not themselves Christian, or even necessarily people of faith, but none of whom across centuries of scholarship have managed to distil the existence of Jesus down to the admirably simple formulae conjured up by the good folk of STW.
If only I – and all of them – had have had access to internet fora and social media years ago, we could have saved ourselves so much time.
Thanks, though. Better late than never.
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
Well said.
There's an annoying tendency on here for people to distill a bit of stuff they read on the internet then pronounce it as gospel (pun intended). The truth is much more complex.
JP
There’s an annoying tendency on here for people to distill a bit of stuff they read on the internet then pronounce it as gospel (pun
About as annoying as the assumption that those who don’t believe are ignorant and ill informed. Some of us actually know quite a bit, we just came to a different conclusion.
Sorry Saxonrider I do enjoy discussing religion with you and commend your good humour when doing so but if one does not believe and has no faith then all any religion is is myths, rituals and (sometimes dubious) morals
No apology necessary! I only contend that, seeing as the title of the thread invited a discussion around whether or not Jesus was a fictional character, it is important not to dismiss the scholarship suggesting he existed just because one doesn't subscribe to the religion around him.
Importantly, his historical existence is rejected by few, if any, serious scholars, and the manuscript evidence is as strongly in favour of a positive conclusion regarding the existence of the person Jesus as it is in favour of pretty much any commonly accepted figure from antiquity. Whether we accept the religious interpretation of him is an entirely different issue.
About as annoying as the assumption that those who don’t believe are ignorant and ill informed.
I don't think anyone, least SR would claim a lack of faith is ignorance. But failing to recognise Jesus as a historical character suggests a wilfull rejection of the evidence. Everyone however is entitled to an opinion ignorant or not.
taxi25 sed> Everyone however is entitled to an opinion ignorant or not.
I'm really not so sure this is a good idea.
Sorry @SaxonRider - I refuse to bow to your blatant and transparent appeal-to-authority:
I wish I had have read this thread before I dedicated my life to studying ancient manuscripts at the feet of professors (all at mainstream, world-renowned universities... <yadda yadda ain't I great yadda>
SaxonRider, PhD, LicDD, FRHistS
Sucks to be you that you have indeed wasted large parts of your life. Not that an argument with a stranger on the internet will assuage you of your beliefs - but you've simply studied under a stream of misguided people who have never either had nor (importantly) wanted an actual real and proper evidential basis for their arguments.
I hope you've enjoyed it, and if we ever met I have little doubt we'd talk about mountain biking as our shared religion, so would get along fine.
But reach the way you just did in that post, and I'll happily shit on it. It's not for anyone to prove you wrong - but for you to prove yourself right. And no religious sect ever has (not that lacking evidence for anything has ever stopped them taking in a shedload of cash or having lots of power (and that's not confined to religions)).
And why is that? Because real, verifiable, falsifiable evidence doesn't exist.
You can't prove what isn't. You can only prove what is. And THAT is the argument that religions the world over have never been able to step up to.
That went south fast.
Because real, verifiable, falsifiable evidence doesn’t exist.
Huh?
And, missing the point?
Not pre-empting SR's promised summary, but isn't the point that Jesus's existence as a real person (not the son of God) is as verifiable as most other major individuals from the same period of history? If we agree that (for example) Herod was real then we should be able to agree that 'a' Jesus was too...
I'm a total atheist, but I have VERY little doubt that there was a Jesus at some point in that region who was significant enough for various people to record his existence. Was he the son of God? Absolutely not IMO, but that doesn't mean he wasn't real.
Sucks to be you that you have indeed wasted large parts of your life.
Chevy, you obviously didn't manage to read the two short paragraphs SR wrote their last post did you?
SR, I respect what you say, which seems to mirror many of the comments posted so far. Most have been quite reasonable.
I try to think of Jesus as a 2000 year old Ghandi, but I tend to think of Ghandi as more modern and I can follow what he said whilst watching footage of him on the TV.
Sorry @SaxonRider – I refuse to bow to your blatant and transparent appeal-to-authority:
That's not what's happening here at all. 'Appeal to authority' means 'believe me because these important people agree with me'. But SaxonRider is saying 'believe me because I myself have spend a lifetime actually studying it'.
If you consider that a logical fallacy then how would you ever learn anything from anyone? No, you are being irrational and your argument is fallacious as you are exhibiting confirmation bias.
I think Jesus probably existed, I cannot see any reason to deny that, nor do I see why it should be the subject of such vitriol. I believe he probably said many of the things attributed to him. I don't believe he was divine though.
You can’t prove what isn’t. You can only prove what is. And THAT is the argument that religions the world over have never been able to step up to.
It's called 'faith' for a reason... You're not really getting the concept.
But in any case, this thread isn't about religion, it's about history. Something else you appear to have missed. You're not doing very well so far.
It's a clear appeal to authority - hence the "here's my PhD's, not from *yadda* religious groups but respected serious people" yadda.
It's also absolutely a religious study, bound up with 'history'. And when you start looking under the covers you find people mix the historical, mythical and theological with a very low bar for what constitutes evidence (generally not a scientific bar, given ongoing arguments about forgeries and authenticity of 'evidence' sources).
But to no longer want to continue a theme that a lot of people are naturally going to feel strongly about (my attack (for that is what it is, and I'm not apologising for that - you can't debate anything worthwhile whilst dancing around the sides of a subject) was in opposition to that appeal to authority) - consider this:
To spend time and resources trying to discover whether a bloke called Jesus existed in the correct area and correct time *without* him being the 'son of god' is a monumental waste of time. The only reason to search is *because* of the religious connotations, otherwise you may as well be looking for a guy called Terry who liked to eat ham.
Anyone saying that this 'historical' search should be considered 'separate' in any way from the religious angle is being disingenuous as it's intrinsically bound up.
But to both humour that and move the argument on: does/did Jesus exist as a real person - the answer outside of a religious context must surely be "who cares?". For it is only in a religious context that the existence, or not, of such a figure takes on any importance. And inside a religious context the existence of such a figure is *even less important* - because belief in such a figure makes his actual existence irrelevant.
So take all of these arguments about whether Jesus the man/bloke/god existed for what they really are: a desparate scramble by a dying religion to give it some faux historical relevancy in the face of overwhelming evidence that we not only no longer need it as some sort of 'guiding light' but that it's onging existence is both counterproductive and dangerous....
Anyway. That's what you get for discussing religion on a biking forum. 🙂
I wonder what ever happened to that old Yamaha he had. 🤔
I think he realised he should get rid of it after he pulled a skid, probably trying to impress the ladies, and killed a kid, then bumped his head on a dustbin lid….
Interesting. Round our way he pulled a skid, killed a kid, and paralysed his bollocks on aforementioned dustbin lid.
I think it's perfectly feasible to want to research whether 'Jesus' existed, and whether there's any real evidence for he said or what others say he said. Or did.
I mean, I'm not religious but I like to know stuff. It's just as valid as trying to work out what frozen scandi man died of, or what's buried under the new houses being built down the road. And given the importance others have ascribed to him, possibly more valid.
There is of course the possibility that there are folk involved in researching that are doing so with a big chip in the game, but that's the point of peer review and scrutiny.
The more I age the more I belive the whole thing was dreamed up by a bunch of bloated theocrats who sat down a few centuries ago and agreed they needed a story to fit their "my imaginary best friend is better than your imaginary best friend" idea, which they were beginning to realise had great value for controlling the uneducated peasants and extracting wealth from them. They even wrote it all down in a big book, which the Victorians embellished by inventing Christmas and all the claptrap that goes with that.
If you know any Muslims well and you try to discuss anything logically with them you can see that they are a century or so behind Christians in seeeing the light and making up their own minds about stuff.
Anyway. That’s what you get for discussing religion on a biking forum.
How new are you around here?
But SaxonRider is saying ‘believe me because I myself have spend a lifetime actually studying it’.
And yet has provided no evidence to base his opinion on.
I think it’s perfectly feasible to want to research whether ‘Jesus’ existed, and whether there’s any real evidence for he said or what others say he said. Or did.
I mean, I’m not religious but I like to know stuff.
Agree. Would be interested to know about the existence and what he actually did if he did exist.
I wouldn't spend too much time bothering to find out though as it is not THAT interesting.