NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

He is the king of Poland, or so i read.

I believe that Jesus never factually and empirically existed, but I also believe that that does not matter at all.

The story or interpretation we attach to Jesus is far more important than any factual truth we may come to know about the man, if he ever existed.

I believe he is a myth, and that makes a diety powerful indeed.

so you believe because it's fiction?

so you believe because it's fiction?

Are you asking me?

I think Jesus existed, however I don't think his mama was a virgin nor do I think he was the Son of God.

If Jesus truly was the Son of that bastard then he wouldn't have been a hippie, now would he?

I think Jesus existed, however I don't think his mama was a virgin nor do I think he was the Son of God.

If Jesus truly was the Son of that bastard then he wouldn't have been a hippie, now would he?

Hey, he wasn't the son of a bastard, he was a bastard, if he existed.
I however really don't think that he existed.

Hey, he wasn't the son of a bastard, he was a bastard, if he existed.
I however really don't think that he existed.


By "bastard" I meant "hateful person". But Jesus was probably really the son of Joseph, who seems to have magically disappeared... what happened to Joseph?

By "bastard" I meant "hateful person". But Jesus was probably really the son of Joseph, who seems to have magically disappeared... what happened to Joseph?

He killed himself after he found out Mary had fucked another guy.

He killed himself after he found out Mary had fucked another guy.

Really?

Or were you being sarcasmic?

Really?

Or were you being sarcasmic?

I actuaaly don't know what happened to Joseph, because I don't know the bible by heart, I just said what could've happened to him, so no I wasn't sarcasmic.

I actuaaly don't know what happened to Joseph, because I don't know the bible by heart, I just said what could've happened to him, so no I wasn't sarcasmic.

Oh.

I think Joseph just dropped dead of some common illness. Since Jesus wasn't really divine, he couldn't save him. Meh.

Or, since he was a carpenter, he could have chopped his hand off by accident and died of blood loss... nah, too interesting.

I actuaaly don't know what happened to Joseph, because I don't know the bible by heart, I just said what could've happened to him, so no I wasn't sarcasmic.

Well he was still alive and well when Jesus was 12. Probably still hanging around for a good while (albeit probably dead before Jesus was crucified, being as he's not mentioned).

I actuaaly don't know what happened to Joseph, because I don't know the bible by heart, I just said what could've happened to him, so no I wasn't sarcasmic.

it don't say
i find the book is full of shit,one page you get told you can't do some thing and later on you find it was ok for them to do it

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

Most likely, "Jesus" is just a name that has come to be connected to a collection of cultural myths... like "King Arthur", or "Robin Hood".

I remembered reading recently in the New York Times that St. Joseph is making a comeback. I think he had a pretty good cult going in 14 & 15C according to a book called Creating the Cult of St. Joseph.

St. Joseph is mentioned only eight times in the New Testament Gospels. Prior to the late medieval period, Church doctrine rarely noticed him except in passing. But in 1555 this humble carpenter, earthly spouse of the Virgin Mary and foster father of Jesus, was made patron of the Conquest and conversion in Mexico. In 1672, King Charles II of Spain named St. Joseph patron of his kingdom, toppling St. James--traditional protector of the Iberian peninsula for over 800 years--from his honored position. Focusing on the changing manifestations of Holy Family and St. Joseph imagery in Spain and colonial Mexico from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, this book examines the genesis of a new saint's cult after centuries of obscurity. In so doing, it elucidates the role of the visual arts in creating gender discourses and deploying them in conquest, conversion, and colonization.

Well he was still alive and well when Jesus was 12. Probably still hanging around for a good while (albeit probably dead before Jesus was crucified, being as he's not mentioned).

Perhaps he was just trying to get some kudos from his sons new found fame - like those Dads that caddy at golf for their sons?

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2000-04-02.gif

I believe that a man who went by the hebrew version of the name Jesus existed. I believe he was a good man and I believe he tried to teach the people of his time a better way of living using concepts that the people of that time understand. That is everything he said had to have a frame of reference with which they could identify. There have been various ancient documents discovered which talk about this man and I am willing to accept that as adequate proof that this man predicted.

I am also aware that people tend to embelish stories of deeds done to impress the listener, or even re-interpret the story to mean what they thought it meant.

From a religious point of view (which has no basis in fact and is merely belief, my belief and only your's if you choose to believe the same so don't flame me please :) ) I believe that Jesus was likely an enlightened soul. Someone who had lived many lifetimes and achieved Nirvana and had chosen to return and try help the people of that time. After all if we are to believe the bible then the temples were corrupt and religion was being used for personal gain (that sounds oddly familiar somehow ;) )

I believe that Jesus never factually and empirically existed, but I also believe that that does not matter at all.

The story or interpretation we attach to Jesus is far more important than any factual truth we may come to know about the man, if he ever existed.

I believe he is a myth, and that makes a diety powerful indeed.

Then you should read the jewish and roman secular historians who recorded his existance with no reason to do so other than they recorded what they saw and heard much like any other historian.

That he existed is not something that's disputable. The dispute arises over his divinity and claims to be a saviour. And that's something you'll have to make your own mind up on.

Most likely, "Jesus" is just a name that has come to be connected to a collection of cultural myths... like "King Arthur", or "Robin Hood".

I find King Arthur more interesting than Jesus...

By "bastard" I meant "hateful person". But Jesus was probably really the son of Joseph, who seems to have magically disappeared... what happened to Joseph?

Jesus had two daddies.

Then you should read the jewish and roman secular historians who recorded his existance with no reason to do so other than they recorded what they saw and heard much like any other historian.

That he existed is not something that's disputable. The dispute arises over his divinity and claims to be a saviour. And that's something you'll have to make your own mind up on.

there is ZERO contemporary evidence that jesus existed or that any of the stories that would be verifiable actually happened. (as in no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents, no eclipse/earthquake when he died,)


i think that chritianity is the merging of greek polytheistic religion/philosophy with jewish monotheism/theology. its an uncomfortable hodgepodge of the ideas that were swiriling around the hellenic world in the 1st century. the human jesus is a later fabrication.

Jesus had two daddies.

And one mommy who got pregnant at 16 and claimed the conception was immaculate...... :p

http://i12.tinypic.com/4hcg2fd.jpg

And one mommy who got pregnant at 16 and claimed the conception was immaculate...... :p

well said you get :fluffle: for that

*goes back to checking will*

Jesus never existed in my opinion.

Then you should read the jewish and roman secular historians who recorded his existance with no reason to do so other than they recorded what they saw and heard much like any other historian.

That he existed is not something that's disputable. The dispute arises over his divinity and claims to be a saviour. And that's something you'll have to make your own mind up on.


Please elucidate me. If you provide a link to the disputed Josephus quote, please link to something that discusses more than one side of the debate.

I wait with bated breath.

he's probably a composite of many minor historical figures doing hippy stuff 2000 years ago in palestine.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4hcg2fd.jpg

"You said it, mon. Nobody fucks with the Jesus."

Really?

Or were you being sarcasmic?

I have no idea. Sarcastic, maybe. But sarcasmic? Unlikely (whatever it means).

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

Yes, yes, no, no.

Jesus had two daddies.

What's so weird about it?
Everyone who is adopted has two daddies: a biological one, and a social one.

there is ZERO contemporary evidence that jesus existed or that any of the stories that would be verifiable actually happened. (as in no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents, no eclipse/earthquake when he died,)


i think that chritianity is the merging of greek polytheistic religion/philosophy with jewish monotheism/theology. its an uncomfortable hodgepodge of the ideas that were swiriling around the hellenic world in the 1st century. the human jesus is a later fabrication.

*sighs*

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

*sighs*

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

Well maybe because it's fake?
Even the pope says it isn't all true what is written in the bible.
And do you belive tht someone turned water into wine, made out of nothing fishies and bread, split the sea, etc.
And one more thing: if you believe science is true (what you don't have to) than you can never believe the bible, because: it says the world is created out of nothing, but a very important law in fysics states something like this: 'the sum of energy and mass is always has alway been, and will alway be the same.'
Which means you can't create something, if you don't use mass and/or energy.

Jesus is a mythological figure, created as a marketing tool, designed to cause people to over-spend on his so-called birthday (also a marketing tool).

Jesus is a mythological figure, created as a marketing tool, designed to cause people to over-spend on his so-called birthday (also a marketing tool).

I agree, couldn't have said it better

*sighs*

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

Because none of the writers had any desire to record an accurate, biographical account?

While I don't accept the Jesus-myth theory it is still a viable position.

*sighs*

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

yes i can

in addition to RLI's post that points out that the ancients didnt DO biographies or have an attachment to what we today think of as historical truth...

3 things.

1) no assertion of truth stands on its own. if *I* write a book about ... ronald reagan...and i have no contemporary evidence (his writings, interviews with people who knew him, newspaper clippings, government documents, etc) to back it up then my book is worthless as a proof of anything i say about him.

for example, the first biography of george washington contains the story about him cutting down the cherry tree. after looking at the actual historical record, reputable historians can show that the story isnt true and that his biographer made it up whole cloth.

the bible is a starting place for the historicity of jesus. its not irrelevant but its not proof. we can look at the bible for certain mentions of people and events that can be proven by independant contemporary (meaning it has to be from the same time as the events in question) confirmation of their accuracy.

so we have the story of the nativity. virgin mother and her new husband are forced to travel from nazareth to bethlehem due to a census by the romans. they are visited by wise men from the east who followed a star to get there. king herod gets wind of it and decides to slaughter all the newborn boys. the new family flees to egypt.

details that we could never confirm: existence of mary and joseph, her virginity, their trip, their trip to egypt. those things just would not have been important enough to anyone outside of the holy family itself

details that we know are true: rome controled the holy land. there was a king herod. there was a community of jews in egypt at that time. there was a bethlehem.

details that we know are NOT true: there was no census, there were no wise men, there was no star, there was no slaughter of the innocents, king herod was dead before the story takes place, the town of nazareth had not been established yet.

outside evidence tends to disprove the factual details of the nativity story.

in the same way no one jotted down in their journal that there were great crowds of people following a guy named jesus. no mention of him by the romans, no earthquake/eclipse that would have occurred at the crucifiction. no mention of the crucifiction by the romans (not damning evidence) no one talked about a guy coming back from the dead and rejoining his followers (seems to me that that could make a bit of a splash and cause some literate person in jerusalem to mention it in his diary). no one even mentions the day that they were down by the river and a voice came from the clouds over a bunch of guys doing some unknown ceremony.

2) the new testament wasnt written by anyone who knew jesus personally. in the same way that untrue stories have sprung up about george washington over the years, there may well have been embellishments in the oral tradition of the life of jesus over the course of what had to be at least 30 years and may well have been over 100 years.

without the dogmatic assumption that the writers of the accepted gospels were controlled by god so as to be unable to write anything that wasnt completely true, there is no good reason to accept their accounts. their stories are no more reliable than my (pretend) book about ronald reagan.

3) the new testament has internal inaccuracies and contradictions. there are 2 lineages for jesus that contradict each other. one of the gospels (in dont remember which one) contains a reference to the destruction of the temple that occured 40ishyears after the death of jesus.

these things are not particularly important religiously but they show the hazards of using any ancient text as a literal hisorical source. there just wasnt a tradition in the ancient world of sticking to the facts.

there IS no evidence of jesus being an actual person.

*sighs*

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

Because the earliest Gospel was written over thirty years after Yeshua ben Yosef was said to have died, and thus is by no means a contemporary source?

total hippie.....i mean long hair, dirty, oppressed, preached about peace and love....ring any bells? however the bible doesnt mention any peace pipes but i think he had a few under his robe....

I understand that Jesus works at my local wal-mart. Nice guy, but he doesn't speak much english.

I believe all the Bible stuff about Jesus

born of a virgin
ran off at temple got lost
water into wine
healing the blind
said profound good stuff
got arrested
tried unfairly
beaten
killed
rose again in three days
said some more really profound cool stuff

you know the basic.

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?


Ask and you shall recieve;

http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/main.htm

http://www.everystudent.com/features/faith.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/sem/jesus-christ.asp?source=GOGJES&campaign=096&medium=PPC&nopop=1&WT.mc_id=GOGJES&WT.srch=1

Can you tell me why the Bible doesn't count?

Do you consider the stories about Hercules, half-god son of supreme god Zeus, to be true ? Or the stories about Odysseus and his decade long trip involving many mythical beasts ?

These are just as valid from a historical point of view as the Bible.

Do you consider the stories about Hercules, half-god son of supreme god Zeus, to be true ? Or the stories about Odysseus and his decade long trip involving many mythical beasts ?

These are just as valid from a historical point of view as the Bible.

even alexander the great, an undisputed historical figure, was reported as being the son of a god.

even alexander the great, an undisputed historical figure, was reported as being the son of a god.

Correct. However, the fact that his existence as a man at least is undisputed is because there is plenty of other evidence for his walking on earth besides the stories that proclaim him to be of divine orgins.

There is no such evidence for Jesus (or Hercules for that matter). Which does not mean that the Bible is not right, just that believing it is a matter of faith. Nothing more, nothing less.

Correct. However, the fact that his existence as a man at least is undisputed is because there is plenty of other evidence for his walking on earth besides the stories that proclaim him to be of divine orgins.

There is no such evidence for Jesus (or Hercules for that matter). Which does not mean that the Bible is not right, just that believing it is a matter of faith. Nothing more, nothing less.

exactly.

the ancients looked at these things differently than we do. the concept of it being "true" let alone "inerrant" just wasnt part of the ancient mindset.

Do you consider the stories about Hercules, half-god son of supreme god Zeus, to be true ? Or the stories about Odysseus and his decade long trip involving many mythical beasts ?

These are just as valid from a historical point of view as the Bible.

No it's not ... Zeus & Hercules are simply fictional characters ... Jesus is not.

No it's not ... Zeus & Hercules are simply fictional characters ... Jesus is not.

And you base this knowledge on... ?

And you base this knowledge on... ?


It is a fact that Jesus lived, and what knowledge do you base a real life Zeus & Hercules on. Wait I know ... Kevin Sorbo ... right :D

I believe Jesus was probably a real person and that he was just one of thousands in the history of humanity that had become enlightened (one with the present moment *the sacred*)

I believe Jesus was probably a real person and that he was just one of thousands in the history of humanity that had become enlightened (one with the present moment *the sacred*)

Well thats what free will is all about, but believing he was probably a real person won't get you to heaven

It is a fact that Jesus lived, and what knowledge do you base a real life Zeus & Hercules on. Wait I know ... Kevin Sorbo ... right :D

no one claimed that zeus and hercules were real. *I* said that alexander the great actually lived.

besides

what does zeus and hercules have to do with whether or not jesus lived? you offered no proof.

I'm certain he did exist, but if he were the son of God is something I can't say I know for sure. I personally haven't seen any evidence for it, but there are a lot of Christian writers and apologists who have done a lot of work in regard to that fact, and there are thousands of people who have had religious experiences involving Jesus as the son of God.

Well thats what free will is all about, but believing he was probably a real person won't get you to heaven

Why would I want to go to a Christian afterlife?

I'm not Christian so I get to bypass your silly planes of existence and, like a raindrop, I shall fall back into the ocean of God when I die, ceasing to be the raindrop any longer and become one with the ocean. :p :D :cool:

It is a fact that Jesus lived

How do you KNOW ?

and what knowledge do you base a real life Zeus & Hercules on.

I don't. There is no evidence they are more than stories, so I assume they are stories. Just like there is no evidence that Jesus is more than a story, so I assume the same about him.

Doesn't mean I dislike the story or that the message should not be taken seriously. Just that believing in Jesus is a matter of faith, not of historical evidence.

If, there is anybody in this forum who truley wants to know some answers then I would be happy to help. To start with he was born of Christmas Day, he died via crusifiction (along with two of his oppositions so to speak....they fought his ways and bible bashed him for more than 20 books of the bible) at the age of 33 and rose again 3 days later,

Only been a christian 4 years so dont know what happened to joseph exactly but would be happy to find out.

e-mail me with questions of comments, crazy_christian85@hotmail.com

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10111847A~Boys-are-Stupid-Underoos-Posters.jpg

To start with he was born of Christmas Day

The Bible actually disagrees with that notion according to most scholars. His birth is generally placed around march.

I'm not Christian so I get to bypass your silly planes of existence and, like a raindrop, I shall fall back into the ocean of God when I die, ceasing to be the raindrop any longer and become one with the ocean. :p :D :cool:

That would be cool. Personally, after death I'd want to retain just enough of my nature and consciousness to ask God some questions; once I have those answers, I'd be more than ready to reunite with God and become one with him.

Of course, I also wouldn't mind a few rebirths if possible...I want to see what the world looks like in 3000 AD or something like that, and I definitely want to overcome any mistakes and wrongdoing I've done here.

If, there is anybody in this forum who truley wants to know some answers then I would be happy to help. To start with he was born of Christmas Day, he died via crusifiction (along with two of his oppositions so to speak....they fought his ways and bible bashed him for more than 20 books of the bible) at the age of 33 and rose again 3 days later,

Only been a christian 4 years so dont know what happened to joseph exactly but would be happy to find out.

e-mail me with questions of comments, crazy_christian85@hotmail.com

oh darlin' i think you better study up a bit more before you offer to teach others.

That would be cool. Personally, after death I'd want to retain just enough of my nature and consciousness to ask God some questions; once I have those answers, I'd be more than ready to reunite with God and become one with him.

Of course, I also wouldn't mind a few rebirths if possible...I want to see what the world looks like in 3000 AD or something like that, and I definitely want to overcome any mistakes and wrongdoing I've done here.

i was (unfortunately) listening to sylvia brown on the montel williams show yesterday morning. she says that we get to be reincarnated a few times (if we want) and then join god in heaven when we are ready.

but then she says that we are all pretty much on our last lives because the world is coming to an end soon. some time in this century but i forget exactly when.

but then she says that we are all pretty much on our last lives because the world is coming to an end soon. some time in this century but i forget exactly when.
2012. Stupid people, misinterpreting the Mayan calendar. It stops on 2012, but that just means that it resets, not that the world ends.

If, there is anybody in this forum who truley wants to know some answers then I would be happy to help. To start with he was born of Christmas Day, he died via crusifiction (along with two of his oppositions so to speak....they fought his ways and bible bashed him for more than 20 books of the bible) at the age of 33 and rose again 3 days later,

Only been a christian 4 years so dont know what happened to joseph exactly but would be happy to find out.


Is it wrong for me to think that all the mistakes and inaccuracies in his summary are adorable?

i was (unfortunately) listening to sylvia brown on the montel williams show yesterday morning. she says that we get to be reincarnated a few times (if we want) and then join god in heaven when we are ready.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'd like. I would prefer more of something along the lines of Enlightenment rather than just going to heaven and being with God, but either way it's kind of better than being just dead.

but then she says that we are all pretty much on our last lives because the world is coming to an end soon. some time in this century but i forget exactly when.

If she says 2012, I'll know someone else doesn't understand the Mayan calendar.

If she says 2012, I'll know someone else doesn't understand the Mayan calendar.
Beat you to it.

Beat you to it.

Curses. I should've used Timewave Zero instead.

Is it wrong for me to think that all the mistakes and inaccuracies in his summary are adorable?

Nah. Though it is also saddening how many people believe with all their heart, but do not actually know what they believe in....

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?
I think that Jesus Christ was the son of God, saviour of mankind and remains the light and hope of the world.

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

I have yet to see a single proof of his existence. Broad (and false) claims aside, there is no proof outside of the Bible that this God-man ever existed, and their is no reason to beleive the accuracy of stories written 140 years after this God-man died.

2012. Stupid people, misinterpreting the Mayan calendar. It stops on 2012, but that just means that it resets, not that the world ends.

So it's like, May2k?

Okay, maybe I'm trying too hard.

2012. Stupid people, misinterpreting the Mayan calendar. It stops on 2012, but that just means that it resets, not that the world ends.

now ive gotten myself lost on "sylvia browne is a fake" websites.

sigh

did you say that because you have seen sylvia browne say it or because its THE well known date of the end of the world?

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

I think that he probably existed, but I believe that he was a normal person, whose deeds were blown out of proportion.

I believe Jesus is an above par bowler. I believe that Jesus does not care about a day of rest. I believe that Jesus would have fucked me in the ass on Saturday but may decide to do that on Wednesday instead. I believe that nobody fucks with Jesus.

Nah. Though it is also saddening how many people believe with all their heart, but do not actually know what they believe in....

It's called faith and to be honest I see it as refreshing usually. It shows that we aren't to self centered and can be humble. I will admit though it is saddening when one abuses the faith of another...

Jesus stole my apple pies... :mad:

It's called faith and to be honest I see it as refreshing usually. It shows that we aren't to self centered and can be humble. I will admit though it is saddening when one abuses the faith of another...

Oh, I *like* people that believe. To quote Pratchett: "humans need fantasies to make them human. To be where the fallen angel meets the rising ape".

I just dislike people that a. refuse to admit that what they are doing is believing or b. refuse to admit they have no f*cking clue what they believe, but nevertheless wish to convert others.

Get me an honest Christian who does not fret over things like "the historical authenticity of Jesus and other Bible parts is disputed", but just admits that and then says he Believes in Him. Get me an honest Christian who knows his faith.
Get me such a honest Christian and I'll buy him/her a beer ;)

I believe Jesus is an above par bowler. I believe that Jesus does not care about a day of rest. I believe that Jesus would have fucked me in the ass on Saturday but may decide to do that on Wednesday instead. I believe that nobody fucks with Jesus.


Are you sure you don't mean Chuck Norris...?

Jesus was a religious reformer who got a religion built around him after he died. Some of the stuff he said was very enlightened, some of it wasn't.
I put him below Buda but above Confucius.

Well maybe because it's fake?
Even the pope says it isn't all true what is written in the bible.

Dont mistake biblical criticism for doubting the truth of the Bible, and I'll wager you can't provide any evidence that the Bible is fake.

And do you belive tht someone turned water into wine, made out of nothing fishies and bread, split the sea, etc.

I believe those stories are in the Bible for a reason, not necessarily because they are factually true.

And one more thing: if you believe science is true (what you don't have to) than you can never believe the bible, because: it says the world is created out of nothing, but a very important law in fysics states something like this: 'the sum of energy and mass is always has alway been, and will alway be the same.'
Which means you can't create something, if you don't use mass and/or energy.

Again, I believe that the stories in the Bible are there for a reason, not necessarily that they are factually true. You dont have to believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible to be Christian, and you definitely dont have to to simply achnowledge that Jesus existed. Regardless, the creation story and the New Testament are entirely independent sources seperated by at least 600 odd years.

Lord I'd like to be able to say ... " Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do! ... as Jesus once said in their defense. Unforunately I believe that they know what it is they are doing ... so I must agree with Einsteinian Big-Heads when he says ...

Lord What FOOLS These Mortals Be!

I believe those stories are in the Bible for a reason, not necessarily because they are factually true.


Unfortunately unless you tell people, figurative speech in literature can (and will) be interpreted as literal by some people, even more people when it comes to religious text. I guess the disclaimer stating that got lost in translation 'ey. And what a mess it's caused.

A prophet like quite a few who walked the Holy Land at the time. He happened to have some devoted marketers who did a good job. Particularly that Paul guy earned his bonus. :p

Then things got a bit out of hand when they decided that Jesus was divine rather than a human with a good message. The fact that they had to agree on that by committee, and that this is actually public knowledge should make people wonder...

I suppose I'm closest to the Arian Christians. But they got rid of them. :(

I think that Jesus Christ was the son of God, saviour of mankind and remains the light and hope of the world.

You see thats what I don't get. How did Christianity become a global religion, and how is Jesus the light and hope of the world, when Jesus himself says that he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel.

Another thing that drives me nuts is how some racist pricks could hate on Jews and profess their love for Jesus at the same time WTF! Jesus was Jewish :headbang:
Maybe all these pictures and images of a blond/brown haired, blue eyed Jesus make them think he was Nordic or something.

You see thats what I don't get. How did Christianity become a global religion, and how is Jesus the light and hope of the world, when Jesus himself says that he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel.

Can you please tell me where the hell Jesus ever said that "he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel"?

Can you please tell me where the hell Jesus ever said that "he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel"?

Uh, the Bible. Some story about this gentile women begging Jesus for something. He keeps ignoring her. The disciples ask him to say something to her so she could leave. He (Jesus) says something along the lines of "I'm not going to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs". The lost sheep part is in the bible. Just don't know exactly where.

Uh, the Bible. Some story about this gentile women begging Jesus for something. He keeps ignoring her. The disciples ask him to say something to her so she could leave. He (Jesus) says something along the lines of "I'm not going to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs". The lost sheep part is in the bible. Just don't know exactly where.

Well find it.

You are wrong: at no point in the Bible does Jesus claim that "he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel".

Well find it.

You are wrong: at no point in the Bible does Jesus claim that "he was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel".

Okay, here you go"

I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Actually, let me give you the entire section:

15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

:cool:

Okay, here you go"

I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Actually, let me give you the entire section:

15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

:cool:

There is a subtle difference between "was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel" and "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". The latter does not imply that that was his only mission.

What is the translation?

There is a subtle difference between "was sent only to guide the lost sheep of Israel" and "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". The latter does not imply that that was his only mission.

What is the translation?

Directly from the Greek? Roughly: "But, (he) answered (and) said "sent not", "sent but unto (the) lost sheep (of) the house (of) Israel".

That would be the basic literal translation, verbatim.

"I was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" is a perfectly reasonable translation of the meaning of the Greek.

He really did say he was only 'here' for Jews... he also expressly told his followers not to minister to non-Jews.

The whole idea of a 'great commission' version was added later. The post-Crucifixion verses where a resurrected Jesus preaches ministering the whole world, were not even IN the oldest and best copies of the Gospels. (Serious bible scholars should disregard the 'great commission' verses anyway, because they are totally inconstistent with the preaching of Jesus' earthly ministry).

Directly from the Greek? Roughly: "But, (he) answered (and) said "sent not", "sent but unto (the) lost sheep (of) the house (of) Israel".

That would be the basic literal translation, verbatim.

"I was sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" is a perfectly reasonable translation of the meaning of the Greek.

He really did say he was only 'here' for Jews... he also expressly told his followers not to minister to non-Jews.

The whole idea of a 'great commission' version was added later. The post-Crucifixion verses where a resurrected Jesus preaches ministering the whole world, were not even IN the oldest and best copies of the Gospels. (Serious bible scholars should disregard the 'great commission' verses anyway, because they are totally inconstistent with the preaching of Jesus' earthly ministry).

Thank you. I knew I wasn't crazy :D

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

He existed, but he's not the son of God.

He's weird.

I don't think anyone that calls himself a historian actually thinks that Jesus wasn't a real person. There's a great deal of evidence pointing to his existence, not only in "sacred" texts but secular historical records.

His ideas about how people should treat each other are far from entirely original, but in a world politically dominated by Rome and religiously dominated by very conservative Jews, what he preached was pretty radical.

Especially that "Son of God" bit. That's pretty radical.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Something interesting to think about, at any rate.

I don't think anyone that calls himself a historian actually thinks that Jesus wasn't a real person. There's a great deal of evidence pointing to his existence, not only in "sacred" texts but secular historical records.

His ideas about how people should treat each other are far from entirely original, but in a world politically dominated by Rome and religiously dominated by very conservative Jews, what he preached was pretty radical.

Especially that "Son of God" bit. That's pretty radical.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Something interesting to think about, at any rate.

no really there is NO non biblical evidence of the existence of jesus. none. zero. nothing.

not that that means much religiously, its just true.

i find lewis' attitude sad. so without the force of god behind him, jesus is worthless and his message meaningless. great, mythical lunatic it is then.

no really there is NO non biblical evidence of the existence of jesus. none. zero. nothing.

not that that means much religiously, its just true.

i find lewis' attitude sad. so without the force of god behind him, jesus is worthless and his message meaningless. great, mythical lunatic it is then.

No, you're wrong. Not to be offensive, but you are. Historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger all make reference to his existence as an actual person.

And according to Lewis' view, yes, pretty much. Not that NO value could be taken from his teachings, but it's hard to take much from the ravings of a lunatic.

And I'm out for now. Have fun debating, if you're going to do that, and if not, have a merry Christmas. :)

no really there is NO non biblical evidence of the existence of jesus. none. zero. nothing.

not that that means much religiously, its just true.

i find lewis' attitude sad. so without the force of god behind him, jesus is worthless and his message meaningless. great, mythical lunatic it is then.


Jesus is the Son of God period ... deal with it. He is far from worthless and his message is the only thing that is worth while in an otherwise evil world!

No, you're wrong. Not to be offensive, but you are. Historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger all make reference to his existence as an actual person.

No, they do not. Read them. They reference the existence of Christians, they reference the existence of multiple people bearing the common title Christ, they reference that Christians say a man called Jesus was crucified - but not that the miracle worker Jesus Christ actually existed.

Where most people go wrong is thinking that because the terms "Jesus", "Christ" and "crucifxion" nowadays all refer to the same person, the same must be true in a time where they were all common.

I don't think anyone that calls himself a historian actually thinks that Jesus wasn't a real person. There's a great deal of evidence pointing to his existence, not only in "sacred" texts but secular historical records.

His ideas about how people should treat each other are far from entirely original, but in a world politically dominated by Rome and religiously dominated by very conservative Jews, what he preached was pretty radical.

Especially that "Son of God" bit. That's pretty radical.


No - you're wrong. Many people who 'call themselves historians' have disputed the actual literal existence of the Jesus of the Bible, just as they have the actual literal existence of King Arthur and Robin Hood.

That doesn't mean any of those stories are entirely fictitious, since the Arthurian story and the Robin of the Hood stories are both accretions of myth - the Arthur story dating back to pre-Christian England.

It also, however, doesn't mean that any of the stories are entirely true... or even based on a strong factual basis.


C.S. Lewis wrote:

"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Something interesting to think about, at any rate.

C.S. Lewis was also wrong. There is little evidence to suggest any real existence of Jesus as defined in the Bible - indeed, such a story is only supported by the New Testament.

But, that is not the only way in which Lewis was wrong - it simply is not a binary choice - maybe Jesus did exist, but his words have been recorded incorrectly? Maybe Jesus did exist, but what we have recorded is the collection of hundreds of little stories about different 'messiahs' (the area was rife with them, at that point). Maybe Jesus did exist, but had been convinced he was something he was not (after all, he was just a 'baptiser' until he met John the Baptist)?

Lewis is wrong - and blinkered. He had already decided that the Jesus story MUST be entirely true, and his ability to evaluate the evidence rationally was affected by that.

No, you're wrong. Not to be offensive, but you are. Historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger all make reference to his existence as an actual person.

And according to Lewis' view, yes, pretty much. Not that NO value could be taken from his teachings, but it's hard to take much from the ravings of a lunatic.

No, you are wrong.

I don't care if you find it offensive, though... you shouldn't wander around claiming to be an expert if you can't take criticism.

If you have actually studied the works of Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus... you'll have noticed one or two things.

First - the parts of Josephus that discuss Jesus are commonly accepted as fakes, added at a later date. They are stylistically different from the surrounding passages, are 'theologically' different from the surrounding passages, and simply do not fit with the flow of the text.

They are as disjointed as someone writing an incongruous word right in the octopus middle of a sentence - it really is that noticable.


The second thing you should have noticed, is there are NO contemporary claims about Jesus. Even the Gospels were written decades after the fact. And the Gospels, while fairly contemporary, are certainly not independent sources - they are allegedly written by Jesus' own followers, after all.

And, when one finally finds 'indpendent' sources (like Jospehus, if he was not faked - or Tacitus), one finds that they are FAR from contemporary.


The other thing you should have noticed - the 'independent' accounts talk about 'Christians', they talk about a movement of people that follow someone being called 'christ' - they don't support the mythical content of the Bible.

Jesus is the Son of God period ... deal with it.


I defend your right to say it, but I do not accept it as true.

There is no better evidence that Jesus was the 'son of god' than that Allah is God, or that the Buddha existed. All religions are equally 'true', in as much as they can be proved.

So - maybe you are right, maybe you are not. None of us can ever really say for absolutely certain, in this life.

In stating it as a 'fact', you are just plain wrong. Deal with it.


He is far from worthless and his message is the only thing that is worth while in an otherwise evil world!

I can only sympathise with your worldview.

I believe that he did exist, but his awesomeness was false. Because the monologues and books written in his time were of a language more ancient than Latin, the hundreds of translations most certainly could have been altered. Also, similes, metaphors, and typical sayings that made sense to them would of course be taken literally in our translations. Therefore, we would become confused in which phrases were literal or creative. So his existence can be arguable, but his godliness is easily false. I believe he was just a very influential person that started his religion.
Or everyone was high at the time of Jesus Christ, believe what you wish.

What do you believe about Jesus? Was he the son of god? Did he exist? Was he just a hippy? Was he just a loony?

Which Jesus? There's lots of Jesuses. Some Mexican, some Jewish, some bearded, some loonies, even one the son of Cod, but which one was the son of God?

Jesus is the Son of God period ... deal with it. He is far from worthless and his message is the only thing that is worth while in an otherwise evil world!

oh i didnt mean to say that i thought he or his message was worthless, just that if thats the choice that lewis gives me, im stuck with raving lunatic.

i dont have a problem with you accepting jesus as your personal lord and savior. YOU shouldnt have a problem with the historical record not backing you up on that.

i dont have a problem with you accepting jesus as your personal lord and savior. YOU shouldnt have a problem with the historical record not backing you up on that.

But strangely enough many christians do. Very strange in fact.
Their belief in God is based on faith. Their belief in the Bible is based on faith. Their belief in Gods goodness is based on faith. Faith, belief, faith, belief. All fine and dandy.

But state that believing in Jesus existence is also a matter of faith - and they get upset.

No, you're wrong. Not to be offensive, but you are. Historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger all make reference to his existence as an actual person.


if i were wrong saying so would not be offensive. even if i am right, its not offensive to suggest that i am wrong.

gravenidle covered the problems with the writers you mention and you might want to take a look at them and the scholarship surrounding them. you should understand right off that none of them wrote one word about jesus anywhere near the time he would have lived. none of them met him. none of them met anyone who met him. its all 3rd and 4th hand information at best.

interestingly, the earlier the christian writing-- the gospel of thomas, the epistles of paul--the less information is given about jesus the man. paul never uses any of the sayings or parables of jesus to instruct his christian communities. he never talks about what he did on his earthly mission outside of the crucifiction. those things that WE think of as the centerpiece of jesus' life on earth are completely missing.

odd.

But strangely enough many christians do. Very strange in fact.
Their belief in God is based on faith. Their belief in the Bible is based on faith. Their belief in Gods goodness is based on faith. Faith, belief, faith, belief. All fine and dandy.

But state that believing in Jesus existence is also a matter of faith - and they get upset.

too many christians hang their faith on the bible being literally correct in all aspects. if it has to be inerrant, then their faith is baseless. so they deny real world fact instead of realizing that the bible was never meant to be taken word for word as true.

too many christians hang their faith on the bible being literally correct in all aspects. if it has to be inerrant, then their faith is baseless. so they deny real world fact instead of realizing that the bible was never meant to be taken word for word as true.

But the historicity of Jesus is merely a matter of absence of evidence - not one of evidence of absence. There is no actual evidence that he really existed, but no serious historian denies the possibility. It is not like how scientific findings disagree with Genesis for instance.

So why is it so hard for some Christians to just say "I choose to believe in Jesus" ?

But the historicity of Jesus is merely a matter of absence of evidence - not one of evidence of absence. There is no actual evidence that he really existed, but no serious historian denies the possibility. It is not like how scientific findings disagree with Genesis for instance.

So why is it so hard for some Christians to just say "I choose to believe in Jesus" ?

exactly. as i said in an earlier post, the lack of contemporary confirmation means nothing religiously. its just true. if your faith is based on outside confirmation of christian truths, you are going to end up an atheist.

Or a evangelical nutso, after the strain breaks your brain.

I think he was real and that he was also a prophet of God. I don't think he was the son of God and that his message(which was great) has been distorted somewhat.

[should be noted there is proof prophet Mohammed(pbuh) existed, unlike Jesus/]

But the historicity of Jesus is merely a matter of absence of evidence - not one of evidence of absence. There is no actual evidence that he really existed, but no serious historian denies the possibility. It is not like how scientific findings disagree with Genesis for instance.

So why is it so hard for some Christians to just say "I choose to believe in Jesus" ?

Again, this is just untrue. "No serious historian denies the possibility"... of what?

That there might have been someone called Jesus? (Or Joshua, or Yeshua) No one denies that possibility, obviously.

That there were 'messianics'? There were many of them... dozens, even - just around that time. We have to suspect most, if not all, of those claims were false.

That there was a 'messianic' called Jesus? Again - we are stretching it a bit, because there is no independent verification - but still, the possibility exists.


But - to say that there was a literal 'Jesus' that the Bible stories correspond to in a factual historical way? The extraordinary nature of the claims made by the text, calls for extraordinary evidence - and it just isn't present. Indeed, just ordinary evidence isn't present, except in one non-contemporary, non-independent set of sources.

For the Bible to be literally true, would require 'miraculous' evidence. And the thing about miracles is, they are impossible - that is what makes them 'miracles'... the 'impossible' being 'possible'.

In absence of extraordinary evidence to support the historicity of the New Testament accounts, no serious historian should accept the idea of a literal, biblical Jesus as 'possible'.

If Jesus did not exist, how does one explain the evidence to the contrary?

Again, this is just untrue. "No serious historian denies the possibility"... of what?

Of a man named Jesus, called Christ by his followers, born out of Mary and raised by Josef, being crucified by the Romans.

We are not talking about the magical powers here - just about the actual existence of the man. A surprising amount of Christians can live with others stating "I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, but he was a good man" - but not with "there is no evidence Jesus even existed".

If Jesus did not exist, how does one explain the evidence to the contrary?

Like... ?

If Jesus did not exist, how does one explain the evidence to the contrary?

what evidence would that be?

Of a man named Jesus, called Christ by his followers, born out of Mary and raised by Josef, being crucified by the Romans.

We are not talking about the magical powers here - just about the actual existence of the man. A surprising amount of Christians can live with others stating "I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, but he was a good man" - but not with "there is no evidence Jesus even existed".


and THAT man, the one who was just an itinerant street preacher in jerusalem who had a couple of really good preaching days that generated large crowds, THAT man could easily have not made enough of a splash to get anyone but his most devoted followers to notice him.

it would be amazing if THAT man was ever written about by someone important enough that his writing still exists today. why would anyone waste precious parchment and ink to write about someone like that?

and THAT man, the one who was just an itinerant street preacher in jerusalem who had a couple of really good preaching days that generated large crowds, THAT man could easily have not made enough of a splash to get anyone but his most devoted followers to notice him.

it would be amazing if THAT man was ever written about by someone important enough that his writing still exists today. why would anyone waste precious parchment and ink to write about someone like that?

Exactly. No evidence that he actually existed, but that doesn't mean he didn't. Believing he did is therefor a matter of faith.

Now why can some believers not accept that ? When did "faith" become a dirty word ?

Faith's a dirty word because it is so often equated with blind faith, and those giving much evidence of it on these forums and in many other media are usually labelled as bigots and fanatics without opinions that really matter.

I don't have the quote, but someone claimed that I was "wandering around, thinking I'm an expert." I don't think I'm an expert by any means, but I do consider myself a thinker and someone who doesn't just accept whatever's spoon-fed to them by whatever source that may be, even one's own mind.

That being said, what I thought was a pretty sound argument against the "no evidence" claim has been called into question. So, I'll go and see what I can find of Josephus and the others outside of my own knowledge and cite some sources - unlike anyone here, myself included, has been doing.

And fair enough point about Lewis' thinking being too black-and-white. There are shades of grey, especially if the validity of the Bible is called into dispute - which it nearly always is. I certainly would have to stretch to believe that a modern, English translation is a precise representation of the original texts, and I'm relying on people long-dead to determine whether those texts were even valid in the first place.

Unfortunately, the problem with Jesus is a problem shared with nearly all historical figures. If there isn't a solid governmental procedure in place and extensive, unalterable records, there is room for error. Jesus, according to the records that DO exist, didn't live very long, only made a significant "splash" in his lifetime in the very latter years, and certainly never ruled a country, even one as small as Judea. The fact that pre-Constantinean records exist at all is a marvel to me.

Anyways, breakfast and research calls. I'll see what I can find.

Of a man named Jesus, called Christ by his followers, born out of Mary and raised by Josef, being crucified by the Romans.

We are not talking about the magical powers here - just about the actual existence of the man. A surprising amount of Christians can live with others stating "I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, but he was a good man" - but not with "there is no evidence Jesus even existed".



You are missing the point - no one denies that the Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua name was fairly common in that era. No one claims that there were no 'messianic' figures.

That's almost the problem - there were a lot of people called Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua... and there were a lot of people claimed as messianic figures.

So - what specifies the one 'Jesus' that we are debating? Well, family for one - but there is basically no independent evidence of Jesus' family relations. So - what else do we have? The mystical stuff? None of that is supported outside of the biblical accounts.

There is no sufficient grounds to believe that the New Testament is describing just one, specific man - much less that it is an accurate history.

Faith's a dirty word because it is so often equated with blind faith, and those giving much evidence of it on these forums and in many other media are usually labelled as bigots and fanatics without opinions that really matter.

I don't have the quote, but someone claimed that I was "wandering around, thinking I'm an expert." I don't think I'm an expert by any means, but I do consider myself a thinker and someone who doesn't just accept whatever's spoon-fed to them by whatever source that may be, even one's own mind.

That being said, what I thought was a pretty sound argument against the "no evidence" claim has been called into question. So, I'll go and see what I can find of Josephus and the others outside of my own knowledge and cite some sources - unlike anyone here, myself included, has been doing.

And fair enough point about Lewis' thinking being too black-and-white. There are shades of grey, especially if the validity of the Bible is called into dispute - which it nearly always is. I certainly would have to stretch to believe that a modern, English translation is a precise representation of the original texts, and I'm relying on people long-dead to determine whether those texts were even valid in the first place.

Unfortunately, the problem with Jesus is a problem shared with nearly all historical figures. If there isn't a solid governmental procedure in place and extensive, unalterable records, there is room for error. Jesus, according to the records that DO exist, didn't live very long, only made a significant "splash" in his lifetime in the very latter years, and certainly never ruled a country, even one as small as Judea. The fact that pre-Constantinean records exist at all is a marvel to me.

Anyways, breakfast and research calls. I'll see what I can find.

But, unlike other figures, ALL of the 'contemporary' evidence for this 'Jesus', was written by his acolytes - the source would be VERY qestionable, even if it were assumed to be describing a real man, simply because of how biased our source is.

If one looks at a figure like Julius Caesar, there is a lot of evidence, at the time he lived. Not written a hundred years later. Not ALL written by his friends.

So - in terms of evidence, we are on much more comfortable grounds talking about the living Julius, than we are talking about the living 'Jesus'.

Is it surprising that any evidence survives at all? In a way - since cultures seem to have an almost universal prediliction for destroying the words and images of veryone else... but there are other scriptures and documents from that very same area that are at least the same age, or much older - surviving Jewish texts, surviving Buddhist texts, Mithraic texts, etc.

Dont mistake biblical criticism for doubting the truth of the Bible, and I'll wager you can't provide any evidence that the Bible is fake.



I believe those stories are in the Bible for a reason, not necessarily because they are factually true.



Again, I believe that the stories in the Bible are there for a reason, not necessarily that they are factually true. You dont have to believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible to be Christian, and you definitely dont have to to simply achnowledge that Jesus existed. Regardless, the creation story and the New Testament are entirely independent sources seperated by at least 600 odd years.

You're somewhat right: I thought when we were talking about Jesus it would be the Jesus from the bible, which seams most logic to me, I don't know any other Jesus's.
And there are some christian cults who do believe every word, everything that has happened in the bible, so these people have to deny science, right?

A guy named Jesus Hernandez used to live next door to me. He was my age but pretty gangsta. He was a really nice older brother though.

You're somewhat right: I thought when we were talking about Jesus it would be the Jesus from the bible, which seams most logic to me, I don't know any other Jesus's.

Which one ? The Bible mentions several people bearing that name (Jesus from Nazareth was even named after one of them).

I think Jesus existed, however I don't think his mama was a virgin nor do I think he was the Son of God.

If Jesus truly was the Son of that bastard then he wouldn't have been a hippie, now would he?

Well, the atheism that was prevelant among the hippies was just a rejection of the theocentric conservative culture that drove the Vietnam war machine. If society ties God to something so evil then the most Christ like people are likely to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

If any of those hippies were actually able to talk to God as Jesus is reported to have done, then they'd probably have been a bit more careful about what parts of Conservative Culture deserved their scorn.

Well, the atheism that was prevelant among the hippies was just a rejection of the theocentric conservative culture that drove the Vietnam war machine. If society ties God to something so evil then the most Christ like people are likely to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

If any of those hippies were actually able to talk to God as Jesus is reported to have done, then they'd probably have been a bit more careful about what parts of Conservative Culture deserved their scorn.

Probably not. After all, Jesus wasn't above a little divine wrath, either.