Various non-trinitarian christians. Among the currently existing sects are the Christadelphans, and Iglesia ni Cristo.
Advertisement
by Dyakovo » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:10 pm
by Benuty » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:10 pm
by Dyakovo » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:10 pm
by The Sotoan Union » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:22 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:41 pm
The Sotoan Union wrote:It's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person.
The amount of evidence we have to suggest that he existed is comparable to the evidence we have that suggests Plato or Leonidas or Gilgamesh existed. When studying ancient history you won't always have the best sources available, and if historians thought that someone couldn't exist just because they are considered religious and mythical figures than our understanding of history would be very different.
by The Sotoan Union » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:42 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:The Sotoan Union wrote:It's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person.
The amount of evidence we have to suggest that he existed is comparable to the evidence we have that suggests Plato or Leonidas or Gilgamesh existed. When studying ancient history you won't always have the best sources available, and if historians thought that someone couldn't exist just because they are considered religious and mythical figures than our understanding of history would be very different.
Yours, maybe.
We should be skeptical about historical stories, in proportion to the quality of their evidence.
But that doesn't make historical stories useless - even if Socrates never existed, and Plato made him up - the stories are still valid... they're just not 'true'.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:46 pm
The Sotoan Union wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
Yours, maybe.
We should be skeptical about historical stories, in proportion to the quality of their evidence.
But that doesn't make historical stories useless - even if Socrates never existed, and Plato made him up - the stories are still valid... they're just not 'true'.
Until there is empirical evidence that they existed they aren't considered to definitely have existed. It's just that they aren't automatically assumed to have been made up, because historians don't refuse to accept a source just because it isn't contemporary or is mythical.
by Ashmoria » Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:11 pm
Constantinopolis wrote:Ashmoria wrote:yeah but what he said and what he did varies enough that, to me, it is quite possible that the different writings are mostly about different people.
The various Christian groups were actively debating and arguing with each other. You don't think someone would have noticed if they were talking about different people? You don't think at some point someone would have said "oh, you've been talking about THAT Jesus? We meant this OTHER Jesus all along!"Ashmoria wrote:there was at least a big dispute about the humanity vs divinity of Christ that means that it certainly wasn't developed and settled when Christianity first spread.
That's not quite true. None of the various Christian factions claimed that Jesus was merely human. They all agreed that he was some kind of higher being, the dispute was over the question of whether he was God, or an angel, or some other kind of higher being.Ashmoria wrote:I would think that the friends of jesus would have gotten the details down pat from the beginning so that there would be little room for diversity. (the need for the friends of jesus to be outrageous liars argues to me that neither he nor they really existed)
...wait, what? How did Christianity start, then? Someone must have existed. Someone must have started Christianity. I mean, Christians exist, right? We're not all imaginary, are we?
.
by Constantinopolis » Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:22 pm
by Knokkeheist » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:06 am
by Novaya Equestria » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:09 am
by Sun Wukong » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:11 am
Novaya Equestria wrote:Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.
by Hjalmarr » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:11 am
by Trollgaard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:13 am
by Sun Wukong » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:20 am
Trollgaard wrote:The Romans sure seemed to think so. They even have descriptions of him.
Hjalmarr wrote:Nope. There's no evidence, and until there is, he never existed.
by Menassa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:26 am
Novaya Equestria wrote:Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.
by Menassa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:27 am
by Sun Wukong » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:28 am
by Trollgaard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:30 am
by New Grestin » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:33 am
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)
by Trollgaard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:34 am
by Sun Wukong » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:38 am
by Trollgaard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:39 am
Sun Wukong wrote:Trollgaard wrote:
They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.
Indeed. Here's what wikipedia says about them:
"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him."
"and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.[4][5][6]"
by Menassa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:40 am
Sun Wukong wrote:Trollgaard wrote:
They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.
Indeed. Here's what wikipedia says about them:
"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him."
"and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.[4][5][6]"
Really, it's so obvious these are fake, I didn't even have to look them up to know it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Federation of Native and Indigenous Cats, Lothria, Shrillland, The Children of Mercy
Advertisement