NationStates Jolt Archive

You tell me.

Any self-respecting historian will tell you that he most likely did. The only question is how accurate the story of his life is.

I would say probably.

Yes, there are records other then the Catholic faith and believing he was not real is like saying Muhammad wasn't real or George W. Bush wasn't real

The story of Jesus is probably based on one or more real people, though obviously some elements were created or borrowed from other myths. I think when historians say "Jesus was a real man", so confidently they are showing their bias.

Yar, of course he is

I think he existed as an historical personage. However, there is very little, if any evidence to support the legends that grew around him. I think he existed as a man who probably bore very little resemblance to his legend.

He existed, but he wasn't the son of God.

FACT - JESUS DID EXIST

But here are two questions:

1 - what was his second name? Christ was the name we gave him.

2 - are the stories surrounding him true?

That depends on your faith. An endless arguement.

Whatever you believe about him, he did actually exist.

If Jesus was not who he said he was, why would people of the time go through all the trouble of martyrdom for this belief? Furthermore, why would anybody invent the idea of an incarnate God in a Jewish nation? This is almost beyond blasphemy to a Jew. Just something to ponder...

Yes, he had to have existed. Religions don't just happen. The real question is whether or not he was the son of god.

I met Jesus on a bus. He pronounced it Hey-zeus though.


There's no real evidence that the Jesus of Nazareth existed though... if that's who you're referring to.

FACT - JESUS DID EXIST

But here are two questions:

1 - what was his second name? Christ was the name we gave him.
His last name is "Of Nazereth"

Christ is basically "savior", not a name...

Christ means "the annointed one."

You tell me.Yes he was a real person. The real question is, "was he really the son of god?" Or did a pregnant lady not want to admit she sinned?

He did, and He was the Son of God.

Of course Jesus existed. Roman historians talked about it, Jews talked about it, and the Bible talks about it. His divinity however, is something else entirely.

[QUOTE=Zikster]If Jesus was not who he said he was, why would people of the time go through all the trouble of martyrdom for this belief?[QUOTE]

Because they believed. Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. Lots of people did a lot of things for Charles Manson, but as I understand it, he wasn't really the returned Christ.

In one word....yes I believe in Jesus

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Creed

I know no one could make up the stuff in the bible...

I heard Jesus existed for real but was a big faggot and had lots of sex with monkeys.

"History is full of men who have claimed that they came from God, or that they were gods, or that they bore messages from God - Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Christ, Lao-tze, and thousands of others, right down to the person who founded a new religion this very day. Each of them has a right to be heard and considered. But as a yardstick external to and outside of whatever is to be measured is needed, so there must be some permanent tests available to all men, all civilizations, and all ages, by which they can decide whether any of these claimants, or all of them, are justified in their claims. These tests are of two kinds: reason and history. Reason, because everyone has it, even those without faith; history, because everyone lives in it and should know something about it.

Reason dictates that if any one of these men actually came from God, the least thing that God could do to support His claim would be to pre-announce His coming. Automobile manufacturers tell their customers when to expect a new model. If God sent anyone from Himself, or if He came Himself with a vitally important message for all men, it would seem reasonable that He would first let men know when His messenger was coming, where He would be born, where He would live, the doctrine He would teach, the enemies He would make, the program He would adopt for the future, and the manner of His death. By the extent to which the messenger conformed with these announcements, one could judge the validity of his claims.

Reason further assures us that if God did not do this, then there would be nothing to prevent any imposter from appearing in history and saying, "I come from God," or "An angel appeared to me in the desert and gave me this message." In such cases there would be no objective, historical way of testing the messenger. We would have only his word for it, and of course he could be wrong. (...)

With this test one can evaluate the claimants. (...) Socrates had no one to foretell his birth. Buddha had no one to pre-announce him and his message or tell the day when he would sit under the tree. (1) Confucius did not have the name of his mother or his birthplace recorded, nor were they given to men centuries before he arrived so that when he did come, men would know he was a messenger from God. But, with Christ it was different. Because of the Old Testament prophecies, His coming was not unexpected. There were no predictions about Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tze, Mohammed, or anyone else; but there were predictions about Christ. Others just came and said, "Here I am, believe me." They were, therefore, only men among men and not the Divine in the human. Christ alone stepped out of that line saying, "Search the writings of the Jewish people, and the related history of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans." (...)

If one searches out the various Messianic currents in the Old Testament, and compares the resulting picture with the life and work of Christ, can one doubt that the ancient predictions point to Jesus and the kingdom which he established? (2) (...) From an historical point of view alone, here is uniqueness which sets Christ apart from all other founders of world religions. (...)

Turn to pagan testimony. Tacitus, speaking for the ancient Romans, (...) Suetonius, in his account of the life of Vespasian, (...) [t]he Annals of the Celestial Empire [from China] (3) (...) the Greeks (...) Cicero, (...) [t]he Fourth Ecologue of Virgil (...) Plato and Socrates (...) Confucius (4) (...) the Sibyls (...) All these were on the Gentile side of the expectation. What separates Christ from all men is that first He was expected; even the Gentiles had a longing for a deliverer, or redeemer. This fact alone distinguishes Him from all other religious leaders.

A second distinguishing fact is that once He appeared, He struck history with such impact that He split it in two, dividing it into two periods: one before his coming, the other after it. (...)

A third fact separating Him from all the others is this: every other person who ever came into this world came into it to live. He came into it to die. Death was a stumbling block to Socrates - it interrupted his teaching. But to Christ, death was the goal and fulfillment of His life, the gold that He was seeking. Few of His works or actions are intelligible without reference to His Cross. He presented Himself as a Savior rather than merely as a Teacher. It meant nothing to teach men to be good unless He also gave them the power to be good, after rescuing them from the frustration of guilt. (...)

A fourth distinguishing fact is that He does not fit, as the other world teachers do, into the established category of a good man. Good men do not lie. But if Christ was not all that He said He was, namely, the Son of the living God, the Word of God in the flesh, then He was not “just a good man”; then he was a knave, a liar, a charlatan and the greatest deceiver who ever lived. If He was not what He said He was, the Christ, the Son of God, He was the anti-Christ! If He was only a man, then He was not even a "good" man. But He was not only a man. He would have us either worship Him or despise Him - despise Him as a mere man, or worship Him as true God and true man. That is the alternative He presents. It may very well be that the Communists, who are so anti-Christ, are closer to Him than those who see Him as a sentimentalist and a vague moral reformer. The Communists have at least decided that if He wins, they lose; the others are afraid to consider Him either as winning or losing, because they are not prepared to meet the moral demands which this victory would make on their souls.

If He is what He claimed to be, a Savior, a Redeemer, then we have a virile Christ and a leader worth following in these terrible times (...) But He will not allow us to pick and choose among His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy. We need a Christ Who will restore moral indignation, Who will make us hate evil with a passionate intensity, and love goodness to a point where we can drink death like water."-Fulton Sheen Life of Christ

There's no real evidence that the Jesus of Nazareth existed though... if that's who you're referring to.
Not that I expect you to listen to me, but yeah there is.

Yes, Jesus existed. There is concrete, verified documentation that he existed. His life is a bit of a mystery, however.

If you know about the Hebrew faith and traditions, they were and (for those that are still Jewish) are still waiting for the Messiah. From the things that the Bible says that he did in the New Testament, he fulfilled the prophecies of Judaic tradition. He didn't quite cut it for some of them, so they are still waiting for their Messiah. For those that followed him, they never saw him as the start of a new religion, even he himself (based on information in the Bible) considered himself a Jewish reformer. The term Christian didn't spring up till much later, and it wasn't until Saint Paul decided to make Christianity universal and separate from Judaism that it was regarded as anything other than Judaism's little brother. So no, to the Jews that followed him this was all but sacreligious, they were fulfilling the prophecies of their religion.

I know no one could make up the stuff in the bible...

Newsflash: Everything in the bible has been made up by men. Weather there is a God or not (though I myself am an atheist), it is men that have fabricated Christianity for several reasons, control being one of the primary ones.

If there was a god though, I would personally like to hear him explain himself.

The Bible is a historically accurate book. Any historian who looks through the book, without bias, will tell you that.
If Jesus was not who he said he was, why would people of the time go through all the trouble of martyrdom for this belief? Furthermore, why would anybody invent the idea of an incarnate God in a Jewish nation? This is almost beyond blasphemy to a Jew. Just something to ponder...
People die for their beliefs all the time, it's no supprise that it happened in the past. In your second statement you are helping to prove the Bible. Many devout Jews said that Jesus was committing blasphemy. And finally those who are of the Jewish faith are still looking for God to come, but they think he was supposed to come back for his people, that's why many of them didn't accept Jesus.

I heard Jesus existed for real but was a big faggot and had lots of sex with monkeys.

micheal used his juice to seduce children....jesus juice......munkays.....yeah

XTIANITY :sniper:

Newsflash: Everything in the bible has been made up by men. Weather there is a God or not (though I myself am an atheist), it is men that have fabricated Christianity for several reasons, control being one of the primary ones.

If there was a god though, I would personally like to hear him explain himself.
Newsflash:
You're a dumbass.

P.S. Whether.

In one word....yes I believe in Jesus

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Creed

I know no one could make up the stuff in the bible...


Sweetheart...you don't read many fiction books do you? Look into Robert Jordan...

If you claim that Jesus was questionable as a historical figure, you better question the following:

The Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, etc. We have fewer reliable Classical documents referring the the above, than reliable copies of the original Gospels.

If Jesus, historically, is fictional, then so is Julius Caesar. . .and all his Roman buddies.

*walks in, looks for Jesussaves*

*doesn't see him, leaves*

The Bible is a historically accurate book. Any historian who looks through the book, without bias, will tell you that.

STFU and GTFO. Anyone with a fragment of intellect will tell you that. I think you need to go and look up the word 'bias' in a dictionary.

Newsflash: Everything in the bible has been made up by men. Weather there is a God or not (though I myself am an atheist), it is men that have fabricated Christianity for several reasons, control being one of the primary ones.

If there was a god though, I would personally like to hear him explain himself.
If there WERE a god, he/she/it probably has better things to do than explain itself to everyone who asks that same favor.

Not that I expect you to listen to me, but yeah there is.
Please cite something other than josephus (4th century forgery) tactius, pliny (mention christians, not christ)

I'm always intereted in hearing new things there...

Newsflash:
You're a dumbass.

P.S. Whether.


Newsflash: You're both rude.

:headbang:

Personally, I always held the theory that is possible for him to have existed, but not neccesarily have been the Son of God.

A number of people over the existence of humanity have claimed to be Messiahs and Sons of the Almighty - there are even a number today who do this. Jesus may have been one of them, but looking at the social context and the oppression of people when this occured, it could very well be possible that a religious nutter was just what the people needed at the time.

There's probably some flaws in that. I'm an Athiest anyway, so I don't care much either way.

Sweetheart...you don't read many fiction books do you? Look into Robert Jordan...

Robert Jordan is awful.

The Bible is actually finished, so I think that is an unworthy comparison. Not to mention. . .ROBERT JORDAN IS AWFUL AND MAKES ME ANGRY!

If Jesus was not who he said he was, why would people of the time go through all the trouble of martyrdom for this belief? Furthermore, why would anybody invent the idea of an incarnate God in a Jewish nation? This is almost beyond blasphemy to a Jew. Just something to ponder...
For one thing, we don't really know who Jesus said he was. We just know what some authors said about him, whether it was true, embellished, or completely made up. As to the question of martyrdom, if that is evidence of the truth of his supposed words, then we must also consider the words of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marvin Applewhite, and a host of other "martyred" cult leaders (whose followers also "martyred" themselves) to be true on those same grounds. The fact is, that doesn't point to the truth of words, it merely demonstrates the power of belief. Furthermore, for the most part, his followers weren't martyred. They were killed not for their beliefs, not for their insistence that Jesus was the son of god, but for their refusal to live and abide by the laws of the government under which they lived. The Romans couldn't really have cared less about some small cult and what they believed -- hell, Rome was full of cults and different beliefs. They only cared that these people were causing trouble and political unrest. They were as much martyrs as any other ne'er-do-well.

If you claim that Jesus was questionable as a historical figure, you better question the following:

The Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, etc.

Idiot. Even though I think Jesus did exist, it's much easier to falsify documentation of the existance of one damn guy than millions, as you seem to think.

Robert Jordan is awful.

The Bible is actually finished, so I think that is an unworthy comparison. Not to mention. . .ROBERT JORDAN IS AWFUL AND MAKES ME ANGRY!

Haha. I never said he was good. I said he was equally as outrageous. If you like it better, how about Tolkien? Some wild crap in there too.

His last name is "Of Nazereth"

Christ is basically "savior", not a name...
his real name was joshua i believe, jesus was actually a roman name given to him. since he was born unto mary and joseph who were jewish, they obviously named him thusly as "joshua" or however the old world spelling might vary :D

Idiot. Even though I think Jesus did exist, it's much easier to falsify documentation of the existance of one damn guy than millions, as you seem to think.
Then how about:
Julius Ceasar, Archimedes, Xerxes, Hammurabi, Aton, and some Assyrian?

Idiot. Even though I think Jesus did exist, it's much easier to falsify documentation of the existance of one damn guy than millions, as you seem to think.


Easy to falsify one guy for one culture. I doubt the Jews, the Romans, the Babylonians, and the other people he came in contact with that documented his existence outside the Bible, were all conspiring to create Jesus.

If there WERE a god, he/she/it probably has better things to do than explain itself to everyone who asks that same favor.

Like what? If there were a god, what the fuck is he doing all day? I don't know about you, but I don't see too many miracles these days. If there were a god, he'd be a lazy bastard doing nothing. If there were an almightly lord, he could give all the guys on earth unlimited supplies of beers and hookers - but he doesnt. Hence, IF he exists, he sucks.

Idiot. Even though I think Jesus did exist, it's much easier to falsify documentation of the existance of one damn guy than millions, as you seem to think.

Fool. It wasn't his one document. It was various documents that circulated within a lifetime to hundreds of thousands. We have so few copies of Iliad, Odyssey, Gallic Wars, The Annals, etc.

Don't call me idiot. It's obvious that you hate religion, and somewhere in your past you might have something you want to blame God for. But don't bring THAT here and call me an idiot. I was making a seemingly fair comparison to shed some light on all this. But since, I'm sure you have all kinds of "degrees" in this subject, why don't you simply publish for us your thesis on this?

his real name was joshua i believe, jesus was actually a roman name given to him. since he was born unto mary and joseph who were jewish, they obviously named him thusly as "joshua" or however the old world spelling might vary :D

yeshua

OK, I'm seriously tired of these stupid questions becoming threads. Stupid idiotic questions that everyone knows the answer to, and that only retards disagree with. Find something more interesting to talk about.

Like what? If there were a god, what the fuck is he doing all day? I don't know about you, but I don't see too many miracles these days. If there were a god, he'd be a lazy bastard doing nothing. If there were an almightly lord, he could give all the guys on earth unlimited supplies of beers and hookers - but he doesnt. Hence, IF he exists, he sucks.
He's probably a forum mod somewhere.

Then how about:
Julius Ceasar, Archimedes, Xerxes, Hammurabi, Aton, and some Assyrian?

Would be more probable, yes. Still highly unlikely - as I said, I think Jesus did exist - but that would be way more probable than someone "making up the existence of all the Romans".

Easy to falsify one guy for one culture. I doubt the Jews, the Romans, the Babylonians, and the other people he came in contact with that documented his existence outside the Bible, were all conspiring to create Jesus.

I seriously doubt that too - just saying that it is possible that the existing documentation is false. Just because something is written on a piece of paper by human hands doesn't make it unquestionably true.

The Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, etc.

The difference is that there is archaeological evidence suggesting that these civilizations existed.

Originally Posted by Japfetish
Like what? If there were a god, what the fuck is he doing all day? I don't know about you, but I don't see too many miracles these days. If there were a god, he'd be a lazy bastard doing nothing. If there were an almightly lord, he could give all the guys on earth unlimited supplies of beers and hookers - but he doesnt. Hence, IF he exists, he sucks.

And here's the problem. You assume these things would be good for mankind.

To take an animal out of a beartrap, it will be scared, and will feel more pain. But it also survives and lives on.

Fool. It wasn't his one document. It was various documents that circulated within a lifetime to hundreds of thousands. We have so few copies of Iliad, Odyssey, Gallic Wars, The Annals, etc.

Don't call me idiot. It's obvious that you hate religion, and somewhere in your past you might have something you want to blame God for. But don't bring THAT here and call me an idiot. I was making a seemingly fair comparison to shed some light on all this. But since, I'm sure you have all kinds of "degrees" in this subject, why don't you simply publish for us your thesis on this?

Why would I blame 'something out of my past' on something that doesn't exist? No one religious can ever bring any light on anything exept the blinding light of lies. I called you an idiot due to your inferior intelligence.

To take an animal out of a beartrap, it will be scared, and will feel more pain. But it also survives and lives on.

But if I was almighty I could imagine the trap away, and bring joy to that little animal with a wave of my hand.

But if I was almighty I could imagine the trap away, and bring joy to that little animal with a wave of my hand.
Do you want to play nanny to the universe? If you were a parent, would you want your kids to be rich and successful by their own merits or because you gave them 10 billion dollars so they dind't have to work ever?

If Jesus was not who he said he was, why would people of the time go through all the trouble of martyrdom for this belief? Furthermore, why would anybody invent the idea of an incarnate God in a Jewish nation? This is almost beyond blasphemy to a Jew. Just something to ponder...
well, the Jewish people never said that he was the son of god, and the prophet Jesus never did either- however a consensus was reached that he was divine at some point

well, the Jewish people never said that he was the son of god, and the prophet Jesus never did either- however a consensus was reached that he was divine at some point
In Acts. God call Jesus his beloved Son.

IF you look at the Old Testament, and at all the prophecies in it, it's absolutely amazing how Jesus fufilled all of them. I read that if you covered the entire state of Texas with quarters stacked a foot deep, and somewhere in all those quarters was one half doller, the probablility that someone dropped randomly in the middle of Texas could reach down into the quarters and pull out the half doller is the same probablitity that all the prophecies about the Messiah would come true. And Jesus fufilled all of those prophecies. Just something interesting to consider

Why would I blame 'something out of my past' on something that doesn't exist? No one religious can ever bring any light on anything exept the blinding light of lies. I called you an idiot due to your inferior intelligence.

Thanks, chief! ;) I do appreciate it. Sorry if I offended you for posting my thoughts. . .I guess they aren't worthy of any discussion.

So, EVERYONE STOP POSTING!!! Japfetish has AAAAALL the answers.

So, please write all your enlightened thoughts in a book. I just might buy it.
:)

If you claim that Jesus was questionable as a historical figure, you better question the following:

The Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, etc. We have fewer reliable Classical documents referring the the above, than reliable copies of the original Gospels.
That's an interesting claim. Are you suggesting that there are a negative number of reliable classical documents referring to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, et al.? Because we have exactly ZERO reliable copies of the original Gospels, as far as anyone knows. The autographa don't exist, or at least have never been discovered. The only thing they've found is copies that claim they are copies of the originals, but the originals have never been found, and their authorship was by and large arbitrarily assigned. Scholars aren't even certain who wrote the Gospels, or when. They are fairly certain, though, that the Gospel of John was written a considerable time after the crucifixion, and that its author was probably not alive during Jesus's lifetime. There is also evidence that one of the Gospels (Mark, I believe) is mostly a retelling of Matthew, that the author based many of his accounts on Matthew. Considering the lack of originals to which to compare the copies, and the lack of evidence of authorship, the lack of knowing when and where they were written, I think there are several words that can describe the Gospels, but "reliable" isn't among them.

jesus still exists! i went to mexico and saw a man named jesus!

well, the Jewish people never said that he was the son of god, and the prophet Jesus never did either- however a consensus was reached that he was divine at some point

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3,14).

Jesus Asked “But, who do you say that I am?” To this Peter boldly replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16).

That's an interesting claim. Are you suggesting that there are a negative number of reliable classical documents referring to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, et al.? Because we have exactly ZERO reliable copies of the original Gospels, as far as anyone knows. The autographa don't exist, or at least have never been discovered. The only thing they've found is copies that claim they are copies of the originals, but the originals have never been found, and their authorship was by and large arbitrarily assigned. Scholars aren't even certain who wrote the Gospels, or when. They are fairly certain, though, that the Gospel of John was written a considerable time after the crucifixion, and that its author was probably not alive during Jesus's lifetime. There is also evidence that one of the Gospels (Mark, I believe) is mostly a retelling of Matthew, that the author based many of his accounts on Matthew. Considering the lack of originals to which to compare the copies, and the lack of evidence of authorship, the lack of knowing when and where they were written, I think there are several words that can describe the Gospels, but "reliable" isn't among them.

We have no originals of any Classical works. Including the Gospels. My thought is that we have more complementary copies of the Gospels from the early centuries than any other Classical work.

Archaeologically. . .most of the Bible is surprisingly ironclad.

Do you want to play nanny to the universe? If you were a parent, would you want your kids to be rich and successful by their own merits or because you gave them 10 billion dollars so they dind't have to work ever?

Moron. What do you have to say about the 11 million kids - not even counting the adults - that die of [b]preventable deceases[/i] each year? Did they have the option of working their way up to attaining 10 billion dollars? No. If there was an almighty god, could he have saved their lives; given them water, food and homes? Yes. They were doomed the day they were born. As for me, I don't give a fkcu about those kids since I love living in excess, but I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about them.

If you're a father and are watching your kids play in a sandbox, and notice that they get into a fight and start strangling eachother (this would be a metafor for us humans), do you A) intervene or B) do nothing, since your kids are supposed to learn that peace and love and blah blah blah is good by themselves withour your interferance - and watch them kill eachother?

well, the Jewish people never said that he was the son of god, and the prophet Jesus never did either- however a consensus was reached that he was divine at some point

Actually, according to the gospel of John 8:58, "Before Abraham Was, I Am" Jesus did admit divinity. The key word in this passage is "I Am" which reckons back to Moses and the burning bush (Exodus) when God revealed himself as I Am Who Am (YHWH in hebrew). As a result of this "blasphemy" in Jewish eyes, they tried to stone him.

So, please write all your enlightened thoughts in a book. I just might buy it.
:)

While I appreciate that, I really don't need to write a book - I can summarize life in a few short sentences for free:

Life is good.
Beer is good.
Sex is good.
Try to get as much beer and sex as possible in life.
There is no god, and when you die you just seize to exist, so you better enjoy living as much as possible when you have the chance.
The end.

Jesus probably actually existed. HOWEVER, the stories told about him are probably either false or grossly exagerated. Many stories in the Bible may well have some grain of historical truth in them(as with some legends, folktales, myths, etc.), but as with many things, as time goes by, the story becomes more exaggerated and less accurate. But since nobody who actually lived way back them is alive today, there's no way of telling what is true, and what was added in later on, either intentionally or accidently. In short, Jesus lived at some point, but his life was probably nothing like what is described in the Bible. I'm leaning towards the "he was some preacher who got a large following, and was kind and moral considering the standards of the time, but not much else was notable about him" thought.

While I appreciate that, I really don't need to write a book - I can summarize life in a few short sentences for free:

Life is good.
Beer is good.
Sex is good.
Try to get as much beer and sex as possible in life.
There is no god, and when you die you just seize to exist, so you better enjoy living as much as possible when you have the chance.
The end.

Hmmmm..
Agree.
Agree.
Agree.
Disagree. . .although. . .don't push either away.
Disagree. . .but enjoy life.

OK, I'm seriously tired of these stupid questions becoming threads. Stupid idiotic questions that everyone knows the answer to, and that only retards disagree with. Find something more interesting to talk about.
There have been three primary answers given to the question:

1. Jesus wasn't real.

2. Jesus existed but wasn't divine.

3. Jesus existed and was divine.

Which one is it that believe "only retards disagree with?" It seems to me there are pretty good arguments for all three?

In Acts. God call Jesus his beloved Son.
the consensus was reached at the council of nicea, where they voted on whether jesus was divine or not. divine jesus won out over human jesus by a slim margin.

Moron. What do you have to say about the 11 million kids - not even counting the adults - that die of [b]preventable deceases[/i] each year? Did they have the option of working their way up to attaining 10 billion dollars? No. If there was an almighty god, could he have saved their lives; given them water, food and homes? Yes. They were doomed the day they were born. As for me, I don't give a fkcu about those kids since I love living in excess, but I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about them.

If you're a father and are watching your kids play in a sandbox, and notice that they get into a fight and start strangling eachother (this would be a metafor for us humans), do you A) intervene or B) do nothing, since your kids are supposed to learn that peace and love and blah blah blah is good by themselves withour your interferance - and watch them kill eachother?
I think you're more of a moron, given your inability to spell cease. But I digress. Your analogy is flawed, if God was the father, then both of those kids would be His. If you intervene you take sides.

There have been three primary answers given to the question:

1. Jesus wasn't real.

2. Jesus existed but wasn't divine.

3. Jesus existed and was divine.

Which one is it that believe "only retards disagree with?" It seems to me there are pretty good arguments for all three?
The question didn't ask about divinity. The two responses are:
Jesus wasn't real.
Just was.
Only a retard would argue the first.

I think you're more of a moron, given your inability to spell cease. But I digress. Your analogy is flawed, if God was the father, then both of those kids would be His. If you intervene you take sides.

English is my fourth language, mind you, so excuse me for not being a spelling nazi.

My analogy isn't flawed, however. If you're a father who intervenes when your kids are strangling eachother, it's not "taking sides" damnit. If you were a father, would you not intervene if you had two kids who were in a fight?

[quote]Jesus probably actually existed. HOWEVER, the stories told about him are probably either false or grossly exagerated. Many stories in the Bible may well have some grain of historical truth in them(as with some legends, folktales, myths, etc.), but as with many things, as time goes by, the story becomes more exaggerated and less accurate. But since nobody who actually lived way back them is alive today, there's no way of telling what is true, and what was added in later on, either intentionally or accidently. In short, Jesus lived at some point, but his life was probably nothing like what is described in the Bible. I'm leaning towards the "he was some preacher who got a large following, and was kind and moral considering the standards of the time, but not much else was notable about him" thought.[quote]


It's almost silly to say Jesus was a moral person, but not actually divine, because unless he was telling the truth about His divinity, he was a complete liar, hypocrite, and in no way moral. So he was either a scamming hypocrite, with no honor, or the Son od God, I choose to believe the latter

the consensus was reached at the council of nicea, where they voted on whether jesus was divine or not. divine jesus won out over human jesus by a slim margin.

It is interesting to read this history of the Nicean Council. The divinity of Christ was believed long before the council, but it was first seriously challenged by Arius in the 4th century. The Church generally does not define doctrines until they are contested. At the council, St. Athanasius, a young robust priest at the time was able to intellectually defeat Arius (the founder of the Arian heresy) based on scriptural arguments. The contraversy did not end there, however, but rather raged for more than a century and influenced the politics of the Roman Empire until its fall. Also of interest, it was an Arian bishop that baptized Constantine, bringing him into the Church.

Archaeologically. . .most of the Bible is surprisingly ironclad.
I'm not sure about that, to be honest. To be fair, as an Agnostic, I'm not committed to either extreme (yes, or no), but I once read an article by a biblical scholar (a pro-literalist) who, though he was arguing for the historical and archaeological accuracy of the bible, was forced to concede at the very least that the vast majority of the bible's historical claims have as of yet no archaeological or empirical support (but neither have they been disproven). I believe the count he gave was that there are over 20,000 historical claims in the bible (ranging from minor mentions of a town or city to huge, world-changing events), but that less than 10% of that total historocity has been proven.

As a side note, I also wonder about the accuracy of interpretation of extrabiblical corroboration of Jesus. Many claims have been made that Jesus is mentioned and discussed in the documents of other cultures, but how accurate is the interpretation that it is necessarily Jesus they are discussing? Some scholars of the bible are quick to associate Jesus with any extrabiblical reference that seems to describe a similar personage, but others are more cautious. I'm reminded of the hubbub a few years ago when the ossuary of James was discovered with the [now proven to be forged] inscribed name of Jesus. Several biblical archaeologists and scholars got really excited over what they characterized as the first concrete mention of Jesus outside the texts of the Bible. Either they were completely unaware that all these other extrabiblical mentions exist, or they were cautious about assuming that those other references were actually talking about Jesus and not someone else.

A couple other points about prophecy: one of the prophecies pointed to as evidence of the coming of Jesus (from Isaiah) actually points to a birth specifically called for during the reign of Nebuchednezzer, about 400 years before Christ. And there is always the lingering question about the angel's prophecy that he would be named Immanuel. So why, when people ask what Jesus's real name was, is the name "Immanuel" never mentioned?

It's almost silly to say Jesus was a moral person, but not actually divine, because unless he was telling the truth about His divinity, he was a complete liar, hypocrite, and in no way moral. So he was either a scamming hypocrite, with no honor, or the Son od God, I choose to believe the latter
Not necessarily. In the biblical accounts, at no point do the words, "I am the Son of God," come from the mouth of Jesus. They come from his followers, not him. He proclaims himself the Son of Man. He does concede to the questioning of Romans, when asked if what his disciple (Peter, I believe?) says about him is true, and he answers, "It is as he said," or something to that effect. But it is interesting, at the very least, that even in his concession, he still evades making the actual claim himself? Should this be read as an evasion? A concession? A desire to hear other people make grandiose claims about him (a trait common in cult leaders)? There are many arguments that could be made. People also argue that his reference to God as his "Father" should be proof that he claims divinity of himself, but that really doesn't hold much water, considering the propensity of Christians and Jews alike to call God their "Father."

A couple other points about prophecy: one of the prophecies pointed to as evidence of the coming of Jesus (from Isaiah) actually points to a birth specifically called for during the reign of Nebuchednezzer, about 400 years before Christ. And there is always the lingering question about the angel's prophecy that he would be named Immanuel. So why, when people ask what Jesus's real name was, is the name "Immanuel" never mentioned?

I'm not suggesting every prophecy is properly interpreted or even that every prophecy that many point to as messianic is exclusively so. But here is an interesting point to ponder: I assume the particular verse you are referring to is "and the virgin shall be with Child and he shall be called Immanuel." The Greek translation is "virgin" from the septuagent, but the original Hebrew is not as exclusively a virgin. And indeed, the prophecy in Isaiah (ch. 3 perhaps) points to an immediate savior during the reign of a king Ahaz (who was actually an ancestor of Christ). However some argue that the prophecy can refer to both the immediate time and a future event. Another point, Immanuel means "God with us" which if interpreted literally works well with the Christian idea of Christ.

I'm not suggesting every prophecy is properly interpreted or even that every prophecy that many point to as messianic is exclusively so. But here is an interesting point to ponder: I assume the particular verse you are referring to is "and the virgin shall be with Child and he shall be called Immanuel." The Greek translation is "virgin" from the septuagent, but the original Hebrew is not as exclusively a virgin. And indeed, the prophecy in Isaiah (ch. 3 perhaps) points to an immediate savior during the reign of a king Ahaz (who was actually an ancestor of Christ). However some argue that the prophecy can refer to both the immediate time and a future event. Another point, Immanuel means "God with us" which if interpreted literally works well with the Christian idea of Christ.

John 8:58 "Before Abraham Was, I Am" is a pretty obvious case where Jesus claims divinity.

Not necessarily. In the biblical accounts, at no point do the words, "I am the Son of God," come from the mouth of Jesus. They come from his followers, not him. He proclaims himself the Son of Man. He does concede to the questioning of Romans, when asked if what his disciple (Peter, I believe?) says about him is true, and he answers, "It is as he said," or something to that effect. But it is interesting, at the very least, that even in his concession, he still evades making the actual claim himself? Should this be read as an evasion? A concession? A desire to hear other people make grandiose claims about him (a trait common in cult leaders)? There are many arguments that could be made. People also argue that his reference to God as his "Father" should be proof that he claims divinity of himself, but that really doesn't hold much water, considering the propensity of Christians and Jews alike to call God their "Father."

In Luke 8:27-29, when Jesus casts out demons, they call him the son of God, and in Mathew 26:63-64, when the High priest asks Him if he is the Son of God, Jesus says “Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

If all you christian duders went to read some Kierkegaard, internet forums would be far more peaceful.

If all you christian duders went to read some Kierkegaard, internet forums would be far more peaceful.

What?????

Just saying.

I'm not suggesting every prophecy is properly interpreted or even that every prophecy that many point to as messianic is exclusively so. But here is an interesting point to ponder: I assume the particular verse you are referring to is "and the virgin shall be with Child and he shall be called Immanuel." The Greek translation is "virgin" from the septuagent, but the original Hebrew is not as exclusively a virgin.
Yes, that is the verse I'm referring to. The "virgin" point is also a popular point of contestation. The Hebrews had two words for "virgin" (almeh and b'tullah). As I recall the controversy, "almeh" basically means a woman of independent means, an unmarried woman, etc, whereas "b'tullah" means a woman of sexual purity and chastity. Christians generally apply the chaste meaning, while the Hebrew text actually uses the other term.

And indeed, the prophecy in Isaiah (ch. 3 perhaps) points to an immediate savior during the reign of a king Ahaz (who was actually an ancestor of Christ).
Oops, you're right. I meant to say Ahaz. I was recently in a debate on a theological website where Nebuchadnezzer came up, so I had him frest in my brain. My bad.

However some argue that the prophecy can refer to both the immediate time and a future event.
In my opinion, that would almost take away any value to the prophecy. It basically renders the prophecy unfalsifiable, which renders it meaningless. Many people adopt that particular fallacy with regard to a good portion of the messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill, claiming instead that they will be fulfilled with the Second Advent.

[qoute]Another point, Immanuel means "God with us" which if interpreted literally works well with the Christian idea of Christ.[/QUOTE]
I guess it depends on how that verse should be interpreted. If it is meant to be only a loose reference to a fleshly incarnation of God, represented in the child spoken of in the prophecy, then it would work. If it is meant to literally prophecy that the child would specifically bear that name, it becomes more problematic.

he was a real, living person. he was a jew, and he also had other beliefs which he did, in fact, die for. he was crusified, and it is the belief of Citholaism that he was the son of god.

FACT - JESUS DID EXIST

But here are two questions:

1 - what was his second name? Christ was the name we gave him.

2 - are the stories surrounding him true?

That depends on your faith. An endless arguement.


Yeah firstly, he was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth, and secondly the stories surrounding him arent supposed to be taken literally, but are representations which we can adopt into our modern everyday lives

John 8:58 "Before Abraham Was, I Am" is a pretty obvious case where Jesus claims divinity.
Depends. Was Jesus using the term as a person pronoun reference to himself, or was he referring to God's alleged response in the OT where he offers "I Am" as his own name? If it is the latter, then one could as easily substite the other names given for God, and the sentence still makes sense without being an admission to being himself divine ...

"Before Abraham was Yahweh."

"Before Abraham was YHVH."

"Before Abraham was God."

"Before Abraham was Alpha/Omega."

... and so on.

Bear in mind, though, I'm not saying you're wrong. As an Agnostic, I consider either possibility equally valid. I'm just making sure that we don't jump to dogmatically assuming only one of a number of possible interpretations must be correct without allowing consideration of others.

Yeah firstly, he was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth, and secondly the stories surrounding him arent supposed to be taken literally, but are representations which we can adopt into our modern everyday lives

What to you mean, when you say the stories surrounding Him?

Yeah firstly, he was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth, and secondly the stories surrounding him arent supposed to be taken literally, but are representations which we can adopt into our modern everyday lives

What to you mean, when you say the stories surrounding Him?

yes jesus, did exist, there's 2000 years of proof writen in the bible.

FACT - JESUS DID EXIST

But here are two questions:

1 - what was his second name? Christ was the name we gave him.

2 - are the stories surrounding him true?

That depends on your faith. An endless arguement.
Wouldn't his last name be Ben Joseph, i.e. son of Joseph?

Yes he did.

(It's that easy.)

yes jesus, did exist, there's 2000 years of proof writen in the bible.
If the bible itself remains an unproven source, then arguments within the bible do not stand up as "proof," they only serve as arguments.

By the way, everyone, sorry for the repeat postings. Had some trouble getting it to take.

I heard once that they had found some Roman documents refering to the execution of Jesus. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

It's almost silly to say Jesus was a moral person, but not actually divine, because unless he was telling the truth about His divinity, he was a complete liar, hypocrite, and in no way moral. So he was either a scamming hypocrite, with no honor, or the Son od God, I choose to believe the latter[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily only if you believe that Jesus is the *only son of "god" and not someone who has reached an enlightened state and so has attained divinity something which i beleive we can all do, so he wouldn't have been lying when he said he was the son of god, he was just being misinterpreted...

but it all depends on your belief system. ultimately it is only his main message that matters, love one another.

It's almost silly to say Jesus was a moral person, but not actually divine, because unless he was telling the truth about His divinity, he was a complete liar, hypocrite, and in no way moral. So he was either a scamming hypocrite, with no honor, or the Son od God, I choose to believe the latter

Actually, there are more possibilites.

1. He told the truth.
2. He thought he told the truth, but didn't.
3. He lied, believing hislies would benefit mankind, bring hope, and help foster peace.
4. He lied for his own benefit, and thus was immoral.

So, even if he wasn't telling the truth, he can still be moral, by lying for the right reasons or for doing good believing he was right.

Very interesting.

Actually, there are more possibilites.

1. He told the truth.
2. He thought he told the truth, but didn't.
3. He lied, believing hislies would benefit mankind, bring hope, and help foster peace.
4. He lied for his own benefit, and thus was immoral.

So, even if he wasn't telling the truth, he can still be moral, by lying for the right reasons or for doing good believing he was right.

He could also have been speaking figuarlitively, refering to how we are all the children of God.

Or he could have ment that since the Torah, which as a Jew he would have believed in, refers to mankind being made in the image of God, we all have an aspect of the divine about us.

Or it could have been the acid. :)

Any self-respecting historian will tell you that he most likely did. The only question is how accurate the story of his life is.

Exactly!

As an atheist, my opinion on this matter is pretty biased... but whatever. I'm not trying to convert or offend anyone, this rant is just my opinion on how things went down. Read or ignore, up to you...

First of all, I believe Jesus existed but I don't believe him to be the son of God. Why? Well, let's thing logically here. God is supposed to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent (all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere at once), right? I mean, he's perfect. Perfection suggests that he has the ability to do anything, because anything less would mean... inperfection. Anyways. Since God is perfect, why would he need a son to deliver His message and carry out His work? He's perfectly capable of doing that himself. The idea of God as a single dad seems almost... whimsical to me. As if the Church were trying to make Him more human, something easier to relate to.

Secondly, I think we all need to take into account the timespan here. Jesus (supposedly) died on the cross 2005 years ago. THAT IS A REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME!!! It's no wonder historical records of that period are scarce. Then you have to take into account the fact that the bible's varios books were written (a hundred? two hundred?) years after Jesus is supposed to have been crucified. I don't know about you, but I have trouble remembering what I had for dinner last night. Since at the time written records were scarce (due to both the illiteracy of the majority, and the fact that people were killing and looting and sacking each other's cities almost continually), most things were passed on by word of mouth. Passing on information by word of mouth is flawed, since the information tends to become embellished along the way. Imagine how embellished it would be after a few hundred years. Actually, I don't think we need to imagine it.

I think that Jesus existed (I think I already said that), and that his message was pure - peace and love and happiness and humility and all sorts of great things. I think that the powers that were at the time didn't like Jesus supplanting their own teachings, and so made a martyr of him, much in the same way Socrates was executed (except much nastier). So, the people who witnessed his death and his life pass on the story of this nice man who just wanted everyone to get along. The story of how great he was gets bigger and bigger with each telling, over hundreds of years, until finally he becomes this divine legend, a God that once walked among us.

Besides: does it really matter if he did all that stuff? Even if you don't believe in Christianity, I think we can all agree that the things Jesus talked about, or is said to have talked about, are pretty good ideas. If believing in an all-pervading force that watches over us makes it easier for people to get up in the morning, so be it. Christianity in it's rawest form doesn't hurt anybody, it's the interpretations of Christianity (or any religion) that lead to things like the crusades or 9/11 or the thousands of other religious wars that have been fought. It's your choice to believe, just like it's mine to not believe.

One last thing. It always interested me that people get so worked up over who's right - atheists or religious people. Well, regardless of who's wrong and who's right, one group is going to feel pretty silly when they die (Haha, I just pictured about a billion religious people standing in a blank void with me, and me laughing my ass off at them and saying "I told you so!" I would do that, too... God I'm an asshole).

Anyways, just more food for thought to add to an already interesting conversation.

Or it could have been the acid. :)
Well John was suposse to be eating Mushrums when he wrote Revelation so you never know :D

[QUOTE=Nickmasykstan]
One last thing. It always interested me that people get so worked up over who's right - atheists or religious people. Well, regardless of who's wrong and who's right, one group is going to feel pretty silly when they die (Haha, I just pictured about a billion religious people standing in a blank void with me, and me laughing my ass off at them and saying "I told you so!" I would do that, too... God I'm an asshole).
QUOTE]

Ah,Ha so you admit that there's an afterlife, now we have you right where we want you. ;)

These facts can be easily verified.

All accounts of Jesus of Nazreth are hearsay. In other words there are no accounts of the life of Jesus Christ by people who actually claim to have existed. Now accounts such as this have never existed. I mean several famous historical accounts or writings do not exist to this day, but we know they existed once, since they have been quoted by later writers. None exist in the case Jesus Christ. Another thing, there were about 40 historians who lived in the first half of 1st century. None of them mentioned Jesus Christ.

For a sense of perspective consider a figure like Julius Caesar. His own writings 'Caesars commentaries' exist to this day. And there are so many accounts by famous historians of that time Sallust, Livy, Cicero; all these men were contempories of Caesar. There were many others as well and from the sum of their writings we can build an accurate picture of the events of the day. For example, we know for a fact that Caesar was stabbed on the 15th of March.

Now is there any historical evidence for Jesus Christ?. The Gospels are religious and not historical documents and are dismissed by secular historians. However there is some mention of Christ in what we might call 'historical records', the famous roman historian Tacitus mentions his name as the originator of the Christian faith; but just one line. in his Annals. But Tacitus wrote his Annals around 120 AD, by when Christianity was already a well established religon, so he may have just saying what was the common belief at that time. There is also the jewish historian Josephus. A paragraph in which he claims 'Jesus was a supernatural man'. Many historians believe it to be a fake, probably a later Christian insertion. In case it dates to the 2nd century so its still hearsay. There are other accounts, but all of them date to the late 1st of 2nd century. The earlies gospels too are dated to about 100AD and their authors are unknown.

So was there a historical Jesus?, well perhaps there was, Christianity had to come from somewhere. But there is reason to doubt his existence and he certainly does not compare to famous historical figures like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

There have been three primary answers given to the question:

1. Jesus wasn't real.

2. Jesus existed but wasn't divine.

3. Jesus existed and was divine.

Which one is it that believe "only retards disagree with?" It seems to me there are pretty good arguments for all three?

The question was not was he divine or not. It was simply, did he exist. I think even the most ardent atheists have to admit he existed. If you don't, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. This thread is worthless.

Wouldn't his last name be Ben Joseph, i.e. son of Joseph?

Jesus itself is a Latinized version of Yeshua. Joshua is more a Germanicized version of Yeshua. Hence, we have the names Jesus and Joshua, both separate people in the Bible, yet in reality they had the same name. Esau, brother of Isaac, had the simple form of Yeshua as his name. It was a common name back then. Joseph is Anglicized, so his last name, assuming it was "Son of Joseph" would have been ben Yosef....Christ is not a last name, but merely an Anglicized form of the Greek Christos....meaning Annointed One....the equivalent of the Semitic masih....messiah....Annointed One.....A title given to him afterward. Anyone who actually thinks that was his given last name seriously needs to be educated. And by the way.....for all you Christians......Messiah/Christ does not mean Son of God. It simply means Annointed One. Muslims call Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) the Messiah as well. That's his specific title, just as Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is called the equivalent of The Comforter, among other names, in the Arabic language.

I believe that Jesus really did exist but whether he is the son of god I'm a bit skeptical about.

Oh and another thing, how can the bible be a record of what Jesus did when it was written so long after he died?

The question was not was he divine or not. It was simply, did he exist. I think even the most ardent atheists have to admit he existed.
Not necessarily. As I noted in an earlier post, even some of the most ardent pro-biblical archaeologists are wary of pointing at all the supposed documentation that the laymen (which account for probably 99% of all those claiming such evidence exists) put forth as being irrefutable references to Jesus. The problem is, most of that documentation doesn't mention Jesus by name, but just mentions events and people that the hopeful interpret as being about Jesus, but they don't really know if it was Jesus those people were talking about or not. If it were otherwise, then they wouldn't have gotten nearly so excited over the ossuary of James and its inscription (which has been discovered since then to be a forgery) bearing the name of Jesus, claiming that it was the first extrabiblical evidence that solidly supports the literal existence of Jesus. And remember, this wasn't skeptics getting excited in that way, these were scholars and archaeologists who wanted to prove his existence, not disprove it. I believe he probably did exist as a man, but the sad fact is, the vast majority of the so-called extrabiblical corroboration of Jesus is rather non-specific in its references, and is thus highly speculative.

I am not refuting the possibility that they exist, but what are the "other" sources for jesus' existence. I can't think how many times I have heard somebody tell me there are other sources, but I have never actually seen them, nor heard a direct quote, nor in fact heard an author for them. I was just interested to know whether anybody knew?

P.S. Sorry if somebody has already said/asked this, I was a bit short of time, so couldn't read the whole thread.

You might as well ask 'does Robert exist?'
Jesus was a pretty common name back then...and still is in Spain.

i believe jesus did exist but as for all the rubbish written about his life.. how stupid do the church think we are? they have been taking people for mugs for over 2000 years! People need something to believe in and for alot of people it is jesus christ and his miracles, i for one tho wont believe, until there is a second coming..!!

i believe jesus did exist but as for all the rubbish written about his life.. how stupid do the church think we are? they have been taking people for mugs for over 2000 years! People need something to believe in and for alot of people it is jesus christ and his miracles, i for one tho wont believe, until there is a second coming..!!

Do a google search for Baha'u'llah or Baha'i Faith, the second coming is here.

I believe He did. But of course, I have no way of proving it.

ummm YEAH he existed...
they are plenty of Jewish historians that talk about him and the people who followed him.. and they dont have a christian bias cause they did not think that he was the son of God. Whether he was GOD or just a crazy religious cult leader is for another argument but the fact remains that he DID exist and he DID have a following

umm other sources... yeah how about the ancient Jewish historian Josephus... around 63 AD (that is good enough to know people who knew Jesus) he was not a christian but wrote alot about it

I believe that Jesus really did exist but whether he is the son of God I'm a bit skeptical about.

Oh and another thing, how can the Bible be a record of what Jesus did when it was written so long after He died?
It was written by His disciples.

If all you christian duders went to read some Kierkegaard, internet forums would be far more peaceful.
And ditto if all of you non-Christians converted to Christianity.

It was written by His disciples.
More acurately his followers.

Jesus did exist and he was somehow involved in the religous scene. How much we dont know. Perhaps some miracle worker or a leader of a cult. The problem is that there were hundreds if not thousands of these, so no one recorded his "miracles".

Its just as based on a true story as movies are, not very much. Some characters have been added or melded together for artistic purposes. Parts have been added for clarity. etc etc.

And ditto if all of you non-Christians converted to Christianity.
lol.

And here you are acting insulted on the other thread by the atheists who are attacking christians.

You don't even know who Kierkgaard is, do you? You probably jumped to the assumption that he's an atheist and would make you guys stop believing, meanwhile, he's a christian existentialist.

umm other sources... yeah how about the ancient Jewish historian Josephus... around 63 AD (that is good enough to know people who knew Jesus) he was not a christian but wrote alot about it
The passage in Joesphus' writings regarding jesus is a 4th century forgery. They've known this for quite some time, I'm surprised you've been ignoring this "fact" for so long.

Try some more evidence, please.

1. i don't know how anyone is speculating on jesus' real name. the guesses here seem to come from roman tradition at that time (e.g. son of joseph etc.) jewish tradition is that someone is named after a loved one who has died. in fact it is an insult, wishing someone to die if you will, to name a child after someone who is living. this tradition comes from the belief that a sould can not go to the afterlife until another is named after him or her. interestingly there is no real reference in the jewish books of a said afterlife, though there are implications.

2. i think that it's a good point that if the prophesies are intereperated correctly it points to jesus as the messiah. the problem is that you really have to stretch almost all of them to make him fit. the best example i can think of at the moment is the tribal lineage. religion is passed on the mother's side and tribe on the father's. these are the only traits that can not be changed through adoption. therefore if god was jesus's father he could have no tribe. of course this can be "interperted" any number of ways, but it's always a stretch!

3. hebrew dictionaries, even secular historical ones, interperte the word as "young woman" not virgin. in fact that particular word is used numerous times in the old testament. most christian translations use "virgin" only in that one place.

4. god calls the jews his children many times. does this mean that every jew is the messiah?

It was written by His disciples.
Very little, if any, was written by his disciples. Peter, perhaps. The authorship of the four gospels is unknown and was almost arbitrarily assigned. A couple things most historians seem to agree on: Mark is at best a third-hand account because it appears to be based on the text of Matthew (or vice versa, I forget which); and the book of John was written the furthest removed from Christ, possibly during or after the sacking of Jerusalem (it simply doesn't mention the sacking because it would have borne no contextual relevance to the story it was intended to tell), and that its author was probably not alive during Christ's lifetime. Many of the books in the NT bible were written by Paul, who was not a disciple, nor did he ever meet Jesus in person (at best he had a "vision" on the road to Damascus, meaning we have only his word for it that anything he wrote is anything more than his own belief or invention). And before you ask why we shouldn't trust Paul ... well, he was a zealot, a powermonger, and a murderer - why should we trust him?

yeah how about the ancient Jewish historian Josephus... around 63 AD (that is good enough to know people who knew Jesus) he was not a christian but wrote alot about it
I wouldn't say he wrote a lot about it. He wrote one paragraph out of all his writings that makes mention of Jesus. And that paragraph is very controversal, thought by many historians (most fervently within the church itself, ironically) to have been inserted later and not by Josephus himself, because the style of the passage, differs from his other writings, and he departs from his usual fact-based narratives to interpolation. One such contested line is this: "For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth." Josephus, as you mentioned, was not himself a Christian, so the Christian message would not ring as "truth" for him, but he seems in this line to be conceding that it is truth, rather than simply relating in his usual manner that the followers of Christ considered it truth. For this and other reasons, this one and only passage of Josephus that mentions Jesus is contested to this day, even by church historians, as a possible fake or forgery. It was not written in 63 AD, by the way, because the Antiquities recount events up to 66 AD, and it was written after his history of the Jewish uprising, which ended in 73 AD and was written in 75 AD - unsure of the date the Antiquities were written, but they weren't published until 93 AD, and his works were generally published as soon as they were written.

Actually i did not know that... thank you (High school does not give much time to extra reading). Personally I dont need proof that Jesus existed (just as Muslims dont need proof that Mohammed existed or to others that the Buddha existed). I also think that it is funny that people only question religious text... the Religious text of Christianity were written in the same way that almost ALL ancient histories were written.. they were recorded based on verbal histories . Does this mean that ALL ancient documents should be called into question?? The ancient city of Troy was founded based on text that were written from oral histories (before this the city was believed to be fictional and the story criticized in much the same way as this topic)

I wouldn't say he wrote a lot about it. He wrote one paragraph out of all his writings that makes mention of Jesus. And that paragraph is very controversal, thought by many historians (most fervently within the church itself, ironically) to have been inserted later and not by Josephus himself, because the style of the passage, differs from his other writings, and he departs from his usual fact-based narratives to interpolation. One such contested line is this: "For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth." Josephus, as you mentioned, was not himself a Christian, so the Christian message would not ring as "truth" for him, but he seems in this line to be conceding that it is truth, rather than simply relating in his usual manner that the followers of Christ considered it truth. For this and other reasons, this one and only passage of Josephus that mentions Jesus is contested to this day, even by church historians, as a possible fake or forgery. It was not written in 63 AD, by the way, because the Antiquities recount events up to 66 AD, and it was written after his history of the Jewish uprising, which ended in 73 AD and was written in 75 AD - unsure of the date the Antiquities were written, but they weren't published until 93 AD, and his works were generally published as soon as they were written.

He also was mentioned as the Brother of James. or rather, vice versa.

And Josephus most certainly did not know any Christians. Devoting a single, dismissive line to Christianity seems to solidify that.

Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist than he did about Jesus.

I think a major problem is determining exactly who we're talking about. Was there an original group of disciples lead by some disenchanted pseudo-rabbi named Joshua or some derivation thereof? It's certainly possible. The real question, and I think this is considerably more problematic, is determining what, if any, resemblances this guy had with the mythical Jesus of the Bible, both in terms of mythological actions (imaculate conception, miracles, resurrection) as well as physical actions (opposition to Rome, Pharisees and Sadducees, money-changer incident, crucifixion, etc.)

I simply don't think we have enough evidence to make any conclusions. My personal suspicion is that the Jesus narrative is probably based on SOME historical occurences, but it's just a guess. For all we know, the activities and beliefs of "historical Jesus" may have had almost nothing in common with the way "mythical Jesus" has been portrayed by his followers in their literature.

He also was mentioned as the Brother of James. or rather, vice versa.
I'm not aware of his being referred to as such outside the Bible itself. If you're talking about the ossuary of James, that was recently (within the past year or two) proven to be a forgery. There were inconsistencies in the patina and script style. Also, they found the guy's attic to be full of forger's equipment. He also got caught trying to sell a forged tablet that he claimed was from the Temple of Solomon (for $4M, if I remember correctly, or it might have been $400K).

My personal suspicion is that the Jesus narrative is probably based on SOME historical occurences, but it's just a guess.
I suspect the same. I mean, the Romans did crucify people, that is well-documented, although they normally did so by tying them up rather than staking them up. Actually, if Jesus was crucified in the manner the bible describes, then it was a very merciful killing compared to the days-long suffering most crucifixion victims suffered before they suffocated from the weight of their own ribs. Some other aspects of the Jesus myth are probably based on other pre-existing myths of cultures with whom the Jews had contact, such as the Cult of Mithras. And still other aspects are simply sensationalized as the result of misinterpretation or misapplication of terms -- the virgin (almeh = young unmarried woman, not betullah = chaste woman) birth, for instance.

Any self-respecting historian will tell you that he most likely did. The only question is how accurate the story of his life is.
Yup
As far as I have been able to find out someone of that name did exist at roughly that time as for who what or how he lived his lives there is not much evidence (mostly just roman criminal records)

Yup
As far as I have been able to find out someone of that name did exist at roughly that time as for who what or how he lived his lives there is not much evidence (mostly just roman criminal records)

But one problem with this is that "Yeshua" was a very common name back then. That was one of the most absurd things about the stupid osuary box reaction- even if it hadn't been proven to be a forgery, finding "proof" that some guy named Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua once existed contributes absolutely nothing towards any questions relating to Jesus- as those three names were some of the most common of the period!!

But one problem with this is that "Yeshua" was a very common name back then. That was one of the most absurd things about the stupid osuary box reaction- even if it hadn't been proven to be a forgery, finding "proof" that some guy named Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua once existed contributes absolutely nothing towards any questions relating to Jesus- as those three names were some of the most common of the period!!
Very true

Rabbi...Joshua was it? Yes, there was a rabbi named Joshua who either was schizophrenic or actually was consciously blaspheming(sp?). The Jewish population became infuriated and called the "cops" (Romans) and he was promptly executed by crucifixion.

I now refer to him as Jesus the Traitor or The Traitor. :)

this argument will go on forever

but there is evidence that the diciples... they created churches in India, Egypt, Syria ect and all these congregations have similar stories of Christ. During the timese of the Apostles Christianity was a small persecuted sect.. i dont understand why they would have gone to such length to create this elaborate story... they only thing they got out of it was persecution and death. It only seems logical that these people belived that they knew Jesus.

But one problem with this is that "Yeshua" was a very common name back then. That was one of the most absurd things about the stupid osuary box reaction- even if it hadn't been proven to be a forgery, finding "proof" that some guy named Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua once existed contributes absolutely nothing towards any questions relating to Jesus- as those three names were some of the most common of the period!!

While I'm not going to argue for the authenticity of the box, you seem to be forgetting the significance of this: how often would anyone back in Late Judaism refer to them as a blood relative of anyone other than: Abraham, their respective blood-line (David, etc.) or father? Almost never. THAT is why it is significant.

His last name is "Of Nazereth"

Christ is basically "savior", not a name...

Sorry to bring up an old post but, if we are going to get technicall the actuall name of jesus christ was

Josuha Benjospeh, the oldest scriptures state him as Josuha and it was tradition in 1st centuary palistine to take your fathers name as your last. jospeh.
so there it is.

and yes he probally did exist allthough there are no accounts of him bar the bible. you think any of the other jewish groups would waste their time over him, and im 99% sure Jospehus the early 2nd cent jewish historian from whom we gett 80% of our knoledge of 1st centuary palestine ,dint mention him. but a lot of people are right relgiouns tend to not just come out of no where, but lets face it he was not who he was made out to be, the gospels are like a piece of work copied out 3 diffrenent times over 60 years (not counting john that ones a whole diffrent kettle of fish) and not to mention there were hundreds even thousands of gospels that dint make it into the bible, so there is no 'Historical' account of jesus life or anything so who knows what he did. but he most probally in some form did exist, but was at best a relgiously educated carpteter who was good at speaking.

jesus did exist he was relly a black judean by the name of oluorogbo and he lived in nigeria

roman chatolic church created white fake jesus to grow more money

jesus did exist he was relly a black judean by the name of oluorogbo and he lived in nigeria

roman chatolic church created white fake jesus to grow more money
How do you grow money?

I think the guy existed, I think the religion created around him is Farse. Personal reasons. Arguing them would only make everyone else pissy, I'm not going to implement my beliefs to everyone else here, only causing more arguments.


And you grow money on Magical Money Trees

RhynoD
His last name is "Of Nazereth"

Christ is basically "savior", not a name...

Uh... no.

As was just stated, his surname would have been Ben Joseph. Christ (Greek Christos) means messiah, or annointed. King David was one of the "annointed", along with Solomon, Manasseh, Josiah, etc. Soter means Savior. Big difference.

While I'm not going to argue for the authenticity of the box, you seem to be forgetting the significance of this: how often would anyone back in Late Judaism refer to them as a blood relative of anyone other than: Abraham, their respective blood-line (David, etc.) or father? Almost never. THAT is why it is significant.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. I know extremely little about what kinds of inscriptions were common on osuary boxes at this point in history, but presumably an occaison when one would point out a blood-relation to someone not one's parent would be when that relation was, to some degree, famous or notable. If the inscription had been authentic (which, it was proven, was not the case), it would have merely suggested the existence of a somewhat famous man named Joshua having existed- again, NO proof whatsoever of a connection to "the Jesus".

This line of argumentation is essentially no different from saying that finding a 200-year-old tombstone in Philadelphia of someone named "Benjamin" is "proof" that the grave belongs to Benjamin Franklin. It's ridiculous.