The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

[Eloi]

Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

[Goat]

I remember reading on the internet the following true story:

the daughter of a famous English writer had a modern English literature exam at her school, where no one knew that she was the daughter of the writer of the book from which an exam question was taken. She asked her father to explain the central idea in the book to help her answer the question. It turned out that when the daughter answered the exam, the teacher told her that she was wrong in her answer and gave her a totally different version about the central idea of ​​the writer in his book ... without even suspecting that the wrong one was himself, for logical reasons.

I enjoyed that.

Yes, but is it really a true story?

Don't know. There is also the story of john Lennon hearing about a college class where the students were asked to analyse the lyrics of Beetles songs, so he wrote a song that was nothing but gibberish for them to analyze, and thus "I am the walrus' was written

[JoeyKnothead]

When atheists try to create a character for themselves based on the things they read about Jesus in the Bible, they are already assuming preconceived ideas...

Considering bible Jesus can't be shown to've existed, believers must be doing them some assuming preconceived ideas too.

They are often very wrong,

Is it wrong for me to assume human-god hybrids don't exist?

Is it wrong for me to assume humans (or hybrids thereof) can't walk on water?

Is it wrong for me to assume dead folks don't just hop up and go about their day?

and do not pay attention to those who do have an idea of ​​the real person behind the stories because they have made the study of the Bible an essential matter for their own lives.

It's believers who ain't paying attention when it's never been shown humans and gods can even procreate, much less to then have babies.

Some imagine a political or revolutionary Jesus, others imagine just a very intelligent man who had a few followers, others imagine God walking among humans, etc.

While others imagine em a god and a woman had em a baby.

Making Mary an adulteress, worthy of stoning, and Joseph the most famous cuck in recorded human history.

The issue of who one believes Jesus to be was as topical at the time Jesus served as God's spokesman as it is now.

Funny thing about God's spokespersonnel - can't the first one of em show a god exists to need it to be spoke for. And what's up with that? Are all the recorded gods mute?

He himself asked his disciples what opinion they had of him (Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21). We now have various accounts of his life and work and can have a more complete notion... only if those accounts are carefully studied.

We have various unproven, unprovable claims attributed to a human-god, water walking, death defying, god speaking for guy.

[TRANSPONDER]

I remember reading on the internet the following true story:

the daughter of a famous English writer had a modern English literature exam at her school, where no one knew that she was the daughter of the writer of the book from which an exam question was taken. She asked her father to explain the central idea in the book to help her answer the question. It turned out that when the daughter answered the exam, the teacher told her that she was wrong in her answer and gave her a totally different version about the central idea of ​​the writer in his book ... without even suspecting that the wrong one was himself, for logical reasons.

I enjoyed that.

Yes, but is it really a true story?

Even if it's only an invented analogy (like Einstein and the atheist professor) it works both ways. It's the Christians assuming they are right and explaining how the atheists could have misread the Jesus story. But the atheists can say the same about the Christians.

[oldbadger]

I remember reading on the internet the following true story:

the daughter of a famous English writer had a modern English literature exam at her school, where no one knew that she was the daughter of the writer of the book from which an exam question was taken. She asked her father to explain the central idea in the book to help her answer the question. It turned out that when the daughter answered the exam, the teacher told her that she was wrong in her answer and gave her a totally different version about the central idea of ​​the writer in his book ... without even suspecting that the wrong one was himself, for logical reasons.

I enjoyed that.

Yes, but is it really a true story?

Dunno...... But since this kind of situation occurs all the time I can't see why it wouldn't be a true story.

Try another, ok?
One day I was stopped outside a DIY store and accused of stealing. I was wrongly detained and searched!
The Company MD was very apologetic, sent me a £20 gift card and apology, and I now know that he caused mayhem at that bad store.
Two weeks later I returned to the same store and spent the £20 gift card on a little fire safe and a ratchet screwdriver.
After I left the store I was jumped on by several store staff and literally dragged in to the (day) manager's office.
The day manager stood above me and laughed and said, 'We've got you this time! You stole that gift card! We know because our computers can tell that that card has never been sold from any of our stores in the whole country!'
They were all a bit worried when they realised that the MD's office had sent that card out.
The DIY company gave me my solicitor's costs and an expensive bathroom suit with an apology.

True? False? What do you think?
The Story of Jesus as written in G-Mark (less the Christian fiddlings) is a true story, based upon the balance of probabilities....imo.

[TRANSPONDER]

Interesting post. The hidden fallacy in the point is this: it isn't a question of True or False. it is a question of probability. It's more usual human thinking to opt for a theory and then argue for it. But the rationally correct position is to assess probability while leaving the door open. And have some ideas about it.

Could it be true? The incidental detail is very convincing. On the other hand, the actions of the store staff is unfeasible. It could be an example of a story tweaked a bit to put the story -teller in the right. What we need is some input; is the story teller in a position to know the internal events of the store? Is it feasible that guards would grab someone for using a card from elsewhere? Wouldn't it be the counter staff that queried it? This is a matter of discussion such as we have here, not of opting for a belief about the story and clinging to that position, never mind what the evidence turns up.

[brunumb]

Dunno...... But since this kind of situation occurs all the time I can't see why it wouldn't be a true story.

Over the years I have encountered many concocted stories aimed at promoting Christianity. So I am now very cynical.

[TRANSPONDER]

While our badgering pal is presenting a story we could chew over, we are fortunate in having the Jesus story in 4 conflicting versions. The 'courtroom' analogy is often proposed: for some reason, Bible apologists seem to think that the story would stand up in court. My view is that the Judge would rule the witness testimony unsafe and stricken from the record or a reasonably competent lawyer could demonstrate that the stories conflict so much they are best disregarded.

I reckon it's even better (for us) with the Gospels; we can show that some parts cannot be credible; the nativities fail on history, let alone conflicting stories. The omission of important elements tends to add to the doubts. I know that apologists try to appeal to 'witness error' but an account of a car crash or a street mugging by 4 witnesses, one of whom relates an appearance by a flying saucer pilot who beams the accused up, is going to have one story discounted, not because of the ET pilot so much as none of the other three having mentioned it. The Apologists really strawman this by having futile debates about 'one angel or two' and thus drawing a kipper across the trail that leads to real and problematical contradictions.

Moreover, we can hear a common story that the witnesses are telling; not just the same tale but the same text, even the same connecting passages. We can begin to see 'collusion' as the apologists (trying a heads we win, tails you lose' ploy) say, in the synoptics; and then contradictions as the kind that we'd get by calling in the witnesses separately and they start making stuff up when grilled separately.

Yes, the courtroom analogy works well for Bible critics and I am only left with the usual last question: Do those who claim that the Jesus- story would stand up in a court of Law really believe that or do they just hope that we'll swallow it?

[oldbadger]

Dunno...... But since this kind of situation occurs all the time I can't see why it wouldn't be a true story.

Over the years I have encountered many concocted stories aimed at promoting Christianity. So I am now very cynical.

In my opinion......
Cautious investigation is good,
Skeptical investigation is safe,
Cynical 'investigation' is not so secure for finding what truths there might be.

[oldbadger]

While our badgering pal is presenting a story we could chew over, we are fortunate in having the Jesus story in 4 conflicting versions. The 'courtroom' analogy is often proposed: for some reason, Bible apologists seem to think that the story would stand up in court. My view is that the Judge would rule the witness testimony unsafe and stricken from the record or a reasonably competent lawyer could demonstrate that the stories conflict so much they are best disregarded.

Yes, but what was the charge? Charges are tried, not stories.
Would the charge be that the account was true, or a deception?
That's the thing......... in either charge there would be an acquittal, or in Scottish law that excellent and sensible third verdict of 'not proven'.

I reckon it's even better (for us) with the Gospels; we can show that some parts cannot be credible; the nativities fail on history, let alone conflicting stories. The omission of important elements tends to add to the doubts. I know that apologists try to appeal to 'witness error' but an account of a car crash or a street mugging by 4 witnesses, one of whom relates an appearance by a flying saucer pilot who beams the accused up, is going to have one story discounted, not because of the ET pilot so much as none of the other three having mentioned it. The Apologists really strawman this by having futile debates about 'one angel or two' and thus drawing a kipper across the trail that leads to real and problematical contradictions.

Yes....
Some parts are absolute deceptions.
Some are Christian fiddlings. (Less intention maybe)
Some are innocuous reports without any agenda, points made 'on the side' and hardly intended to help or hinder the account.
Some are true, have been supported by both arch enemies and supporters of Christianity.

So all we have to do is research and investigate with open mind...... The Christian Jesus evaporates, but the Social Justice Jesus survives, methinks.

Moreover, we can hear a common story that the witnesses are telling; not just the same tale but the same text, even the same connecting passages. We can begin to see 'collusion' as the apologists (trying a heads we win, tails you lose' ploy) say, in the synoptics; and then contradictions as the kind that we'd get by calling in the witnesses separately and they start making stuff up when grilled separately.

Rake through it all and bin the rubbish, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Yes, the courtroom analogy works well for Bible critics and I am only left with the usual last question: Do those who claim that the Jesus- story would stand up in a court of Law really believe that or do they just hope that we'll swallow it?

The Jesus story could stand up...... The Christian one would crash and burn.

[brunumb]

Dunno...... But since this kind of situation occurs all the time I can't see why it wouldn't be a true story.

Over the years I have encountered many concocted stories aimed at promoting Christianity. So I am now very cynical.

In my opinion......
Cautious investigation is good,
Skeptical investigation is safe,
Cynical 'investigation' is not so secure for finding what truths there might be.

Given the source of the story who I find to be a chronic science denier, I'm not fussed about looking for any truth in it anyway.