I would like to hear from actual scholars (the teaching, publishing kind) who teach that Jesus was not an actual person. Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus was a real person.
@ Tele: God a PHYSICAL being: The Bible says God “walked” in the Garden with Adam, and “spoke” to him. Christians (and other religions) believe “God exists”. Does this not mean He exists in a physical sense? Like trees and ants and the planets and the universe? Is there another way to describe “exists” if not actually being a real, touchable, physical thing? If you say God doesn’t actually “physically” exist, then what do YOU mean? When I said that in my book I was discussing which particular concept of “God” I was referring to when I used the word. I meant that when I use the word “God” I am referring to a God who “actually exists in the physical sense of the word,” not some kind of teleological, pseudo-philosophical metaphysical “energy”, but an actual entity like you and I. I cannot make it more clear than that.
The soul: people who believe in the afterlife all have some kind of notion (whether Cartesian dualistic or peripatetic) that some part of them carries on living after death. Some cultures, like ours, refer to this as the “soul”. My study of neurology showed me that we are natural beings who do not continue thinking, loving, communicating, being conscious etc. after death. Those are all functions of our very mortal brains, which will stop when our brains stop. There is no part of us that survives death - no “soul”. It’s a myth born of ignorance, wishful thinking and the fear of death. I’m not sure how this is not clear to you, or which part you don’t understand, but if you studied a “map” of the brain, with all the specific functions of each section of the brain clearly marked, you may see what I mean. When that puppy dies, so do we.
Seems he may have been. On a balance of probabilities, he existed.
No longer a debate.Yes, but opposite form what you assert :D
from wiki
Critical Biblical scholars and historians believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus’ life.[11][12][13] Most[who?] agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[14]
Also Historical Jesus vs Jesus Myth
I’m just saying it ain’t as clear cut as you suggest and the arguments I have seen on this favors a real person on which it is all based. No skin of my teeth, either way, I’d just prefer having the truth. Better off in another thread, perhaps, if anyone feel it should be further debated. ;D
Lol, that does not imply God exists in a physical sense with physical, touchable parts. Unless of course you accept it in the fundamentalist literal way. You are no better than those people who interpret Genesis that the universe is not older than 10 000 years if it is the case. It’s called a theophany.
Well, the proper philosophical definition of God is that God is an immaterial, non-physical, spiritual and purely actual Being (the Bible of course talks of God as an immaterial spirit without physical attributes such as flesh and bones). Not a physical being that is touchable, observable (through the senses) or some energy or whatever. Seriously, do you really think God is some physical, material being?
Do you understand that the Cartesian dualistic or peripatetic understandings of the soul are not incompatible with a dead body and a purely subsistent (complete or incomplete substance) soul? Do you understand the arguments from the Cartesian dualistic as well as the peripatetic understanding of the soul?
Steve,
Finally got around to listening to the podcast.
Congrats on remaining so calm and collected, I would not have been able to do that. It just amazes me time and time again of how hard-headed the religious folk are. Like the woman who asked where in the bible are you quoting from - a lot of them have NOT read the bible from cover to cover and honestly, it’s a piece of filth and I would not want to put my hand on the bible to swear to tell the truth - not on that book filled with hate and gore.
I will get your book.
Thank you for taking the time to go on air with your views, for being a shining example of what a wonderful thing it is to be relieved of religion and all that fear.
Aw, you tease us, Tele! Everyone knows that God is pure energy. Just like Adam who was made in his image. Hey, isn’t Theology fun! ;D
Mintaka
I haven’t met Everyone, but this chap seems confused :D.
Yup, it’s like a more seedy Mills and Boon for prepubescent retards: tediously long on flowery promises of sweaty romance but disappointingly short on climax.
'Luthon64
Mmm, at least you seem to know a lot more about Mills and Boon than theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion. I wonder why though… 
Yes, I’m afraid Everyone is rather confused. Everyone has a hard time understanding how everything that can be conceived must automatically also exist. ???
Mintaka
Everyone is indeed confused.
Yes, I think that is now well established. Care for a peanut?
Mintaka
Wonder no more, dear chap! It’s that whosoever disagrees with you is obviously and severely deficient in understanding. Simple, right?
(Parenthetical ETA: Of course, that does mean that the entire forum with one notable exception is obviously and severely deficient in understanding.)
'Luthon64
To put it simply, like prepubescent retards, you seem to know more about Mills and Boon than theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion. Hey, you might not be obviously and severely deficient in understanding theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion, but your Mills and Boon trumps that hands down anyway…
Against my better judgement I will attempt one more time to explain things to you Tele. I don’t believe in God. I am an atheist. But any discussion on “God” needs a definition. I used the Christian one (which clearly differs from yours) that God is real (not “immaterial”) as the God I would set out to disprove. Jesus was caught up to Heaven PHYSICALLY if you recall, and now sits at the right hand of God. And I don’t “believe in a 10,000 (or 6,000) year old earth” either. That would be the Biblical explanation, which I show to be INcorrect. And why do you keep on about “Cartesian blah and peripatetic blah-blah.” All I said is that my study of the human brain and nervous system showed me that there is no part of us that survives death. Whatever you call that part is your own problem, but our culture calls this thing a “soul”. This is my last attempt to explain this to you. Anybody else get it?
Well, yes, it’s how Teleological’s “constructive and positive input” works in practice, a notion he has beat his chest about rather excessively of late.
'Luthon64
Several problems there Steve.
- The Christian view of God (as well as classical theism) view God as real, actual as well as an immaterial, non-physical, spiritual being. Like I pointed out, theophany is the word you are looking for and also read up on “analogy of being”. You are not representing the Christian view of God, you are making and tearing down straw men.
- The Bible gives no age of the earth and to say that the Biblical explanation for the age is 6-10 thousand years is a lie. The Bible is also not a science book.
- Your understanding of the various arguments for a soul seems severely lacking. You give no argument as to why either the Cartesian or peripatetic views are logically incompatible with neurology or neurobiology, just mere assertion.
- OK so how do you explain something that is, as you say, “real and actual” as being at the same time “non-physical”? I don’t get it? Please elaborate using words that I don’t need a dictionary for, Teleological, obviously I am not as clever as you are and I therefore ask that you explain this to me very simply and preferably in short.
- True, the bible does not at any point say “the earth will celebrate it’s 6000th birthday in the year 2010” or whatever, but biblical scholars, as far as I can understand, use the historical accounts of people and events described in the bible to come up with that theory of theirs that the earth is not as old as geological evidence suggests. Is that more or less accurate or am I missing something again? As for the bible not being a science book, fair enough. I just find it interesting that Christians, when it suits them, says that the bible is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, and then they do use ‘facts’ from the bible to explain stuff when that is their goal. Point: the bible is used inconsistently as a means to justify whatever religious folk need justified, and I think that is cheating.
- I do not know and do not particularly want to know what Cartesian or peripatetic (pathetic?) views refer to. It is however clear to me that the idea that there might be something like a soul that flies up to heaven and exists eternally there or gets reincarnated into another body or whatever after we die is logically inconsistent with what little I know about the human brain.
- So the Christian view is not Biblical then?
- The Bible clearly gives the 7-day creation story followed by the generations from Adam to Noah, from Noah to David, and from David to Jesus. Roughly 4000 years. Or are you saying the Bible is not to be taken as truth? Well I am - I say the Biblical account is inconsistent with current knowledge and is a badly fabricated myth.
- I did not set out to disprove various arguments for the soul Tele. That would be for intellectuals like yourself. I merely point out that believing in an afterlife is inconsistent with current medical knowledge of the brain. My book is not a philosophical rebuttal of other philosophical mumbo-jumbo - it’s a practical guide to atheism for the average person. You wanna do the philosophical stuff? Be my guest - but it’s not for me nor is it the norm for most people.
Fascinating. So once again Teleological comes to his god’s rescue simply by declaring – without any evidence, it should be noted – that what Christians-turned-atheist believed about their god is simply wrong, and never you mind that the vast majority of run-of-the-mill religious believers continue to have it equally wrong. Oh, and that all those who have it wrong according to Teleological, are and always have been wrestling with various straw men.
That looks remarkably like teleological grabbing at straws to save a bankrupt idea, if you ask me.
'Luthon64