GhostWriter16
Deity
Simple, which of these Bible Characters do you believe really existed?
EDIT: Mod, I made the P typo in Samson again, please remove it.
EDIT: Mod, I made the P typo in Samson again, please remove it.
Which Biblical Characters do you believe existed?
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Adam obviously existed, unless you believe in something besides biological macroevolution or creationism.
I'm of the opinion that Noah was likely allegorical, and the rest are impossible to say except for Jesus, for whom such an overwhelming amount of evidence exists for his literal being that anybody who takes a contrary position is almost automatically discredited.
I'm of the opinion that Noah was likely allegorical, and the rest are impossible to say except for Jesus, for whom such an overwhelming amount of evidence exists for his literal being that anybody who takes a contrary position is almost automatically discredited.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Some theistic evolutionists believe in Adam but most don't.
I think denying the existence of Christ is as crazy as you can get
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I can see most of the ones form Exodus onwards having some kernel of truth to them, but in the same sense that Achilles, Sigurd or Fionn mac Cumhaill may have had a kernel of truth to them, so that honestly doesn't mean very much.
So, Jesus, yes, in some form or another; Samson, the Judges, Samuel, Joshua, Abraham and Moses, not in any way that matters; Adam and Noah, no.
So, Jesus, yes, in some form or another; Samson, the Judges, Samuel, Joshua, Abraham and Moses, not in any way that matters; Adam and Noah, no.
"Adam existed if you believe he did"?
Jesus, perhaps, but "Christ" is a different matter...I think denying the existence of Christ is as crazy as you can get
LightSpectra
me autem minui
"Adam existed if you believe he did"?
Adam obviously existed if you think human beings exist.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Unless, as you said, you believe something other than Judeo-Christian Creationism. So, again, "Adam existed if you think he did".
LightSpectra
me autem minui
If you believe the human race came into existence en masse through some non-Abrahamic creation myth, then it wouldn't be so obvious. Otherwise it is. "Obvious" being the critical word in the sentence, which you consistently drop when strawmanning me.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I agree with your point here. While I believe Adam existed, people do have other ideas and I can't totally prove them wrong.
How can you POSSIBLY deny the existance of Jesus though Cardgame?
As for Samuel, I'm really surprised you don't believe he existed. Whether his prophecies came true or not, I thought his existence was undisputed.
Why 'because it's the Bible'? You know, a historian of, say, Greek Baktria would love to have a detailed, fairly complete textual sources like the Bible at her fingertips; whole societies have been reconstructed from coins, a few ruins, and offhand mentions in grammar textbooks and philosophical treatises...and you think the Bible is useless as a historical source because it's a religious text?
Though most historians today accept the historical reality of Jesus, it is interesting to note that outside the Gospels (not ´the Bible´) no evidence of his existence survived - of whatever kind. They all postdate Paul´s letters, who makes remarkably little reference to the person reportedly responsible for his conversion to Christianity, and although an older gospel source is generally assumed to have existed, this has been lost. But all this is nothing special: Socrates, Buddha and Muhammad themselves never left anything in writing; yet noone seriously disputes their existence.
I believe paraphrasing is the word you´re looking for here. Also, your "obvious" isn´t obvious at all; in fact it´s not even logical:
That simply doesn´t follow.
I think it´s fairly safe to say that Genesis offers two versions of a creation myth, giving two different names for the female companion God created after discovering through observation that he had a need for one. Now, all myths contain some kernel of truth, in this case perhaps the fact that the entire human race evolved from a very limited genetic pool (possibly linked to a near extinction event). It is interesting to note that Genesis offers some direct quotes of God speaking to himself - the only person to have been able to pass on such words being God himself, obviously.
Finally, ofcourse, evolution isn´t a belief - creationism is.
I believe paraphrasing is the word you´re looking for here. Also, your "obvious" isn´t obvious at all; in fact it´s not even logical:
That simply doesn´t follow.
I think it´s fairly safe to say that Genesis offers two versions of a creation myth, giving two different names for the female companion God created after discovering through observation that he had a need for one. Now, all myths contain some kernel of truth, in this case perhaps the fact that the entire human race evolved from a very limited genetic pool (possibly linked to a near extinction event). It is interesting to note that Genesis offers some direct quotes of God speaking to himself - the only person to have been able to pass on such words being God himself, obviously.
Finally, ofcourse, evolution isn´t a belief - creationism is.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Except for a dozen historians mentioning him as a real person with no real staked interest in doing so?
So?
Have you ever read Paul's letters?
Dropping the word of critical importance to the sentence and then portraying it as my argument is what we call a strawman.
It does, unless you're positing that (a) human beings don't exist, (b) human beings are eternal and have no beginning, or (c) humans came into existence as a group rather than with an original pair, which is physically possible although statistically absurd given how often genetic mutation occurs in animals.
Depends on which definition of the word "belief" you're using. Its most general meaning is synonymous with "adherence," in which case both scientific theories and religious convictions are both "beliefs."
None of the above mentioned biblical characters could be found and identified if you had a time machine. If you'd be looking for a religious maniac with the name Jesus who was crucified between 50 BC and 100 AD, you'd probably find much more than one. How much of the biblical information must match with the historic person till you'd say that you found the real one?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I take it you come to this conclusion because you have a time machine? (It's not so much the belief I have a problem with as the oddly specifically unfalsifiable manner in which you put it.)
Jesus wasn't an uncommon name. What differentiates the others from Jesus Christ of Nazareth is that the latter's beliefs and following endured the ages.
Depends on who you're talking about. Given that the Bible consists of several forms of literature (instructional, allegorical, historical, parabolic), this answer could range from "everything" to "almost nothing because it's not a tangible relation."
What we read in the gospels are the beliefs of people who never met Jesus Christ. We have proof that both the philosophy and the myth of Jesus are older than the historical Jesus could have possibly been. I think we can savely assume that christianity is the sum of ancient myths nad greece and jewish philosophy. The historical Jesus added nothing except his name.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Some of them were. Not all of them. Even if that were so, that's irrelevant, since the second generation of Christians must have had a clear connection to the first generation; so much so that the burden of proof is on others to demonstrate that there was a corruption of information between the two.
Some parts of his philosophy are older than Jesus, which is understandable considering Jesus' teachings are partially an expansion of the Hebrew law and worldview. The "myth" (considering he was a real person, this is a poor choice of terms but nevertheless....) of Jesus is also predicted in various ways in the Hebrew Bible, and the claim of Messiahship is contingent on that, so obviously this predates Jesus in some manner.
But what you were undoubtedly referring to is nonsense like a supposed "basing of Jesus" off of the Roman god Mithra or other equally arbitrary claim, which has been so repeatedly discredited that I'm sort of hoping that's not what you're referring to just so I don't have to grudge myself to talk about this drivel anymore.
I think we can safely assume that you know literally nothing about anthropology except one-paragraph blurbs you've read on the Internet.
GhostWriter16
Deity
oh, whoops, Jesus too. Forgot to check him xD
As for Samuel, a simple IDK is my answer, don't really know anything about him, but since it's the Bible, well... I'll err on the side of skepticism.
Samuel was a prophet when Saul was the King. He was also the one who anointed David. I'm fairly certain everyone believes Saul and David existed, as for Samuel, I thought most believed he existed as well.
I do wonder to the skeptics, how the heck did 500 people believe Christ rose from the dead? Remember, they DIED for it so they have to have really believed it.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I feel like you're inevitably dragging me into your religious debates against other people, that will certainly not have any resolution but still waste our time altogether. Any chance you could stop with the polemics?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Not sure I understand this...
Similar threads
