They also believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. Religion is banned on this board so I'm not interested in talking about the theological basis of Christianity but the historicity as Jesus as a person. It used to be a commonly held belief that the Biblical patriarchs like Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were historical figures but now the prevalent belief in academic circles is that these patriarchs were mythical characters, not historical figures. Placing mythological characters as historical figures is called euhemerism. It was named after Euhemerus who believed the gods of Olympus were ancient Greek kings who became deified. It's also seen in Germanic mythology as the Norse sagas portray Odin originally as a Bronze Age king over a Gothic tribe near the Black Sea. It's quite possible Jesus was a mythological character who became euhemerised into a historical one as well, just like the Biblical patriarchs of the Old Testament.
But what Muslims believe must be treated with great reverence. What the Koran says is true and cannot be altered. More credible is that Jesus was a real person. Just not the son of a God that doesn't exist.
I know that's sarcasm, I'm just wondering if you think I'm a liberal apologist for Islam; I'm not. Anyway, the whole point of the argument put forward by Richard Carrier and others is not regarding Jesus as a religious figure, a messiah or prophet, but whether he was a historical figure who lived during the rule of Caesar Augustus Tiberius. The epistles of Paul refer to Jesus as a celestial being, son of God, but not explicitly a man or a historical figure. The Gospels, which were written decades after the epistles, start referring to Jesus as a man and son of God. The only secular sources that refer to Jesus as a historical figure are Tacitus and even he doesn't refer to him as 'Jesus' or 'Yeshuah', a messiah and prophet, but simply as 'Christus' or 'Christos', a man that was crucified in Judae. Christos could have been a alias for a rebel Jewish leader against Roman rule (they were several anti-Roman guerrilla groups and previous rebellions) not at all related to the person Jesus of Nazareth as described in the epistles and the Gospels.
Wasn't being sarcastic. At least not towards you. Quoting what Muslims think and a lot of gullible people who think they should be kowtowed to do. Lots of programmes discussing, dissecting and doubting Christianity. None doing the same with Islam. Though there a few on the beauty and majesty of the Koran.
Well, the historicity of Jesus is actually important when looking at Islam. People who doubt Jesus' existence, both biblical and historical, often point to the 'celestial theory', that Jesus or Yeshuah was the name of a Jewish archangel. In Islamic theology, the ancient Gabriel or Jibreel is considered the 'founder' of Islam and Muhammad was merely the recitator. The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria proposed the idea in Confusion of Tongues that Yeshuah was a Jewish archangel who was the firstborn of God and his chief priest and agent of creation, which is consistent with all the arguments made in the epistles of Paul. He basically argued that Jesus was an allegory of the archangel he mentioned and that he wasn't an actual historical figure. There have also been arguments regarding the historicity of Muhammad but there is far more substantial secular evidence to suggest Muhammad was a historical figure, a caravan merchant in the Arabian peninsula who led the Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe to conquer territory of other Arab tribes.
A lot of other scholars argue there was a historical figure called Jesus. I tend to agree with them. I also believe there was a rather blood thirsty chap with a penchant for very young females.There my connections to religions and beliefs in God ends. Some may believe someone was the Son Of God or that someone else ascended to Heaven on a winged horse. I don't.
I know, but the consensus among historians used to be that Moses and Abraham were also historical figures and that the story of the Jews being led out of Egypt and Canann was a historical fact, even if you take away all of the supernatural events like the plagues and the Red Sea splitting. New academic research shows that Jews were not enslaved in mass numbers by Egypt to build the pyramids; in fact they were built by paid Egyptian labourers. There's no historical evidence that Moses existed. The current research into the historicity of Jesus offers a rather interesting and wholly plausible argument that he never existed as a historical figure - that he was an allegory of previous Jewish cosmology and mythology. The epistles of Paul, the earliest writings of Christianity, never mention Jesus as a man, never mention him delivering sermons on Earth, never mention anyone interacting with him and importantly, never mention the virgin birth. When referencing Jesus' birth or creation, he uses the same Greek word used to describe the creation of Adam in the Greek translation of the Old Testament - genniménos - which implies 'divine manufacture' and not birth to an actual human mother. When talking about human birth, Paul uses the Greek gennó.
No. The theory wasn't about Christianity as a religion, it was about whether Jesus was a real historical figure who walked the Earth. I don't believe he was.
To be fair, as it stands it's sailing a close line with a few replies, but it's more about the historical context of characters in a book rather than being about religion.
