Greetings, fellow sapiens,
Name’s João, and I hail from Portugal.
Before delving into my main point, a short introduction seems in order: My grandfather, a scholar, passed away the year I was born. Interestingly, he decreed in his will that his extensive library should go to the “human about to be born,” – me.
This early exposure to a treasure trove of books on ancient knowledge, science, and religion, meticulously organized and occasionally sprinkled with enigmatic clues left by him, sparked a relentless quest for knowledge in me. It was a way to ensure the family’s tradition of seeking wisdom didn’t end with his demise.
This journey fueled my passion for Science and History, particularly ancient history, and inevitably led me to scrutinize religion and its pervasive influence on humanity. Despite my upbringing in a fiercely Catholic family and undergoing the entire religious protocol, my path veered towards atheism—a stance rooted in the absence of belief in deities, defined by personal inquiry and enlightenment rather than rebellion. ( I think I may be one of those that could never believe.)
Having studied religion (not only Monotheistic ones) from myriad perspectives for nearly three decades, I’ve compiled my conclusions and thoughts into physical notebooks during this time, and ultimately transitioning my thoughts and writings into public discourse through a blog, and some Medium articles in recent years. However, I felt a void in my arguments—the lack of true scholarly context and evidence, often cited by religious scholars as a flaw in atheist perspectives.
That changed upon discovering Bart Ehrman’s work. His scholarly contributions, grounded in evidence and free from self-interest, provided the academic foundation I was seeking. Ehrman’s books, complemented by his talks and debates, convinced me of the historical existence of Jesus—a real figure whose life and teachings are a very important part of history, regardless of the divine attributes ascribed to him by others.
This realization has not only enriched my understanding, but also prepared me to engage in more informed discussions with both believers and fellow atheists, many of whom still view Jesus as pure mythology.
This post is an introduction of sorts—to share my journey, to acknowledge the impact of Dr. Ehrman’s work on my understanding of Jesus’ historicity, and to signal my eagerness to participate in further discussions.
Thank you, brothers and sisters.
Ah, I should have searched for similar posts before submitting a new one! I apologize if it’s somewhat redundant.
Alas, it is very interesting to read how other people got here, and I wonder; how many stopped believing after Ehrman, how many started believing, and so on. Is there a thread about this?
My Portuguese blog -> ** you do not have permission to see this link **
And this the link to my Medium page -> ** you do not have permission to see this link **
On the 22nd of February 2024 my father passed away, and I stopped writing for a bit. Can’t seem to find the motivation after being highly depressed, sad and well, grief-stricken, but I’m getting there. It is also one of the reasons I’m here, not only to complement my knowledge base, but to try and find inspiration somehow, that proverbial motivation that makes one write for hours and hours without even noticing it.
My plan is to take my arguments to public debate here in Portugal, and that is what I’ve been preparing myself to do. I also want to write a book, but I will only start working on it after I finish the books I still have to read, and they are many.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, not a unique biological individual.
Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?
Not in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
Did Jesus save the woman caught in adultery?
Bart would say that was added later.
I would say Julius Caesar’s first wife was caught in a compromising situation and he refused to have her suffer the consequences.
The Biblical Jesus is a corrupting influence on Hebrew scripture because of his last supper and what he said at that last supper.
As an apocalyptic prophet, he was a false prophet.No one saw a Jewish kingdom or the leader of that kingdom coming on the clouds of heaven before AD 73.
Do we have victory in Jesus because he died for the sins of the world?
No.
I’m only convinced Jesus was indeed a homo sapiens who existed back in those days. Before, I was completely convinced it was all myth.
It is interesting, though; I was raised in catholicism, and we weren’t taught that Jesus was God, but that he was a divine human, the son of God.
I never understood vicarious redemption, and I still don’t, but that was and still is one of the main tenets of christianity, is it not?
I left the church very early, when my mother accepted the fact, and I’m pretty sure that was still the teaching; Jesus was but a man, divinely annointed in some way.
Catholicism is Chacedonian: The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos, is a divine person from eternity, eternally begotten of the Father.
In time, that eternal divine person assumed a second created nature, a complete human nature. From that point on, the one divine person has two natures: he is at once fully, truly divine and fully, truly human.
The Tome of Leo lays out the position, and what it means, pretty well.
The doctrine of atonement is interesting because no one has yet come up with a really consistent explanation of the logic. All the models that have been used to explain it end up postulating problematic things if carried too far. It is interesting that if you read Lewis’s Mere Christianity, when he gets to the atonement, be basically throws up his hands and says, I’m not sure how it works, but I believe it does. The (old) Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The dominant model is, essentially, the satisfaction model that was introduced by Anslem though it was refined in the following centuries: When man sinned against God, he incurred an infinite debt of punishment. Being but a sinful creature, he could not pay that debt. God could have just written it off, but instead he became man and paid the debt for us once and for all (he could pay the debt because he was, sinless, a divine person, and a true man)–thus demonstrating at once his perfect justice and love.
Thanks for the awesome reply!
Edit: In Lewis’s Mere Christianity, the fact he ultimately accepts it on faith, that “it works”, is essentially how I used to interiorize the whole thing, specially the historical Jesus. What I do think about vicarious redemption, well, that is a completely different story :).
Edit2: I mean, I used to think that people thought of Jesus, and many other things mentioned in the scriptures, as being true because of faith, of the necessity to believe against all odds. Bart Ehrman changed my mind there, definitely.
Porphyry:
The dominant model is, essentially, the satisfaction model that was introduced by Anslem though it was refined in the following centuries:
When man sinned against God, he incurred an infinite debt of punishment. Being but a sinful creature, he could not pay that debt. God could have just written it off, but instead
he became man and paid the debt for us once and for all (he could pay the debt because he was, sinless, a divine person, and a true man)–thus demonstrating at once his perfect justice and love.
Steefen:
One incarnation was the full payment and perfect justice on sin for a hundred years–30 CE to 130 CE; for 500 years; for 1,000 years, for 1,500 years? …
Not just for Judea, but the whole Roman Empire?
Beyond the Syria – Judea under the Roman Empire?
After the fall of the Roman Empire and everywhere else globally?
How about the sins today against Gaza?
How about the sins of genocide during World War II?
How about the Armenian genocide?
How about the sins of Stalin?
How about for the killings of Kennedy and King?
How about the sins involved in the opiod crisis?
How about the sins of Idi Amin?
How about the sins of the Vietnam War?
The answer is not, yes.
gondorle
I’m only convinced Jesus was indeed a homo sapiens who existed back in those days. Before, I was completely convinced it was all myth.
Steefen
Your Jesus who was a human being did what?
Did he catch a woman in adultery?
Did he raise someone named Lazarus from the dead?
Did he perform an exorcist of Legion?
Did he try to defeat a Roman Legion at the Battle of Galilee?
He was a rabbi/Teacher?
He was a high priest?
There was a Jesus of Galilee who was a high priest:
Steve Campbell
author of Historical Accuracy [of the Bible]
also author of
Stocks and Cryptos Watchlist and Investing Experience:
2021-2022 with Nvidia, Amazon, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Polkadot, Solana, and Polygon
Porphyry: . . .
One incarnation was the full payment and perfect justice on sin for a hundred years–30 CE to 130 CE; for 500 years; for 1,000 years, for 1,500 years? …
. . .
The answer is not, yes.
I’m not sure who you are arguing with.
The Catholic answer would indeed be yes: Jesus was God, and his self-sacrifice had infinite value, more than sufficient to satisfy our debts to God for all the sins we men will ever commit.
But I was simply reporting the Catholic teaching, not endorsing it. I don’t think Jesus was God or that he died to make satisfaction for our sins.
>Jesus was God, and his self-sacrifice had infinite value,
was the human body part of god or was it created by god? What is self sacrifice to an invisible omnipotent god? Is it a thought or an act? Did the sacrificed body have infinite value or the thought? Was taking back the infinite value or reversing the thought still a sacrifice?
>But since the human nature was the nature of a divine person, what was done to that created body could properly be said to be done to God
What humans done to the created human body was actually what was done to god and this had infinite value?
Infinite value is caused by what a divine person experiences as a finite creature?
Yes. That is the theory.
Think of it in terms of “who” and “what”? Who is person, what is nature. Persons have natures and they act and are acted on through those natures.
In Christ, there are two “what”s: an impassible divine nature and a created human nature. But there is one who–the divine, second person of the Trinity.
So if you slapped Jesus, what you slapped is a human nature, but *who* you slapped is the second person of the Trinity, because that is the person who has that nature.
If you gave birth to Jesus, what you gave birth to is a human nature, but *who* you gave birth to is the eternal Logos that created you.
They thought of this in metaphysical (and linguistic) terms, not psychological terms, and they regarded it as a mystery. So questions like, what does it even mean for one person to have two wills and two intellects (divine and human) didn’t feature prominently in the discussion.
>So if you slapped Jesus, what you slapped is a human nature, but *who* you slapped is the second person of the Trinity, because that is the person who has that nature.
When you say “has” do you mean that the divine person as divine person is experiencing a slap communicated to it by a created human nature ?
The doctrine of atonement is interesting because no one has yet come up with a really consistent explanation of the logic.
Here is a video from Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Kipp Davis. There is some social media blather for the first four minutes or so ( this video is a response to the comments of online apologists) but from four minutes on Davis gives an excellent description of the doctrine of atonement which takes us back to some very dark places.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
When you say “has” do you mean that the divine person as divine person is experiencing a slap communicated to it by a created human nature ?
If you mean “experienced” in a psychological way–what he feels in his humanity is felt also by the divine nature–then no.
If you just mean, whatever is done to him in his human nature is done to him (and so he is said to experience it), then yes.
The way this all ends up getting cashed out is in terms of supposits. A supposit is basically the raw metaphysical individual that a name refers to. It is a linguistic concept presumed to have a metaphysical basis. Think of it as just a bare metaphysical hook.
There is one supposit in Christ, one referent, one mataphysical individual. A nature–a thing’s principle of activity and receptivity–is had by a supposit: the bare individual that underlies each individual nature. Natures only really exist as the nature of an individual. And what that nature does is properly said to be done by the supposit who has the nature.
So in Christ, there is one supposit, a divine person who always had the divine nature, but he then comes to have also a human nature.
The theory really doesn’t get into the psychology of how that one person can have a unified psychological life despite having both a diving and a human intellect with both divine and human wills.
The theory is happy to exploit that fact, e.g., when Jesus says he is ignorant of the day and hour–well, that just means he is ignorant in his human intellect; his divine intellect obviously knows the day and the hour just like the Father does. Likewise when Luke says he grew in wisdom, age, and grace. How can the eternal divine Logos grow in wisdom, age, or grace? Well, that’s referring to his development in his human nature.
The theory is also happy to say it is metaphysically impossible for Jesus to sin (since he is a divine person and it is strictly impossible for God to sin). If Jesus sinned in his human will, that would properly be God sinning which is strictly impossible. But it doesn’t really explain the psychology. What guarantees the correspondence of Christ’s human will to his divine will? What is the causality that brings the human will into line with the divine will? If Christ literally has two intellects and two wills, why doesn’t he have, what we would call, multiple personalities? (The question does get taken up rather late–c.16th cent–, but it didn’t really reach any sort of conclusion.)
Keep in mind this is theology. They started with points of faith–various sayings in scripture that they needed to account for and justify, formulae from the liturgy, and so forth–then they tried to fit a theory to those data. This is why the theory is so deeply linguistic: they needed to justify the communication of idioms. “You killed the lord of glory” and such. They needed to justify certain manners of speaking. The result was to, pretty facilely, take linguistic terms and make them metaphysical. If their theory left deeper questions unanswered, they could write it off as mystery: why should we expect to fully grasp the god-man? They just needed their theory to avoid outright contradictions.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)