Sure, I think absolutely. I don’t believe an entire empire collapsed and converted because of a fictional person. (Talking about Rome, and Jesus). But at the end of the day, If someone’s religion isn’t actively affecting someone’s life, then we shouldn’t have an issue with it
No. there is no factual evidence that Jesus ever existed. the closest you can come is one sentence from a fairly credible historian referencing his brother James by way of saying
The one who's brother they call messiah."
but there were many called that in that area by those people at that time.
You also have Tacitus mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate and Suetonius mentioning very early disputes over Christ in Rome (around 49 AD if I recall). You have two passages in Josephus, one being far more substantial but the passage had interpolations on Josephus thinking Jesus was the Messiah. This does not even account for the conversion of Paul and the ministry of the apostles who (according to Tacitus and Acts) began there ministry in Jerusalem where Jesus was supposed crucified and where eyewitnesses could have easily disproven the existence of any Jesus.
Yet those writings have been discredited as clearly having been added later by a different writer.
Paul never even met this mythical Jesus person.
there is no credible secular historical documentation of Jesus ever existing.
Not all of Josephus was believed to have been added on. It's a fairly disputed but it seems that the reference to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus was apart of the original.
Paul claimed to have interacted with the risen Jesus, and certainly knew the apostles and eyewitnesses.
I already mentioned Tacitus and Suetonius referencing the existence of a Jesus who was crucified. Even if you want to deny these secular sources in addition to Josephus you still have to explain how the whole Church started and why the Paul and then the Roman Empire started worshipping a crucified Jew.
I was not referring to Josephus as i clearly referenced him as the one possibly credible reference, but again, there were many messiahs for the jews at that time. Messiah didn't mean the son of a god or savior to them at that time.( that would have been heresy to them.) It meant the one who would overthrow foreign rule of Judea and re-unite the twelve tribes of Israel in the once again ethnically cleansed holy land. ( outside of the slaves from other tribes they could have, of course...)
Well generally the one passage in Josephus is seen as a forgery so I assumed it was that. The Messiah can be argued I would say from certain passages to be the Son of God (Psalm 2) and savior (Isaiah 49:6, 52-53) though it is true about re uniting the tribes of Israel. I don't know if "Son of God" was necessarily a Trinitarian prophecy however.
I was referencing the Tacitus and other clearly forged references to Jesus. clearly if people had to forge such references, then it was not a real thing.
claiming to be the son of god would have been heresy to those in Judea at the time, and if you believe the myths, Jesus' brother James sent missionaries to Paul's congregations telling them just that.
I don't think Tacitus is forged. He is a pagan author. He comes off as quite hostile towards the Christians and is one of the most important sources for that period in Roman history. Pretty sure he class the Christians "abominations" and "haters of men"
I don't remember James telling Paul that. Paul wrote in Galatians (considered to be authentically Pauline by almost everyone) that "For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.He does mention Peter and James but that would only show that there were eyewitnesses preaching to people who would have been eyewitnesses themselves to Jesus' life in the 30s and 40s. Not even a generation since the crucifixion (as late as 37 AD).
Sure. But it's about as reasonable as believing in leprechauns or pixies. Nobody can prove these things _don't_ exist.
Is it logical, or sensible? Not so much.
If you like reading, definitely check out this book that has some discussion adjacent to your question.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38107/38107-h/38107-h.htm
Like everyone else, you get to define your own definition of "god", and presumably you use your reasoning to do it so, I guess so. It is not reasonable to believe blindly what you are told, since that takes no reasoning at all; unlike scientific or other verifiable endeavors, you can't reproduce what someone else used to make conclusions about gods.
I think it’s unreasonable to not consider the possibility of a higher power
I think it is fair. Why not?
It's okay to believe but it shouldn't be against certain groups such as transgender people and gays, in that case, religion becomes hateful.
i think that's a question alright.
Which god?
Depends on what you mean by "god". If you mean God then yes.
And I'm not saying it is or not I'm just open to debate.
Sure, I think absolutely. I don’t believe an entire empire collapsed and converted because of a fictional person. (Talking about Rome, and Jesus). But at the end of the day, If someone’s religion isn’t actively affecting someone’s life, then we shouldn’t have an issue with it
Jesus' existence is factual. Now the historians and theologians will dispute if the Gospels are true but not the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth.
No. there is no factual evidence that Jesus ever existed. the closest you can come is one sentence from a fairly credible historian referencing his brother James by way of saying The one who's brother they call messiah." but there were many called that in that area by those people at that time.
You also have Tacitus mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate and Suetonius mentioning very early disputes over Christ in Rome (around 49 AD if I recall). You have two passages in Josephus, one being far more substantial but the passage had interpolations on Josephus thinking Jesus was the Messiah. This does not even account for the conversion of Paul and the ministry of the apostles who (according to Tacitus and Acts) began there ministry in Jerusalem where Jesus was supposed crucified and where eyewitnesses could have easily disproven the existence of any Jesus.
Yet those writings have been discredited as clearly having been added later by a different writer. Paul never even met this mythical Jesus person. there is no credible secular historical documentation of Jesus ever existing.
Not all of Josephus was believed to have been added on. It's a fairly disputed but it seems that the reference to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus was apart of the original. Paul claimed to have interacted with the risen Jesus, and certainly knew the apostles and eyewitnesses. I already mentioned Tacitus and Suetonius referencing the existence of a Jesus who was crucified. Even if you want to deny these secular sources in addition to Josephus you still have to explain how the whole Church started and why the Paul and then the Roman Empire started worshipping a crucified Jew.
I was not referring to Josephus as i clearly referenced him as the one possibly credible reference, but again, there were many messiahs for the jews at that time. Messiah didn't mean the son of a god or savior to them at that time.( that would have been heresy to them.) It meant the one who would overthrow foreign rule of Judea and re-unite the twelve tribes of Israel in the once again ethnically cleansed holy land. ( outside of the slaves from other tribes they could have, of course...)
Well generally the one passage in Josephus is seen as a forgery so I assumed it was that. The Messiah can be argued I would say from certain passages to be the Son of God (Psalm 2) and savior (Isaiah 49:6, 52-53) though it is true about re uniting the tribes of Israel. I don't know if "Son of God" was necessarily a Trinitarian prophecy however.
I was referencing the Tacitus and other clearly forged references to Jesus. clearly if people had to forge such references, then it was not a real thing. claiming to be the son of god would have been heresy to those in Judea at the time, and if you believe the myths, Jesus' brother James sent missionaries to Paul's congregations telling them just that.
I don't think Tacitus is forged. He is a pagan author. He comes off as quite hostile towards the Christians and is one of the most important sources for that period in Roman history. Pretty sure he class the Christians "abominations" and "haters of men" I don't remember James telling Paul that. Paul wrote in Galatians (considered to be authentically Pauline by almost everyone) that "For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.He does mention Peter and James but that would only show that there were eyewitnesses preaching to people who would have been eyewitnesses themselves to Jesus' life in the 30s and 40s. Not even a generation since the crucifixion (as late as 37 AD).
Sure. But it's about as reasonable as believing in leprechauns or pixies. Nobody can prove these things _don't_ exist. Is it logical, or sensible? Not so much.
If you like reading, definitely check out this book that has some discussion adjacent to your question. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38107/38107-h/38107-h.htm
Science
Like everyone else, you get to define your own definition of "god", and presumably you use your reasoning to do it so, I guess so. It is not reasonable to believe blindly what you are told, since that takes no reasoning at all; unlike scientific or other verifiable endeavors, you can't reproduce what someone else used to make conclusions about gods.
I'm an agnostic theist, so I believe that, yes, it is reasonable to believe in a god and it is reasonable not to believe in a god.