RE: Serious Query Regarding Jesus
March 30, 2012 at 5:46 am
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2012 at 6:06 am by Orion3T.)
Ok, thanks for the reply.
What would be the general consensus from non-christian NT Scholars then? That he was deluded and the miracles were fictions of scripture? Or that he just didn't exist? I know the non-biblical references are... hmmm 'scanty at best', but I'm nowhere near qualified to make a truly confident claim either way.
I have to admit I'm asking this because although I am an atheist, my wife is not. To me this hypothesis seems a very plausible way to reason with her regarding Jesus's divinity whilst not destroying her adoration of him as a human. I don't mind discussing the details of that but it's probably best not done in this thread.
To me, the idea that he did what he did because he thought he was teaching us important moral truths, and sacrificed himself in a painful manner, seems the most believable to someone coming from a christian belief. In short, it's a far easier 'sell' than just telling her the NT is a load of made-up nonsense and Jesus didn't even exist. It's bad enough nudging her away from the God concept without ripping Jesus away at the same time. But it would be nice to know the hypothesis does have some plausibility in scripture.
Either way it's infinitely more plausible (to me) than the divinity hypothesis. I guess you could say I'm seeking a half-way-house, though I'd be happier doing so with a supportable hypothesis.
In fact I will add that this approach for anyone in my position has another advantage - it allows a Christian to lose their belief in the supernatural without undermining their moral basis at the same time. I'd be quite happy for her to keep believing in the teachings of Jesus in exactly the same way she understands them now (she's very liberal anyway, so it makes little difference to me) in the same way someone might base their morality on, say, David Hume. Not because they think they are divine but because their moral teachings make sense. (to them at least)
I don't want to get too off topic but I'm not actually trying to militantly 'de-convert' her. But having recently 'come out' I can see some difficult discussions ahead and it would be good to find common ground.
What would be the general consensus from non-christian NT Scholars then? That he was deluded and the miracles were fictions of scripture? Or that he just didn't exist? I know the non-biblical references are... hmmm 'scanty at best', but I'm nowhere near qualified to make a truly confident claim either way.
I have to admit I'm asking this because although I am an atheist, my wife is not. To me this hypothesis seems a very plausible way to reason with her regarding Jesus's divinity whilst not destroying her adoration of him as a human. I don't mind discussing the details of that but it's probably best not done in this thread.
To me, the idea that he did what he did because he thought he was teaching us important moral truths, and sacrificed himself in a painful manner, seems the most believable to someone coming from a christian belief. In short, it's a far easier 'sell' than just telling her the NT is a load of made-up nonsense and Jesus didn't even exist. It's bad enough nudging her away from the God concept without ripping Jesus away at the same time. But it would be nice to know the hypothesis does have some plausibility in scripture.
Either way it's infinitely more plausible (to me) than the divinity hypothesis. I guess you could say I'm seeking a half-way-house, though I'd be happier doing so with a supportable hypothesis.
In fact I will add that this approach for anyone in my position has another advantage - it allows a Christian to lose their belief in the supernatural without undermining their moral basis at the same time. I'd be quite happy for her to keep believing in the teachings of Jesus in exactly the same way she understands them now (she's very liberal anyway, so it makes little difference to me) in the same way someone might base their morality on, say, David Hume. Not because they think they are divine but because their moral teachings make sense. (to them at least)
I don't want to get too off topic but I'm not actually trying to militantly 'de-convert' her. But having recently 'come out' I can see some difficult discussions ahead and it would be good to find common ground.
