The Conservatives have claimed Good Friday

PippaZ
I am unsure of who you are talking about now. Lewis died many ago so I suppose it must therefore be Pulman.
If so it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would believe he was the Son of God in spite of himself. Have you actually read the New Testament?

Whitewavemark2

As a humanist I find it puzzling. There are (apparently) historic records to show that Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed existed.

How does one distinguish between them and decide who is the real spiritual leader?

It's faith, isn't it Whitewave. I doubt that all the people who follow these spiritual leaders actually all believe in exactly the same thing

PippaZ
As to Jesus name, yes Joshua will do, Yeshua will do. As Shakespeare said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Agedp1953

PippaZ
As a repost to Pulman I would quote Lewis.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[15]

That is not a repost - it's an interesting addition. I found the man fascinating when he was interviewed a year or so ago (that means it's probably three as time goes so fast) He seems to be saying he believes he is the Son of God in spite of himself!

There appears to have been on this thread, a general consensus of opinion that the existence of God and Jesus, or the existence of any god for that matter, can be neither proved or disproved Whitewavemark

As you say Pippa "no one is obliged to believe the claims" and believing claims is not the same as having faith. As I've posted previously, it is not for us to look into the hearts and minds of others and judge an interpretation of faith, a persons' reason for holding it or to say whether it is self serving or selfless.

PippaZ
As a repost to Pulman I would quote Lewis.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[15]

And then of course there are the religions where a deity is accepted as real despite having no proof like Judaism, and Hinduism.

Agedp1953

PippaZ
Thankyou for your inciteful comments . We shall never know for sure shall we. As for my comments about Caesars Gallic Wars, there are only 10 manuscripts in existence . The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1000 years after the original.
Aristotle’s poetics were written in the fourth century bc,
There are only 5 manuscripts in existence , the earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1400 years after the original.
There are some 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence . The earliest textual evidence we currently have was copied 100 years after the original.
Another history lesson for you.

My knowledge about Josephus is, admittedly, old. I can remember my father first discussing what evidence there was of the existence of Jesus with me when I was about 12

I have always wondered if the fact that the name of the man, which was lost in translation, meant we have missed any writings about him. It was translated to Joshua for those of the same name in the Old Testament.

As a humanist I find it puzzling. There are (apparently) historic records to show that Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed existed.

How does one distinguish between them and decide who is the real spiritual leader?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Agedp1953

Alegrias1 it’s interesting to read your comments about Jesus not being a historical figure. There are many non Christian writers who attest to the person of Jesus and his followers. Tactitus, Suetonius, Josephus. So I do think that his actual existence is well attested. What many scholars do not accept are the claims of Christians about him. Modern authors like Philip Pulman believe the claims were fabricated by his followers and that Paul was the main culprit

Philip Pulman, in answer to an interview question, said:

My view of the church and religion was shaped simply by a reading of history. The original impulses of the great religious geniuses - with whom I include Jesus - were, as often as not, something that all of us would benefit from studying and living by. The churches and priesthoods would benefit more than most, but they dare not.

That doesn't sound to me as if he is suggesting fabrication of the existance of the man, although no one is obliged to believe the claims, are they?

I think many would agree with what he says - except, perhaps those whose interpretation of faith and reason for holding it, is more self-serving than selfless.

Alegrias1
Paul is blamed for much, but then he would be wouldn’t he, by people with an opposing view.

PippaZ
Just a footnote, your earlier comments on Josiah were incorrect. He did in fact have a spiritual reformation which mabye included a social consequence but was not the point.
Unfortunately it ended in his demise at the hands of Pharoah Neco.

PippaZ
Thankyou for your inciteful comments . We shall never know for sure shall we. As for my comments about Caesars Gallic Wars, there are only 10 manuscripts in existence . The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1000 years after the original.
Aristotle’s poetics were written in the fourth century bc,
There are only 5 manuscripts in existence , the earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1400 years after the original.
There are some 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence . The earliest textual evidence we currently have was copied 100 years after the original.
Another history lesson for you.

I'm not getting into this debate Agedp1953, I don't have the knowledge. I have a lot of time for Pullman though. And I am led to understand we can blame Paul for quite a lot.

Alegrias1 it’s interesting to read your comments about Jesus not being a historical figure. There are many non Christian writers who attest to the person of Jesus and his followers. Tactitus, Suetonius, Josephus. So I do think that his actual existence is well attested. What many scholars do not accept are the claims of Christians about him. Modern authors like Philip Pulman believe the claims were fabricated by his followers and that Paul was the main culprit

Alegrias1

Thank you for the comments.

What prompted me to post was the lengthy discussion on the historicity of Jesus. I am interested in what makes people believe (I don't) but any attempt to justify him as a historical character is misplaced, IMO. And Dame Mary's

I was typing when you posted Algrias but I agree. I think your post, short and to the point, says much the same as my lengthy one does.

Well I agree with you in so much as I believe Jesus was more than a historical character Alegrias.

Agedp1953

PippaZ
That's 2000 years of building up the story, painting him as something very, very special and talking to an audience who really have no idea of the history of our time. I think, if he had become a popular figure to follow, the remaining right-wing could indeed be trying to claim him - it would, after all, be nothing new.

I think your analogy to the Christian story is fairly obvious.

Of course Josephus wrote in the first century, he was initially involved as a leader during the siege of Jerusalem and subsequently joined with Titus and returned to Rome.
His history of the Jews and testimonium flavinium regarding Jesus are contested by some scholars as being partially true, nevertheless they are generally accepted by scholars as being generally true apart from the resurrection narrative. It is also true that any references anywhere are always discredited by the opposition. Origen c230ad spoke of their efficacy.
Josephus also spoke about other biblical figures including James and John the Baptist. He added light to the description in the book of Acts regarding the death of Herod Agrippa.

St.Paul’s epistles are probably the earliest scriptural documents and yes the gospel dates followed later. John being written by the apostle from his base in Ephesus (Turkey).
Much of our knowledge of historical figures comes from much later writings. There aren’t any original manuscripts of Julius Caesar but we accept later manuscripts regarding his campaigns in the Gallic wars.
You also underestimate the value of the spoken narrative in ancient times. Many writings including those regarding Buddha where not written down till much , much later.

Paul L. Maier and Zvi Baras state that there are three possible perspectives on the authenticity of the Testimonium:

1) It is entirely authentic.
2) It is entirely a Christian forgery.
3) It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.

Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless given that as a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the passage in all extant Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e., partial authenticity. Baras adds that the third position is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations. Craig Evans (and separately Robert Van Voorst) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the Testimonium is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.

All in all, despite your history lesson, the only thing we gain from Josephus is that a man called Jesus lived, about the time and in the area, he is said to have lived. All else is a scholastic conjecture which we should take seriously but which lacks proof - as we would expect. I don't think the comparison with what we know about Julius Ceasar holds water. Even in comparatively recent history, we know more about Kings than the common man - or even the uncommon one.

Thank you for the comments.

What prompted me to post was the lengthy discussion on the historicity of Jesus. I am interested in what makes people believe (I don't) but any attempt to justify him as a historical character is misplaced, IMO. And Dame Mary's

I've always understood that in a written post in order to signify shouting, you post in upper case Pippa so if you're attempting to shut me down by making false allegations, I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

Without going back to double check, I'm pretty certain that on more than one occasion I have made it quite clear that I am posting as a Christian therefore referring to my faith.

TBH I thought you were doing rather well, engaging in an informative discussion from your perspective, and do think it's a pity that that has changed, and you've now resorted to claiming that I am evangelising and have gone into conversion mode.

Absolutely Alegrias I cannot prove that Jesus and God exist anymore than anyone can prove they don't; it's a matter of faith.

Isn’t that the definition of Faith, Alegrias? I have religious friends (not just Christian) and they’ve always they need no evidence because they have faith.

Well said, Alegrias1. Good post. No one has proof. Just experience and faith.

I'm not a biblical scholar and I won't even attempt to take part in the debate that's been going on above, as I don't have the knowledge or understanding to do so.

But I would like to say this; a few years ago I was privileged to see Dame Mary Warnock speak, someone who was described in her obituary as a "secular churchgoer". She was fascinating.

After the talk, during questions, a young man told her that he was sure of the existence of Jesus and God, because he had proof. Her answer was "No, you don't"

That was it. She didn't say any more. Stuck with me for all these years. You can be a believer, but you don't have proof. Dame Mary said so and I agree with her