View Single Post
Old 11-27-2008, 11:56 AM   #246
Alexrd
Senior Member
 
Alexrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,170
Current Game: UEFA Euro 2004
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
What about them? Also "Caesar" was also a title, not necessarily a person. Please specify which "Caesar" you are referring to.
Right, my mistake. Julius Caesar and William Shakespear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
I'd have to echo Achilles and ask what, particularly, you wanted to know? I'm assuming you want to know if skeptics of the historicity of Jesus are also equally skeptical of these two. To answer that, I'd have to say no. Why should they be? As far as I'm aware, there is no claim being made that Shakespeare or any of the caesars of ancient Rome were born of virgins, walked on deep bodies of water, turned water to wine, healed the blind, cast "demons" from men into pigs, etc. Nor is anyone suggesting that any salvation or "eternal life" depends upon the blind and willing belief in either a caesar or Shakespeare.

Therefore, there are less claims that need to be supported. The claim that centers around Shakespeare is that he authored respected works of fiction and poetry. That a body of work exists written in a literary style consistent with a single person of the 16th-17th century is incontestable. It wouldn't significantly diminish the body of work to discover that the person's name wasn't "Shakespeare."

Nor would it diminish the reach and influence of Roman empire as apparent in the archaeological record if a particular caesar (perhaps the alleged Bard's own Julius Caesar) was found not to have been a genuinely historical figure.

The historicity of Jesus really isn't about whether or not a person existed named Jesus. Its about whether or not a magical person existed and whether or not the superstitions surrounding the myth of this person are factual. Did he walk on water? Was he born of a virgin? Did he cast demons from men into pigs? Did he wave a hand, speak a magical incantation and turn water into wine?

The biblical figure of Jesus is the sum of these mythical beliefs and superstitions. There may truly have been a genuine human, with all the fallibilities that humans have, but who was charismatic and perhaps even a cult of personality -that person may have even been named Jesus. But the modern concept of Jesus is a human mythical construct and that Jesus has no evidence nor is there any good reason to accept as having existed.

Does that help?
No, it doesn't. It has become clear that what we are discussing here is if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, not if He had made all those miracles. And, as you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
There may truly have been a genuine human, with all the fallibilities that humans have, but who was charismatic and perhaps even a cult of personality -that person may have even been named Jesus.
And Achilles thinks Jesus (person) never existed, because there is no proof that can support it.

As for what you've said about Shakespear, it could be a group of people, not a single person. We don't know from that point of view.

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need. And the target is always Christianity, never other religions very similar in teatchings. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to escape from the thread.)



Star Wars: In Concert - Lisbon - Some pictures of the exhibition accompanying the event.

Last edited by Alexrd; 11-27-2008 at 12:52 PM.
Alexrd is offline   you may: quote & reply,