to those that don't know. yes, there is a theory Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
its not widely believed but its possible.
this is kind of a like one of those back and forth arguments people get into in a bar. its all how you look the evidence and how much of a scene you are willing to do to make your point.
eventually embarrassment will force your friends to weakly agree with you; if your loud and drunk enough to freak them out.
Well, that theory is just stupid, then.
It's not a question of faith. It's a fact Jesus existed.
Or if anyone doubt that, might as well doubt every other politician, leader, philosopher and such that lived at the same time as him, since we only have the same amount of evidence of their existence as well.
Actually I have looked deeply into this doing considerable reading. I'm also aware of much of the bible having read quite a bit. I don't believe Jesus was a historical figure. If I am regarded as ignorant and uneducated so be it.
There is no evidence outside of the New Testament which was written much later. The writings attributed to the Jewish historian Josephus have shown to be fraudulant.Not only are there many contradictions , there are inaccurate historical details such as whether Nazareth actually exited in the time frame of interest.
The details of Jesus life in the gospels mirror earlier pagan religions which have an heavy astrotheological content.
Many of the philosophical aspects of Christianity are not damaged by what I believe is truth. There is some wonderful prose including the 'faith hope and charity' verse and the mystical part of John's gospel has a certain merit "The light shines in the darkness etc"
It has been my ignorant research that has led me to the conclusion that the Emperor Constantine needed a unified religion for the Roman Empire as it became the Roman Catholic Church.
The eternality of the soul does not need the literal message of Christianity to validate it. I suspect people want to believe because they appreciate the spiritual AS WE ALL CAN do, then backtrack and seek historical validation when there is none. Of course people do make a living from religion - so the 'no historical Jesus' meme does challenge them.
it clear to me you NOT uneducated. but opinionated? yes. clearly
I don't see why you are SO sure he was a myth when most experts believe he existed.
does it bother you that someone like Jesus could have existed??
never mind accounts of miracles,etc. obviously that's recorded in the bible writings and not anywhere else.
people in isreal were feeling very much a conquered people, and under the thumb of a foreign power. why is it so implausable that a jew named "Jesus" preached about redemption from the roman empire-- and was crucified for leading a messianic threat against roman authority...
anyways in before the lock. if this thread keeps being focused on jesus.
It all depends on how your brain is wired.
it clear to me you NOT uneducated. but opinionated? yes. clearly
I don't see why you are SO sure he was a myth when most experts believe he existed.
does it bother you that someone like Jesus could have existed??
never mind accounts of miracles,etc. obviously that's recorded in the bible writings and not anywhere else.
people in isreal were feeling very much a conquered people, and under the thumb of a foreign power. why is it so implausable that a jew named "Jesus" preached about redemption from the roman empire-- and was crucified for leading a messianic threat against roman authority...
I do tend to be opinionated on things I hold to be true . Who isn't ? 'Experts' worry me. Truth is not democratic. There are many vested interests that depend on protecting real historical truths. I can't unlearn what I know my friend and don't want to argue about it to be honest.
Not true. Sounds like you've been reading Dawkins.
The writings of Josephus... and here I assume that you are referring to Books 18 and 20 of Antiquitates Judiacae, since Josephus' other works are neutral on this subject... appear to have been tampered with by some enthusiastic but misguided Christian commentator. It's not too difficult to reconstruct the original passage, however; especially so since an early Arabic translation from the Second Century AD was located in the 1970s.
The reference to Jesus is present in the early Arabic translation, but is neutral in tone: Jesus is simply described as "a wise man" in one passage, and as "a teacher" in another.
So the reference to Jesus as a historical figure is pretty solid... Josephus did his writing around 93 AD, a couple of generations after the fall of Jerusalem. Exactly the same time period in which much of the New Testament was written. But Josephus' original writing did not claim Jesus to be the Messiah, just a wise teacher.
I'm an atheist, by the way... I don't believe in a Big Beard in the Sky. But I also don't believe in historical revisionism, which is what this "no such person as Jesus" talk smacks of.
not.
at all
Not true. Sounds like you've been reading Dawkins.
The writings of Josephus... and here I assume that you are referring to Books 18 and 20 of Antiquitates Judiacae, since Josephus' other works are neutral on this subject... appear to have been tampered with by some enthusiastic but misguided Christian commentator. It's not too difficult to reconstruct the original passage, however; especially so since an early Arabic translation from the Second Century AD was located in the 1970s.
The reference to Jesus is present in the early Arabic translation, but is neutral in tone: Jesus is simply described as "a wise man" in one passage, and as "a teacher" in another.
So the reference to Jesus as a historical figure is pretty solid... Josephus did his writing around 93 AD, a couple of generations after the fall of Jerusalem. Exactly the same time period in which much of the New Testament was written. But Josephus' original writing did not claim Jesus to be the Messiah, just a wise teacher.
I'm an atheist, by the way... I don't believe in a Big Beard in the Sky. But I also don't believe in historical revisionism, which is what this "no such person as Jesus" talk smacks of.
I don't rate particularly rate Dawkins - so you presume too much.He is a materialist who can't comprehend final causes. To nail my colours to the mast so to speak , I believe in the notion of the universal Self, which has been written about particularly, but not exclusively in ancient Indian philosophy. I can't prove this of course and we are all free to believe what we want. Personally I have a logical semantical problem with atheism because it's impossible to agree on a description of 'God' which can then be negated.
I have a big problem with the assertion you don't believe in 'historical revisionism'. I refute this by an appeal to common sense as well as by example. It was thought by educated people in Europe , based on the bible that the Earth was created in six days. Now it is only sufficient for you and I to not believe in this, which we do, to arrive at a revised account of the creation of the Earth.
I thank you for your scholarship on Josephus and will bear it in mind. You may be right or wrong on this - I don't know.
What standard should we go by, in trying to decide whether there was an historical Jesus?
If we want to apply a standard of certainty, then there is no evidence that will satisfy that standard, as the article just quoted shows.
If we apply a standard of reasonable probability, we may say it is unlikely that a figure about whom so much has been written, and to whom so much historical influence is ascribed, did not exist at all.
However, saying that it is unlikely that he did not exist provides no basis for making claims of a miraculous or supernatural nature, since such claims are to say the least highly unlikely to be true. Those claims are too big and too weighty to be supported merely by reasonable probability.
We can draw the same conclusion, for the same reasons, about Mohammed.
However, if I may revert to the thread topic, How easy is it to become a GM? then of course both talent and work are needed. If I may re-post from another thread:
This Time article, Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned? says:
In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics. (See pictures of Bobby Fischer, chess prodigy.)
I believe the view that IQ is 80% genetic is widely held. Fischer's IQ was evidently in line with the above value for eminent scientists, according to this Quora page: What was Bobby Fischer's IQ?
In 1958, when Fischer sat a Stanford-Binet test at the age of 15, his score was 180-187. But in today’s terms, Bobby Fischer’s IQ should be 148–155 on the Fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet test, and 150-160 on the WISC-V/WAIS-IV tests administered by Mensa.
My own belief as a mere amateur is that you need to work hard at chess for 10 years, studying (especially master games) and playing competitively (especially in tournaments), before you can judge how far you are likely to go in the game.
Conversations about religion are more unreasonable than my original question.
It's not that simple. There will be many barriers along the way. I'm 1939 rated USCF and have been stuck here for a whole year. You shouldn't expect to have continuous progress. Once you get to around 1700ish, you'll hit the first plateau. 1900 is the longest. Once you overcome them, THEN you can consider going to National Master.
Exactly. So many naive people think "Oh, it's just continuous steady improvement so as long as I 'work hard' constantly and put in lots of hours I'll become GM in a few years." No. Most likely you will permanently stagnate far, far below GM level. Probably even far below master level. I doubt you could even become a master to be honest; it's possible but unlikely, since you'd need a lot of talent.
Stop being a Debbie Downer. Becoming GM is easy, just make sure you have the latest version of Stockfish installed. My blitz rating has gone up by 250 points in like the last week.
watch me. 
.
cut down your expectations for awhile until your rating boosts by 500 points, then take a break for 6 months