NationStates Jolt Archive

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Did Enkidu?

Did Enkidu?

who? [/Fass impression]

I think he means it doesn't matter.

Frankly my life isnt affected one iota one way or the other if he lived or not. So. Who. really. cares.

Possibly. There however is no reliable evidence for him existing as a person, let alone as a magical being.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Probably. No.

:)

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

This will be all speculation, and the Christians will say he did. Now my opinion. I don't think he existed, and he is a myth more than anything. He's only one of many, many, many myths that have existed over time, and one of the ones that many believe to be the truth. The purpose of Jesus is to show people how to live in the eyes of "God".

Did Enkidu?

To be honest: probably.

There was, almost certainly, someone in the far reaches of history who lived in that region at around the time those events were believed to have occurred that was named Enkidu, and that did enough stuff so that people remembered him and wrote about him. Were these accounts warped over time to give Enkidu mythical properties? Almost certainly.

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

Can you show this evidence ? I mean, historians and archeologists have been sofar unable to find it so it could make you very famous.

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist.

Bullshit.

To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

Even more bullshit. Say, do you stage corridas?

who? [/Fass impression]

You don't know who Enkidu is? *shakes head*

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

probably not. yes.

well we still have leprosy...

well we still have leprosy...

Which I can cure you of. So, worship me, dammit!

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.You are sadly deluded.:( There was many historians living around that time in and around that area, but not one of them has any writings of Jesus actually existing, except one that has been proved to be a fraud.

well we still have leprosy...

I don't.. You should see a doctor about that..

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

OK, where is it?

well we still have leprosy...

No, no, it's call Hansen's Disease now.

Which I can cure you of. So, worship me, dammit!

*bows head in prayer to Fass*

It is extremely likely that someone named Iesus, possibly of the town of Nazareth in Judea, did exist, and preach, in Jerusalem some forty or so years before the Judean Rebellion.

We know virtually nothing about this person other then what was written down sometime after his death, ranging from a few years to several centuries, and those writings are variously in some areas obviously incorrect, or contradictory, or both.

It is extremely likely that someone named Iesus, possibly of the town of Nazareth in Judea, did exist, and preach, in Jerusalem some forty or so years before the Judean Rebellion.

Why ? Seriously.

Why ? Seriously.

Because Yeshua was actually a pretty common name around that time period.

He did exist. And on a spiritual note still does.
Yet this forum pursues the historical Jesus and so I'll say a little on that:

We have Four Gospels + the Non-Canonical Gospels, all of which confirm the existence of Jesus. Then we have Paul's epistles and the literature of the Early Church. The Talmud (the Jewish Holy Book NOT Christian) pays reference to him as does the Qu'ran which acknowledges Jesus' existence, albeit as prophet not Messiah. Then we have snapshots from Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny, Celsus, Thallan, Lucian.

Hope that helps. There is archaelogical evidence too but I'm slightly more ignorant on that side of things so I shan't pretend to know what I don't.

It is extremely likely that someone named Iesus, possibly of the town of Nazareth in Judea, did exist, and preach, in Jerusalem some forty or so years before the Judean Rebellion.

We know virtually nothing about this person other then what was written down sometime after his death, ranging from a few years to several centuries, and those writings are variously in some areas obviously incorrect, or contradictory, or both.

its quite possible that the town of nazareth didnt exist in 4 bc.

You don't know who Enkidu is? *shakes head*
of course I do. I just was trying to be cute.

He did exist. And on a spiritual note still does.
Yet this forum pursues the historical Jesus and so I'll say a little on that:

We have Four Gospels + the Non-Canonical Gospels, all of which confirm the existence of Jesus. Then we have Paul's epistles and the literature of the Early Church. The Talmud (the Jewish Holy Book NOT Christian) pays reference to him as does the Qu'ran which acknowledges Jesus' existence, albeit as prophet not Messiah. Then we have snapshots from Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny, Celsus, Thallan, Lucian.

None of that is proof; and by the way, the Talmud makes no reference to Jesus

Hope that helps. There is archaelogical evidence too but I'm slightly more ignorant on that side of things so I shan't pretend to know what I don't.

None that I've ever seen

He did exist. And on a spiritual note still does.
Yet this forum pursues the historical Jesus and so I'll say a little on that:

We have Four Gospels + the Non-Canonical Gospels, all of which confirm the existence of Jesus. Then we have Paul's epistles and the literature of the Early Church. The Talmud (the Jewish Holy Book NOT Christian) pays reference to him as does the Qu'ran which acknowledges Jesus' existence, albeit as prophet not Messiah. Then we have snapshots from Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny, Celsus, Thallan, Lucian.

Hope that helps. There is archaelogical evidence too but I'm slightly more ignorant on that side of things so I shan't pretend to know what I don't.


to pull out one piece...

the epistles of paul prove nothing about the historical jesus. paul wasnt much concerned with that aspect of christ and didnt discuss details beyond things like he was the son of god and he died by crucifiction.

The only difference is, why would people think that he would not exist? i am a Christian, and say that he did and does exist, however, I will respect the positons that people have regarding the issue of the miracles and whethere he exists today. But to say that he did not exist at all is contradictiory to proven evidence.

Of course christ did exist!

The only difference is, why would people think that he would not exist? i am a Christian, and say that he did and does exist, however, I will respect the positons that people have regarding the issue of the miracles and whethere he exists today. But to say that he did not exist at all is contradictiory to proven evidence.

What evidence?

The only difference is, why would people think that he would not exist? i am a Christian, and say that he did and does exist, however, I will respect the positons that people have regarding the issue of the miracles and whethere he exists today. But to say that he did not exist at all is contradictiory to proven evidence.

now is the time to bring forth this proven evidence.

what actual proof is there that jesus existed?

A bunch of you have said that Archaeologists can't prove Jesus existed. Well, fundamentally that is true, as Archaeologists cannot prove - there are to many alternate histories to consider to eliminate all but one. I should know. I am doing a degree in Archaeology.

Archaeology however STRONGLY SUGGESTS that Jesus did exist. There have been several archaeological finds that point to that including most famously (and unfortunately also one of the most controversial evidences) the James Ossuary. This one may be dubious, but there is strong evidence for a human Jesus at least. If you want a good insight into a Human Jesus read "Jesus the Man" by Dr. Barbra Thiering. It explains, sensibly and logically, a historical basis for each "miracle" with out too much complication. In fact the whole divinity thing is narrowed down to one thing - incompatable language forms that after several translations, turn vernacular phrases into literal interpretations. Sounds complex perhaps, but the book is streight forward.

As for historians, its not my area, but THE historian of the time, to be trusted above almost all other evidence was Josephus, who lived at the time and wrote about "James, brother of Jesus (or Jeshua in Jewish) who is called Christ". To my knowledge he has not been refuted on any point.

The important lessons that can be derived from the Bible are equally valid regardless of the veracity of the historical Jesus.

In other words, it doesn't matter. I do not believe that Jesus existed in a historical and factual sense, but I still believe that Jesus exists on a mythological level, which is far more important. Many Christians view Jesus as a paragon of virtue, and this translates into real behaviour as they apply such a role model to their own lives. It is the mythological Jesus of the Gospels that asks us to love our neighnour as if they were God, and to love God with all our heart. The message of the historical Jesus, if it existed at all, is relatively unimportant in comparison.

None of that is proof; and by the way, the Talmud makes no reference to Jesus

We are looking for evidence here, not proof. You can't prove anything, except with logical argument; i.e philosophical argument; and even that has holes in it.
The best we can do is examine the EVIDENCE we have, and not LACK of evidence to form whatever picture we can about this historical figure, Jesus, whoever he claimed to be.

The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"

Yes, admittedly this is hanging and not crucifixtion, but as concurs with the gospels, this is at the time of the Passover.
The account does not offer you your concrete proof, but it gives you a glimpse, some sort of evidence.

None of that is proof; and by the way, the Talmud makes no reference to Jesus

None that I've ever seen

Beg pardon, but what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that Jesus actually lived in Roman palestine about two millennia ago? Not to convince you of the miracles and the like, just the existence of?

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;13308355]It is extremely likely that someone named Iesus, possibly of the town of Nazareth in Judea, did exist, and preach, in Jerusalem some forty or so years before the Judean Rebellion.


hahahahaha!:eek:

you made a spelling mistake!:headbang:

(or it is meant to say that);)

anyway, jesus did exist but the fact of him being a divine being is completely illogical. stop being christian (a load of rubbish) and become buddhist! he definitely did exist and in his religion no divine beings.:D

i love smilies!:rolleyes::cool::eek::upyours::fluffle::(

Beg pardon, but what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that Jesus actually lived in Roman palestine about two millennia ago? Not to convince you of the miracles and the like, just the existence of?

Finding his remains, and confirming that they did indeed belong to a Jesus of Nazareth would be a start

A contemporary historian mentioning him ? That would do it.
Ignoring him for a few hundred years and then suddenly writing down all kinds of details about his life and personal thoughts, as well as mentioning that several diciples died to spread his word which sofar nobodyhad noticed just seems so... suspect.

this would help to

Beg pardon, but what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that Jesus actually lived in Roman palestine about two millennia ago? Not to convince you of the miracles and the like, just the existence of?

A contemporary historian mentioning him ? That would do it.
Ignoring him for a few hundred years and then suddenly writing down all kinds of details about his life and personal thoughts, as well as mentioning that several diciples died to spread his word which sofar nobodyhad noticed just seems so... suspect.

Beg pardon, but what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that Jesus actually lived in Roman palestine about two millennia ago? Not to convince you of the miracles and the like, just the existence of?

Well, I for one, would maybe like some links to articles detailing what archeological evidence is rather than statements saying that there is evidence somewhere.. to start with at least because I'm not going looking for it.

<snip> anyway, jesus did exist <SNIP>

Proof?

i love smilies!:rolleyes::cool::eek::upyours::fluffle::(

Please don't.

Proof?

well, this is where it gets tricky........all the photographs and papers and such were destroyed in Nero's fire.

Whilst I was replying earlier there was an influx of stuff that needs further replies:

Nazareth DID NOT EXIST back then. refer to book mentioneed before. Classic case of mistranslation. The bible (originally) said nothing about Nazareth. it said he was a Nazarene. Completely diferent. Nazarene was a type of Jew, a specific denomination, like Catholic or Methodist. It was a group that deliberately wore their hair long to give them spiritual strength. Samson is a good example. Some books in the Torah (first 5 books of Old Testament mention Nazarenes. I'm pretty sure either Moses or Joshua was one.

The Talmud makes no reference to Jesus BUT Jews accept he did exist.

Finally, to mirror Robbopolis, what evidence do you want/ We have given Historical AND archaeological. What else can we give? Video tape evidence? Fingerprints?

Dyakovo, stop demanding proof.
You can not prove anything.
Even if a contemporary historian, (and I've listed several) made reference to him, then that is not proof. Even if he appeared to you now in your living room, that is not proof. This is all evidence. I deplore your use of the word, proof.

If you want proof, go back to Maths.

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"

Yes, admittedly this is hanging and not crucifixtion, but as concurs with the gospels, this is at the time of the Passover.
The account does not offer you your concrete proof, but it gives you a glimpse, some sort of evidence.

So the the fact the someone with the same given name was hanged around the time he was supposed to have been crucified is evidence that he really existed?

Because Yeshua was actually a pretty common name around that time period.

True that. Conceded.

First off I have never heard of Enkidu in my entire life. Maybe he has something to do with the flying plate of spaghetti, I don't know.:confused:

Second, I do believe he did exist, I don't believe he was the son of God, whom I also think exists, and nothing you can say or do will convince me otherwise. That's what it means to have faith, to believe in something for which there is no proof.;)

We are looking for evidence here, not proof. You can't prove anything, except with logical argument; i.e philosophical argument; and even that has holes in it.
The best we can do is examine the EVIDENCE we have, and not LACK of evidence to form whatever picture we can about this historical figure, Jesus, whoever he claimed to be.

The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"

Yes, admittedly this is hanging and not crucifixtion, but as concurs with the gospels, this is at the time of the Passover.
The account does not offer you your concrete proof, but it gives you a glimpse, some sort of evidence.

all you have is a dead yeshu. the rest doesnt match up with the gospels.

thats not particularly convincing.

Dyakovo, stop demanding proof.
You can not prove anything.
Even if a contemporary historian, (and I've listed several) made reference to him, then that is not proof. Even if he appeared to you now in your living room, that is not proof. This is all evidence. I deplore your use of the word, proof.

If you want proof, go back to Maths.

Fine, evidence then
now go away puppet

well, this is where it gets tricky........all the photographs and papers and such were destroyed in Nero's fire.

:eek:
:D

Why ? Seriously.

Religions don't spring up out of nothing. Jerusalem in the time period we're talking about was rife with messianicism and strange cults; it was a hotbed of religious exuberance. The fact that this cult, out of the many that existed at the time, should survive, argues for a shared set of core values (whatever those values actually were) among multiple dogmatists, which in turn suggests the likelihood that their chosen messiah-figure was, or at least they believed was, a real figure.

Now, we have no records of the crucifixion - the records of that time and place were lost, probably in the Judean Revolt. But records of Christianity (as opposed to Iesus) exist in the Roman records as early as 25 AD, before the Revolt. At that time, the Romans COULD have confirmed or denied the existence and death by judicial crucifixion of one Iesus of Nazreth - the Romans kept detailed records of such things, only fragments of which have survived the intervening millenia. Given the Roman antipathy towards the new cult (based on their refusal to sacrifice to Jupiter Imperator, patron god of Rome), it would be reasonable to expect them to have released any records denouncing Iesus' existence - an action they apparently did not take.

It's not certainty, but I think it is a good argument for probability.

Ashmoria

its quite possible that the town of nazareth didnt exist in 4 bc.

Nazareth, the town, IS named in the Roman Records and by Josephus. Archaeological research shows occupation of the location of modern Nazareth for a minimum of three thousand years.

Finally, to mirror Robbopolis, what evidence do you want/ We have given Historical AND archaeological. What else can we give? Video tape evidence? Fingerprints?

You could point us to this proof.. that is, unless the burden is too much..

Finally, to mirror Robbopolis, what evidence do you want/ We have given Historical AND archaeological. What else can we give? Video tape evidence? Fingerprints?

Show me the supposed historical evidence.
Show me the Archaeological evidence.

You say it exists, but cannot provide it

Religions don't spring up out of nothing.

Bold claim ;) But there is no reason to assume that the source of this religion was Jesus. A gifted storyteller can achieve much more.

First off I have never heard of Enkidu in my entire life. Maybe he has something to do with the flying plate of spaghetti, I don't know.:confused:

Second, I do believe he did exist, I don't believe he was the son of God, whom I also think exists, and nothing you can say or do will convince me otherwise. That's what it means to have faith, to believe in something for which there is no proof.;)

Yay, attack of the puppets :D

So the the fact the someone with the same given name was hanged around the time he was supposed to have been crucified is evidence that he really existed?

Certainly. Yet to rely on it solely would be silly.

I do not know how popular a name Yeshua was, but let us think realistically how many people would have been hanged on that one night for 'black magic'? The Gospels tell of Jesus' miracles. You might want to call them illusions, or magicians tricks. Either way, such things were uncommon.

Religions don't spring up out of nothing.
<snip>

Yes they do

Scientology anyone?

I do not know how popular a name Yeshua was, but let us think realistically how many people would have been hanged on that one night for 'black magic'? The Gospels tell of Jesus' miracles. You might want to call them illusions, or magicians tricks. Either way, such things were uncommon.

Claiming your father was a god was uncommon in Rome ?

Certainly. Yet to rely on it solely would be silly.

I do not know how popular a name Yeshua was, but let us think realistically how many people would have been hanged on that one night for 'black magic'? The Gospels tell of Jesus' miracles. You might want to call them illusions, or magicians tricks. Either way, such things were uncommon.

No its not the circumstances are different, one was hanged, one was crucified
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

Which Jesus is this? Jones?

Whilst I was replying earlier there was an influx of stuff that needs further replies:

Nazareth DID NOT EXIST back then. refer to book mentioneed before. Classic case of mistranslation. The bible (originally) said nothing about Nazareth. it said he was a Nazarene. Completely diferent. Nazarene was a type of Jew, a specific denomination, like Catholic or Methodist. It was a group that deliberately wore their hair long to give them spiritual strength. Samson is a good example. Some books in the Torah (first 5 books of Old Testament mention Nazarenes. I'm pretty sure either Moses or Joshua was one.

The Talmud makes no reference to Jesus BUT Jews accept he did exist.

Finally, to mirror Robbopolis, what evidence do you want/ We have given Historical AND archaeological. What else can we give? Video tape evidence? Fingerprints?

really, it is not suprising that no evidence exists.

itinerant street preacher runs afoul of the law and gets crucified isnt exactly important enough for any of the extremely limited number of literate people to make a note of it.

there were no newspapers with headlines like "supposed son of god feeds 3000". no newspapers, no archives eh?

why would there be evidence?

on the other hand, all of the (skimpy) details of the life of jesus are bullshit. there was no star, no census, no magi (magi being among the few literates who would have left a record), no eclipse/earthquake at the same time, no zombie invasion of jerusalem (which i cannot imagine not being recorded if it had happened).

so what are we left with? a guy who might have existed but we know utterly nothing about him.

No its not the circumstances are different, one was hanged, one was crucified
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

And Osiris was burned before his resurrection ;)
How did Mithras die ?

Which Jesus is this? Jones?

LOL, no the the zombie-god of christians to paraphrase Fass

so what are we left with? a guy who might have existed but we know utterly nothing about him.

Apparently he had a great beard..

Apparently he had a great beard..

Even that is doubtful. Many Jews had strict shaving laws.

Bold claim ;)

True, but one I think I can back up. Gautama Buddha did exist, almost certainly; likewise Laozi, Zhuangzi and Kongfuzi, the three fathers of modern Daoism. Likewise there is little doubt of the existence of Mohommad.

A trigger event is required, and more often than not, that event is the life and teachings of a significant person.


But there is no reason to assume that the source of this religion was Jesus. A gifted storyteller can achieve much more.

That is true. But if the storyteller can be easily shown to have lied, how believable does he become? St. John the Apostle would be the obvious choice for storyteller, but he lived his life before the Revolt made the chances of his being gainsayed moot.

Even that is doubtful. Many Jews had strict shaving laws.Not Nazirites.

People like Dyakovo are why I rarely post in forums. Stubborn as a mule no matter what you say.

But you got to give him credit for sticking with his beliefs:cool:

True, but one I think I can back up. Gautama Buddha did exist, almost certainly; likewise Laozi, Zhuangzi and Kongfuzi, the three fathers of modern Daoism. Likewise there is little doubt of the existence of Mohommad.

Of course, we do have bits of Buddha and Mohammed ;)
Edit: of course, if you could provide the holy foreskin...

That is true. But if the storyteller can be easily shown to have lied, how believable does he become?

Considering the high number of urban legends that survive to this day, despite being disproven numerous times... I daresay quite believeable.

Claiming your father was a god was uncommon in Rome ?

No but there's a difference between Rome and Judea...:D

And to be fair Dyakovo, I've already conceded the hanging and crucifixion differences.

Nazareth, the town, IS named in the Roman Records and by Josephus. Archaeological research shows occupation of the location of modern Nazareth for a minimum of three thousand years.

occupation of any spot of land in the middle east could probably be shown to go back at least 3000 years. but was that place called nazareth? i believe that the actual name wasnt used until the middle of the first century.

but im willing to look at any proof you might provide that im wrong.

Yes they do

Scientology anyone?

Out of nothing? Hardly.

From the fertile mind of L. Ron Hubbard, teller of fantastic tales. And he is the Christ figure for Scientology.

Claiming your father was a god was uncommon in Rome ?Meaning it was.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?
Does it matter? Well, it does for Christians. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't get crucified. And if he didn't get crucified, he didn't sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, which is a pretty large issue.

It seems like there was at least a person named Jesus because an entire religion started around him. It seems unlikely all of the apostles would have gotten together and created an imaginary man to worship, and then spread the faith across the world.
Did Jesus do and say everything it says in the Bible? Well, that's a trickier matter. But as to whether there was a Jewish preacher-healer named Jesus around the turn of the century, I'd say yes.

Out of nothing? Hardly.

From the fertile mind of L. Ron Hubbard, teller of fantastic tales. And he is the Christ figure for Scientology.

The mind of L. Ron Hubbard is nothing.

anyway, jesus did exist but the fact of him being a divine being is completely illogical. stop being christian (a load of rubbish) and become buddhist! he definitely did exist and in his religion no divine beings.:D


a few facts: cencuses were every 14 years. by descovering the closest cencuses to the year zero, jesus was born in the year 6bc or 8ad

jesus was born in a cave. want proof? try the :upyours:ing internet!


i love smilies!:rolleyes::cool::eek::upyours::fluffle::(
i still love smilies!

ps: do not report me plz

psps how sad am i quoting myself:rolleyes:

pspsps enough of the smilies already!

pspspsps who am i talking to anyway?
oh well, i'm bonkers.

Even that is doubtful. Many Jews had strict shaving laws.

My faith is shattered...:(

occupation of any spot of land in the middle east could probably be shown to go back at least 3000 years. but was that place called nazareth? i believe that the actual name wasnt used until the middle of the first century.

but im willing to look at any proof you might provide that im wrong.

Josephus, writing at the time of the Judean Revolt, speaks of a town called Nazareth (about 40 AD). Whether or not it is the SAME town as the modern small city, I could not say.

It seems like there was at least a person named Jesus because an entire religion started around him.

Note that Yeshua was an extremely famous Jew, and as such a popular name.

It seems unlikely all of the apostles would have gotten together and created an imaginary man to worship, and then spread the faith across the world.

Why do you assume the apostles were not made up as well ?

The mind of L. Ron Hubbard is nothing.

Well these days, certainly. After all, he's been dead for what, thirty years..?:D

People like Dyakovo are why I rarely post in forums. Stubborn as a mule no matter what you say.

But you got to give him credit for sticking with his beliefs:cool:

You don't post on forums because some people (myself included) would like people who say they have evidence/proof of something to present it?

If someone could provide evidence of his existence that was believable then I would gladly concede that a man named Jesus of Nazareth really existed. So far the best effort was the fact that in the Talmud someone named Jesus was hanged at about the time that he was supposedly crucified, not exactly compelling

Why do you assume the apostles were not made up as well ?

Well, there is the tomb of Peter in the Vatican.

True, but one I think I can back up. Gautama Buddha did exist, almost certainly; likewise Laozi, Zhuangzi and Kongfuzi, the three fathers of modern Daoism. Likewise there is little doubt of the existence of Mohommad.

A trigger event is required, and more often than not, that event is the life and teachings of a significant person.




That is true. But if the storyteller can be easily shown to have lied, how believable does he become? St. John the Apostle would be the obvious choice for storyteller, but he lived his life before the Revolt made the chances of his being gainsayed moot.


yay! a persn actually agrees with me on a small unimportant matter!



ps: smilie time! :):):):):):):):):);)

What time zone is this forum using anyway? It's 1:30 where I'm at.

Completely off topic I know but no one is making progress anyway.

Well someone did, since so many religions seem to share the same sort of story about some guy who did the same sort of stuff.

Does it matter? Well, it does for Christians. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't get crucified. And if he didn't get crucified, he didn't sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, which is a pretty large issue.

Actually to a number of 'Christians' that I have spoken to IRL it doesn't matter, they feel that the teachings are what matter.

It seems like there was at least a person named Jesus because an entire religion started around him. It seems unlikely all of the apostles would have gotten together and created an imaginary man to worship, and then spread the faith across the world.

Why is that so unbelievable?

Well someone did, since so many religions seem to share the same sort of story about some guy who did the same sort of stuff.

Blame the Catholic Church. They borrowed heavily from the major religions of the time - we get Christmas from Mithraism, Easter from a Greek fertility goddess, and the devil from the Persian fire god.

also, think of logic.


argument:god is creator of all

counter-argument:who created him then?


exactly
;);););););););):)

Note that Yeshua was an extremely famous Jew, and as such a popular name.
I know, I mean the Jesus-Jesus.


Why do you assume the apostles were not made up as well ?
Who's making up all this stuff? I assume the apostles existed just because there was such widespread missionary work, and at least one of these missionaries was one of the original ones (even if the original ones made it up themselves).

that being said, according to 'history' around 40-50ad, a group of people who called themselves christians began popping up and becoming rather prominent. they were persecuted violently for some reason (as far as roman records go)

yeah they did.

but CHRIST isnt jesus' last name, its a title. and where one person/being/concept might have a title so might it be stuck onto another person/being/concept later on.

Well, there is the tomb of Peter in the Vatican.

And another point :) Unless you prefer cookies ?

Actually to a number of 'Christians' that I have spoken to IRL it doesn't matter, they feel that the teachings are what matter.
I don't speak for everyone. To be honest, I'm not even sure what a Christian is, I think anyone who wants to be called one can. When I say "Christian," I'm referring to the ones I'm familiar with (Catholic and most Protestant denominations).



Why is that so unbelievable?
Means, motive, and opportunity. The fact that the religion was persecuted shows those involved had nothing to gain from it, unless you say the religion actually began around the time of Constantine. But that would mean not forging one man, or one group, but three-hundred years of history. That is what I find hard to believe.

And another point :) Unless you prefer cookies ?

Sob I love Cookies! (But I'm on a diet...)

It's OK, these are yummy zero-calorie cookies

*tosses cookie to Dodod*

YUMMY! (munch munch munch..)

As far as I know, this is the only mention of Jesus from a nonChristian source that is viewed as authentic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others;

Sob I love Cookies! (But I'm on a diet...)

It's OK, these are yummy zero-calorie cookies

*tosses cookie to Dodod*

Means, motive, and opportunity. The fact that the religion was persecuted shows those involved had nothing to gain from it, unless you say the religion actually began around the time of Constantine. But that would mean not forging one man, or one group, but three-hundred years of history. That is what I find hard to believe.

Why would anyone want to make up a religion? Obviously at least some of the current and past religions have to be made up, since they are incapatible (sp?).

Simply because you don't see a motive doesn't mean there wasn't one.
As to means, well what can I say there were plenty of people with the means to start a religion; same with with opportunity.

It's OK, these are yummy zero-calorie cookies

*tosses cookie to Dodod*




you said that after he had quoted it! weird:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::conf used:

It's OK, these are yummy zero-calorie cookies

*tosses cookie to Dodod*

Yummy but zero-calorie?

THE COOKIE IS A LIE

As far as I know, this is the only mention of Jesus from a nonChristian source that is viewed as authentic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James

There is however, debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation.

And that is questionable in itself

It's OK, these are yummy zero-calorie cookies

*tosses cookie to Dodod*

And it *might* be the body of Christ ;)

Josephus, writing at the time of the Judean Revolt, speaks of a town called Nazareth (about 40 AD). Whether or not it is the SAME town as the modern small city, I could not say.

i think that even then--the middle of the first century--that nazareth was an extremely small place. so small that if it existed in an earlier time it wasnt mentioned because it was insignificant.

Yummy but zero-calorie?

THE COOKIE IS A LIE

Well, duh ;)

Why would anyone want to make up a religion? Obviously at least some of the current and past religions have to be made up, since they are incapatible (sp?).
I don't think many religions are completely made up. I think most are the result of years of beliefs which get made into doctrine, or are the results of people having what they believe are supernatural experiences.
Simply because you don't see a motive doesn't mean there wasn't one.
Well, doesn't that make the search for the real Jesus a little harder? "Just because we don't find historical evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

As to means, well what can I say there were plenty of people with the means to start a religion; same with with opportunity.
That's true, as seen by the fact that these people did start a religion. But the lack of motive seems to indicate that they were sincere in their thinking, even if they were wrong.

Yummy but zero-calorie?

THE COOKIE IS A LIE

Oh Noes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

There is proof that a man of that name existed, but no proof whatsoever that he had any kind of powers. I'm sure this point has been brought up before but frankly, I don't care.

Well, doesn't that make the search for the real Jesus a little harder? "Just because we don't find historical evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

True

There is proof that a man of that name existed, but no proof whatsoever that he had any kind of powers. I'm sure this point has been brought up before but frankly, I don't care.

people keep saying that and providing none (or flawed)

um most people are gonna claim he didn't so they can be seen as aithest and cool(thats what people around here do) and fanatics will claim he did, plus the fact that i garentee not one of us actually has any real reason to believe any side...so this is kinda pointless

Sure, lets go find Jesus' body, with an "I AM JESUS. LOOK AT ME GO." sign.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS? First, that would not be a start - that would be the end. Second, the Ossuary I mentioned (and several other ossuaries get very close to this. We have the body of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" according to the inscription. (also, there was a clame to finding a clearly labled body of Jesus. Doco - The Lost Tomb of Jesus. But htis was so dubious I didn't bother to bring it up earlier)

Thirdly think of how many peolpe have ever existed. [New earth creationists look away.] Millions of years of human evolution. Why don't we have that many skeletons, or even enough for 1000 years? Because even bones decay. very few bodies, less than a fraction of a percent, would still exist from Jesus' time. So if he existed, the chance of his body being out there is very slim (in any recognisable form that is. Good ol' conservation of matter)

Here are some sites (I cant do links, so if you cant be bothered to copy-pase then go I doubt you can bother to read them either.) on the James Ossuary. [Note some may be written by evanjelical christian, but all are factual and, to my knowledge, up to date. A few may contain other stuff that is not as accurate, say on the resurection. Forus on the relevant sections an critique those please. No-one has time to deal with the irrelevant mistakes]

[Mid section of this first one contains test results of authenticity of the ossuary] http://www.harvardhouse.com/james.htm
http://www.triumphpro.com/james_burial_box____proof_of_christ.pdf

also a brief summary here

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article09.html

Others will do their research. BE UP TO DATE! There was "evidence" that the inscription was a fake, either claimed to have no Patina or an atrificial chalk -based Patina. The Israli experts looked at this and determined the patina was genuine. They are the world experts and have nothing to gain as the ossuary is a private piece owned by a foreigner. Here is that info: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ossu.htm

The Ossuary is hotly debated, with so many findings for and against its authenticity and so many people out to promote their views or destroy others ofthe old data is used to argue agaainst its corrections, rather than the reverse Most recent investigation, to my knowlege, says it is not a fake. However for other, less ontroversialnd here are general sites that give evidence (not proof. It is worrying that we need to point out there can only ever be evidence) for Jesus in historical terms

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm [this one is quite extensive]

Finally for those who like it quick and not overly reliable, a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

No and yes.

Jesus was an enlightened soul (I.E. he preached in a God, service to this God, and kindness to others regardless of beliefs). However, his story was stretched and he eventually become the son of God as Christians tried to find proof from the Torah that prophecizes him.

If Jesus didn't exist and everyone knew it, there would have been no militant Christianity and thus no:

Dvaita Vedanta (Hindu school arguably based off of Christian theology)
Islam (Muhammad allegedly got many beliefs from Christian businessmen he met)
People killing each other over what type of Christian they are (eg. Ireland)
Crusades
Papal conquests
Inquisition

Well, there is the tomb of Peter in the Vatican.

yes but does it have st peter in it? when was it built?

um most people are gonna claim he didn't so they can be seen as aithest and cool(thats what people around here do) and fanatics will claim he did, plus the fact that i garentee not one of us actually has any real reason to believe any side...so this is kinda pointless

Untrue. I am an outspoken Atheist - but I believe there probably was a man called Iesus who lived and preached in Jerusalem. All else, however, is conjecture.

Possibly. There however is no reliable evidence for him existing as a person, let alone as a magical being.

Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and even Pontius Pilate all have written things about Jesus, including Pontius Pilate's report on the death sentence of Jesus. I have trouble doubting them.

yes but does it have st peter in it? when was it built?

Very good questions. It was rediscovered in 1950. More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb

Yes he did, the bible holds more historical evidence than any other book or scroll. people who thought that the bible was false because it contained certain historical events that were thought not to have happened where proved wrong when there developed more secular evidence proving the people wrong

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm [this one is quite extensive]

Finally for those who like it quick and not overly reliable, a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Tee-hee.

Yes he did, the bible holds more historical evidence than any other book or scroll. people who thought that the bible was false because it contained certain historical events that were thought not to have happened where proved wrong when there developed more secular evidence proving the people wrong

Last time I checked the bolder claims like eg. creation, the exodus of the jews, the global flood and Jesus were not shown to be correct.

Best way to hide a lie is still to surround it with truth you know. I believe Christianity even warns for that ;)

Sure, lets go find Jesus' body, with an "I AM JESUS. LOOK AT ME GO." sign.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS? First, that would not be a start - that would be the end. Second, the Ossuary I mentioned (and several other ossuaries get very close to this. We have the body of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" according to the inscription. (also, there was a clame to finding a clearly labled body of Jesus. Doco - The Lost Tomb of Jesus. But htis was so dubious I didn't bother to bring it up earlier)

Thirdly think of how many peolpe have ever existed. [New earth creationists look away.] Millions of years of human evolution. Why don't we have that many skeletons, or even enough for 1000 years? Because even bones decay. very few bodies, less than a fraction of a percent, would still exist from Jesus' time. So if he existed, the chance of his body being out there is very slim (in any recognisable form that is. Good ol' conservation of matter)

Here are some sites (I cant do links, so if you cant be bothered to copy-pase then go I doubt you can bother to read them either.) on the James Ossuary. [Note some may be written by evanjelical christian, but all are factual and, to my knowledge, up to date. A few may contain other stuff that is not as accurate, say on the resurection. Forus on the relevant sections an critique those please. No-one has time to deal with the irrelevant mistakes]

[Mid section of this first one contains test results of authenticity of the ossuary] http://www.harvardhouse.com/james.htm
http://www.triumphpro.com/james_burial_box____proof_of_christ.pdf

also a brief summary here

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article09.html

Others will do their research. BE UP TO DATE! There was "evidence" that the inscription was a fake, either claimed to have no Patina or an atrificial chalk -based Patina. The Israli experts looked at this and determined the patina was genuine. They are the world experts and have nothing to gain as the ossuary is a private piece owned by a foreigner. Here is that info: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ossu.htm

The Ossuary is hotly debated, with so many findings for and against its authenticity and so many people out to promote their views or destroy others ofthe old data is used to argue agaainst its corrections, rather than the reverse Most recent investigation, to my knowlege, says it is not a fake. However for other, less ontroversialnd here are general sites that give evidence (not proof. It is worrying that we need to point out there can only ever be evidence) for Jesus in historical terms

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm [this one is quite extensive]

Finally for those who like it quick and not overly reliable, a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


even should the ossuary be "authentic" (meaning comes from the right time period) it would prove nothing. its a fun thing to have but its not exactly a smoking gun now is it? 3 common names.

what was james' fate in the bible?

Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and even Pontius Pilate all have written things about Jesus, including Pontius Pilate's report on the death sentence of Jesus. I have trouble doubting them.

Pliny was plagiarizing Josephus. The writings of Pontius Pilate have not survived - we have only secondary sources quoting those documents, not the documents themselves, and many of the secondary sources are dubious at best.

Yes he did, the bible holds more historical evidence than any other book or scroll. people who thought that the bible was false because it contained certain historical events that were thought not to have happened where proved wrong when there developed more secular evidence proving the people wrong

The Vedas contain an extremely accurate depiction of India. Also, the Upanishads and the Puranas contain extremely accurate depictions of India and of the cosmos. The Upanishads even present a Heliocentric Theory. All Hindu Scriptures.

The Qur'an also contains references to the Earth (such as the sky, oceans, and mountains) and it is more accurate than the Bible (though not all of it is 100% accurate).

Very good questions. It was rediscovered in 1950. More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb

not much to hang faith on.

oh well its not like there are descendants of peter that you could use to test dna with.

Oh Noes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs

that thing is mad. admittadley, so am i hyvanglyvandyvandzkufjsholighdifufhcdfokhvdfiuhfxdkhfkujxfhgkfgfhgfkjkjbghfdkjghfkjgfjkghfkjdk;bgcfl .kjbgkfjbg;hglkghkj;ghl/dfhgulkgkghnkfuyghfdiugfhkf;jghdxukfh;dhfdhgdhxHELLOdligjoseriljgoirhfosdhfoisdjfodshfoishfgiodfhgiu fdjhgofdjhgoifhjgigfhgoidhgiodfhgiosdgoisdgjofdijgof;dig;oifudhgpi'sadjgoisdfgoisdgoidsugodfig



soz:)

Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and even Pontius Pilate all have written things about Jesus, including Pontius Pilate's report on the death sentence of Jesus. I have trouble doubting them.

Pliny the Younger referred to Christians as easily deceived fools. That does not suggest he believed Jesus truly existed, does it ;) ?
I will leave it as an exercise to you to determine why the other two references you gave are not considered reliable. I will give you a hint with the words "obvious forgery".

Pliny the Younger referred to Christians as easily deceived fools. That does not suggest he believed Jesus truly existed, does it ;) ?
Or, he meant Jesus decieved them with his talk of one god. I mean thats crazy talk. Everybody knows theres Jupiter, and Juno, and Neptune, and Pluto, and Minerva...

Yes he did, the bible holds more historical evidence than any other book or scroll. people who thought that the bible was false because it contained certain historical events that were thought not to have happened where proved wrong when there developed more secular evidence proving the people wrong

some were, some werent.

plenty of stuff in the bible has been shown to be bulllshit. much of the more general stuff has a basic truthiness-- there was a rome, there was an egypt, there was a caesar, there was a pharoah.

quite a few things MAY end up being proven in achaeology (i get all my archaeology from the history channel)

Possibly. There however is no reliable evidence for him existing as a person, let alone as a magical being.

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none. Anyone that has been regarded as knowledgable on such topics has never disputed that he existed, even the experts of the hardcore Christian critics don't dispute that he existed, they do however dispute his claims and beliefs.

Don't accept pre-chewed beliefs my friend! Do your own homework and find things out for yourself. If something is true, you'll figure it out if you research it. If something is wrong, you'll figure it out by researching it. Just because most people think something similar doesn't mean they're right. Most people don't do their own reliable, unbiased research and therefore cannot be believed when they try to state something they think is fact. Most people state what they've heard someone else say and call it a fact without actually looking into it for themselves. Don't cheat yourself and do the same thing.

do we have archaelogical evidences about the existence of :

Attila (no , only historical proofs, no statues, no tomb, no body)
Hannibal Barca (dont think so, no statues ,carthago was destroy by romans, no tomb, no body)
Vercingetorix (no inscriptions, no tomb, no bones, only texts, and in these only one by a man who see him : " de bello gallico")


I can continue this list a long time^^ It is a fact that for the roman empire period, we only have archeological evidences cross with many historical text for roman greeks and aegyptians leaders, politicians, philosophes etc...

then you can contest the existence of brennus, vercingetorix, hannibal barca, attila. you can contest the existence of a lot of jewish prophets. You can says that gengis khan never exist (no archaelogical evidences). Were are the archaelogical evidences of the existence of crazy horse and sitting bull? then they never existed. Where is the tomb of shaka, king of zulus? hmm? no stones with his name somewhere, then he never existed^^

Without evidence, you can only say : " maybe, probably, etc"

A silentio arguments are not arguments. It is not because there are no evidences that it does'nt exist. Before pasteur nobody have seen microbes, but they existed long before pasteur make his discovers.

Dont forget that history, like medicine, like politic, is an art, not a science. Archeology is a science, but finding the evidence of the existence of a man who live 2000 years ago is practically impossible. ( heaven if you find the body of jesus of nazareth, how could you identify him? inscription on the tomb? it could be a mystification^^ you may say that an apostle have burry someone and write jesus son of joseph on the stone^^ Or just say that jesus was a common name in palestine, and joseph too.ADN comparison? thats a solution, but compare with what?? , and it is the same for alexander the great or caesar, when all is said, you have only historical proofs, a statue of alexander is not an evidence, his dead body that could be an evidence^^)

I am an outspoken Atheist - but I believe there probably was a man called Iesus who lived and preached in Jerusalem. All else, however, is conjecture.
Ditto.

I suspect that there probably was an itinerant storyteller or preacher, whose name has become Jesus over time. Whether the biblical stories all related to an individual or were, as seems more likely to me, an agglomeration of all the other stories of the day that fitted in with the authors' goals (with a few exaggerations thrown in for good measure), makes no great difference to me.

So, in answer to the OP... yeah, I think he probably existed but, no, it doesn't matter.

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none. Anyone that has been regarded as knowledgable on such topics has never disputed that he existed, even the experts of the hardcore Christian critics don't dispute that he existed, they do however dispute his claims and beliefs.

Don't accept pre-chewed beliefs my friend!

Take a long look at your own advice ;) What you just wrote does not correspond to the truth.

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none.
I find that a bit hard to believe.

Or, he meant Jesus decieved them with his talk of one god. I mean thats crazy talk. Everybody knows theres Jupiter, and Juno, and Neptune, and Pluto, and Minerva...

That indeed is also possible. Which is why I said in the beginning that the existence of Jesus is possible - we just do not have enough evidence.

even should the ossuary be "authentic" (meaning comes from the right time period) it would prove nothing. its a fun thing to have but its not exactly a smoking gun now is it? 3 common names.

Lets have a math lesson (oooh, heres something for the "proof" fanatics)

lets say 1 in 10 males were called Jesus (and that is rediculusly common. I'm willing to asume it is less common than 1 in 10) and 1 in 10 were James and 1 in 10 wer Joseph. And lets go with 1 father (I could explain why,but do I need to?) for each person and 4 Brothers (cos families were larger then. I think Jesus had 4, but that is the only data I have on the era and I really dont know. Don't call this circular reasoning. It is not.)

Then the chances of a James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus would be 1/10 x 4/10 x 1/10 = 4/1000 or 1/250. Now remember that is a rediculous estimate in your favor. Its not that bad. And how may guys brothers called Jesus would be so noteworthy they get a mention of their Brothers inscription? Father sure, Mother perhaps but a brother, in times of typically large families, only one brother?

what was james' fate in the bible?
Is that rhetorical? I dont know, but I thought it might be. I read somehere that he carried on Jesus' ministry, but I'm pretty sure that was Peter the apostle (thus he would have been Pope Peter the first, if the title was not made up later).

He is mentioned, but I don't think he played a major role.

hey did of course rxist all historians will agree. the question is weather or not he was the savior which is why we have jews (who are still waiting), and christains who beleive in jesus. i am not jewish and don´t beleive jesus was the savior

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none.

There is more evidence that Rama (an Avatar of Vishnu) who lived 1,700,000 years ago, existed than there is of Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago.

http://harshitpandey.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/the-adams-bridge-amazing-facts/

No Jesus most likely does not exist and if he did he broke his own laws;he was angry at times,was he not?It was in every book that "claim"to be his biography IF HE EXISTED.

JESUS:sniper:
JESUS:mp5:
JESUS:gundge:
JESUS is this when angry::headbang:

do we have archaelogical evidences about the existence of :

Attila (no , only historical proofs, no statues, no tomb, no body)
Hannibal Barca (dont think so, no statues ,carthago was destroy by romans, no tomb, no body)
Vercingetorix (no inscriptions, no tomb, no bones, only texts, and in these only one by a man who see him : " de bello gallico")


I can continue this list a long time^^ It is a fact that for the roman empire period, we only have archeological evidences cross with many historical text for roman greeks and aegyptians leaders, politicians, philosophes etc...

then you can contest the existence of brennus, vercingetorix, hannibal barca, attila. you can contest the existence of a lot of jewish prophets. You can says that gengis khan never exist (no archaelogical evidences). Were are the archaelogical evidences of the existence of crazy horse and sitting bull? then they never existed. Where is the tomb of shaka, king of zulus? hmm? no stones with his name somewhere, then he never existed^^

Without evidence, you can only say : " maybe, probably, etc"

A silentio arguments are not arguments. It is not because there are no evidences that it does'nt exist. Before pasteur nobody have seen microbes, but they existed long before pasteur make his discovers.

Dont forget that history, like medicine, like politic, is an art, not a science. Archeology is a science, but finding the evidence of the existence of a man who live 2000 years ago is practically impossible. ( heaven if you find the body of jesus of nazareth, how could you identify him? inscription on the tomb? it could be a mystification^^ you may say that an apostle have burry someone and write jesus son of joseph on the stone^^ Or just say that jesus was a common name in palestine, and joseph too.ADN comparison? thats a solution, but compare with what?? , and it is the same for alexander the great or caesar, when all is said, you have only historical proofs, a statue of alexander is not an evidence, his dead body that could be an evidence^^)

You have a good point. However, I should point out the following: All of the people you name are mentioned or spoken of in historical documentation that purports to be an accurate description of the events, and almost all of which cross-reference to other histories. This is not to say they are 100% accurate; unless the historian was present, he was relying on secondhand testimony of those involved, or worse, and their standards were by no means as rigorous as those of a modern historian.

The ONLY document that purports to be a history of Iesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, is the Biblical New Testament, a document which cannot even agree as to the central character's words during the Sermon on the Mount, an event widely seen as central to the events before and after.

Well done Tartonica! Classy 1st post. Traditional but unique at the same time.

JESUS:sniper:
JESUS:mp5:
JESUS:gundge:
JESUS is this when angry::headbang:

Your post was so idiotic that I might just convert back to Christianity.

look there he is ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KiAvmzcZbg

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none. Anyone that has been regarded as knowledgable on such topics has never disputed that he existed, even the experts of the hardcore Christian critics don't dispute that he existed, they do however dispute his claims and beliefs.
.

if you have so much proof, lets hear it.

I too am an outspoken Atheist who believes there probably was a man called Jesus who did some of the Jesus things (like talking and dieing and giving Romans the $#!+$

There is a big focus on Jerusalem and so forth. I refer again to "Jesus, the man", Dr. Barbra Thiering who explained a lot of things that seemed to fit for me. Perhaps you too. Check it out, its worht it.

Anyway, in that interpretation Jerusalem and Galilee arn't involved. Jesus, in this version, was an essene, a remote sect of Nazarenes who lived in Qumran isolated from who they considered "deviant" jews. They named places Jerusalem , Bethlehem and so forth. ANd in that system the day journeys are actually possible.

Seriously, turn of the computer and get a copy of that book. It will revolutionise this thread, if not your entire outlook on christian literature.

sorry dodecapod i have no time today to argue. But thats not exact. I am agnosticist, then jesus god or no, is not my problem. But there are cross texts. Jesus was living under the reign of Tibere, emperor of rome. He is cited by roman authors, like a jewish predicator, and like a "rebell"

Joseph jewish historian, same period than jesus
manuscript syriaq of the british museum (it is a syrain who write to his son an say " take example on pythagore,socrates and christus) in 72 BC
Tacite in describing the burning rome in 64 BC who says that christians get there name from christus who was condemned by ponce pilate under the reign of tibere.

etc...

There are cross historical proofs. But no archaelogcal evidences

sorry dodecapod i have no time today to argue. But thats not exact. I am agnosticist, then jesus god or no, is not my problem. But there are cross texts. Jesus was living under the reign of Tibere, emperor of rome. He is cited by roman authors, like a jewish predicator, and like a "rebell"

Joseph jewish historian, same period than jesus
manuscript syriaq of the british museum (it is a syrain who write to his son an say " take example on pythagore,socrates and christus) in 72 BC
Tacite in describing the burning rome in 64 BC who says that christians get there name from christus who was condemned by ponce pilate under the reign of tibere.

etc...

There are cross historical proofs. But no archaelogcal evidences

Josephus does refer to Iesus, but was writing almost 40 years later. I've never encountered any references in Tacitus.

However, I also must fly. I wilol take this up again on the morrow.

You have a good point. However, I should point out the following: All of the people you name are mentioned or spoken of in historical documentation that purports to be an accurate description of the events, and almost all of which cross-reference to other histories. This is not to say they are 100% accurate; unless the historian was present, he was relying on secondhand testimony of those involved, or worse, and their standards were by no means as rigorous as those of a modern historian.

The ONLY document that purports to be a history of Iesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, is the Biblical New Testament, a document which cannot even agree as to the central character's words during the Sermon on the Mount, an event widely seen as central to the events before and after.

Have you read the posts so far? There have been period historian mentioned. Josephus is the main one because he is almost 100% accurate. A darn site better than the propagandists we relyon for Versingeterix for example.

A few others were mentioned, but they may have been later or seem to be more dubious (as with the copies of Pilates notes (man, if theyed survived, imagine: The life of a ruthless roman beurocrat - the Crusafixion days - the life and works of Pontious Pilate. :) ))

Seriously, turn of the computer and get a copy of that book. It will revolutionise this thread, if not your entire outlook on christian literature.
Do you mean this Barbara Thiering? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering)

"Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique," without substance."

It seems it didn't go well with the scholars. Can't please them all, I guess...

Lets have a math lesson (oooh, heres something for the "proof" fanatics)

lets say 1 in 10 males were called Jesus (and that is rediculusly common. I'm willing to asume it is less common than 1 in 10) and 1 in 10 were James and 1 in 10 wer Joseph. And lets go with 1 father (I could explain why,but do I need to?) for each person and 4 Brothers (cos families were larger then. I think Jesus had 4, but that is the only data I have on the era and I really dont know. Don't call this circular reasoning. It is not.)

Then the chances of a James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus would be 1/10 x 4/10 x 1/10 = 4/1000 or 1/250. Now remember that is a rediculous estimate in your favor. Its not that bad. And how may guys brothers called Jesus would be so noteworthy they get a mention of their Brothers inscription? Father sure, Mother perhaps but a brother, in times of typically large families, only one brother?

accepting the story for a moment:

jesus was nobody. he was an itinerant street preacher who got crucified. few people are willing to advertise criminal family members. if james was going to mention him, shouldnt he have stuck in more than just the name? like say jesus the christ, or jesus, my half brother because his dad was god, or jesus who rose from the freaking dead.

besides, i think it will be shown to be a fraud in the end.


Is that rhetorical? I dont know, but I thought it might be. I read somehere that he carried on Jesus' ministry, but I'm pretty sure that was Peter the apostle (thus he would have been Pope Peter the first, if the title was not made up later).

He is mentioned, but I don't think he played a major role.

no its not rhetorical. i figure there are more knowledgeable people here than i so i asked. someone said that josephus referred to him as james the great. great what?

Okay people, I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here. I'm not trying to win an argument either. All I'm saying however is that you may not like him and that's your God given right to believe that. It's your choice whether you believe him or not, and you're damn well entitled to believe whatever the hell you so choose. However, just because you don't like him nor what he was claimed to have said doesn't mean he didn't exist. That's my point and that's what I am trying to say. Besides, even if I could point at concrete evidence he existed, you'd feel that I was violating your personal opinion and would claim I'm making it all up. Therefore I would be wasting my time.

Have fun with your debate everyone, I'm gonna go and take a shower.

Okay people, I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here. I'm not trying to win an argument either. All I'm saying however is that you may not like him and that's your God given right to believe that. It's your choice whether you believe him or not, and you're damn well entitled to believe whatever the hell you so choose. However, just because you don't like him nor what he was claimed to have said doesn't mean he didn't exist. That's my point and that's what I am trying to say. Besides, even if I could point at concrete evidence he existed, you'd feel that I was violating your personal opinion and would claim I'm making it all up. Therefore I would be wasting my time.

Have fun with your debate everyone, I'm gonna go and take a shower.

Believe in Jesus - OR GO TO HELL!

Have you read the posts so far? There have been period historian mentioned. Josephus is the main one because he is almost 100% accurate.

The relevant section of Josephus work however seems to be a forgery.
On the upside: there are indications he truly did mention Jesus, but that the section was "beefed up" somewhat by Christians of later centuries to add more credibility to the Bible. Not enouh evidence to be certain, but enough to have hope ;)

If anyone here has sources suggesting that Jesus never existed (by which I mean the man who claimed to be a Messiah), you should edit the following Wikipedia articles. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis

Believe in Jesus - OR GO TO HELL!

Believe in [insert deity here] - OR [insert terrible faith here].
Sorry, threats do not work well with so much competition.

If anyone here has sources suggesting that Jesus never existed (by which I mean the man who claimed to be a Messiah), you should edit the following Wikipedia articles. ;)

Why ? They mostly agree.

Believe in [insert deity here] - OR [insert terrible faith here].
Sorry, threats do not work well with so much competition.

I have seen a sign like that. Put me in stitches.

EDIT: I felt like they weren't threatening with a terrible faith after death as much as saying 'or get out of this hillbilly town'.

Terrible, TERRIBLE! OH NOES!!!11ONE

Believe in Osiris - or have your phallus replaced by a wooden one ;)

Believe in Shiva - OR GET REBORN.

Terrible, TERRIBLE! OH NOES!!!11ONE

Believe in [insert deity here] - OR [insert terrible faith here].
Sorry, threats do not work well with so much competition.

Believe in Chthulu - OR don't get eaten! :p

Believe in Chthulu - OR don't get eaten! :p

First ;)

Besides, even if I could point at concrete evidence he existed, you'd feel that I was violating your personal opinion and would claim I'm making it all up. Therefore I would be wasting my time.
If you can provide some "concrete evidence" I'd be impressed. I'd also be prepared to adapt my world-view in order to accommodate said evidence (if it was indeed concrete). We have a name for that method of accepting concrete evidence.

Okay people, I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here. I'm not trying to win an argument either. All I'm saying however is that you may not like him and that's your God given right to believe that. It's your choice whether you believe him or not, and you're damn well entitled to believe whatever the hell you so choose. However, just because you don't like him nor what he was claimed to have said doesn't mean he didn't exist. That's my point and that's what I am trying to say. Besides, even if I could point at concrete evidence he existed, you'd feel that I was violating your personal opinion and would claim I'm making it all up. Therefore I would be wasting my time.

Have fun with your debate everyone, I'm gonna go and take a shower.

soooo youre saying that you know of no evidence that jesus really existed...

thats fine. i can see no reason why there should be. he certainly wasnt famous in his own time.

what the fuck does "violating your personal opinion" mean? if i am wrong, i am happy to be set right.

However, just because you don't like him nor what he was claimed to have said doesn't mean he didn't exist. That's my point and that's what I am trying to say.

Again - a statement that does not correspond to the truth. You made several false claims in your first post and now bring up something new.

Falsehoods will simply not help your case. They in fact hurt it. So in future, try to minimise them.

Yes, he did exist. Enemies of early Christianity wrote about him, as well as the christians of the time. There is, through antiquated documents, more proof for Jesus Christ existing, than Julius Caesar.

Honestly, all it takes is for one to look at 1 Corinthians 15, and see how early it is written, after the death and resurrection of Christ, and one can EASILY see that there was a Jesus :)

Yes, he did exist. Enemies of early Christianity wrote about him, as well as the christians of the time. There is, through antiquated documents, more proof for Jesus Christ existing, than Julius Caesar.

Untrue. But you know that. So why lie ? Do you worship Satan ?

Untrue. But you know that. So why lie ? Do you worship Satan ?


Prove me untrue! You cannot! I promise! No one on here can prove me wrong on the matter that Christ existed.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

I think it matters. I think this because:

1. I am a Christian, so I have to worry about this.
2. The world was changed (in good or evil) by the supposition of his exsistence.

As a Roman Catholic of course I believe that Jesus, or a figure like him at the time (at a stretch of belief to humour non-believers), did exist.
Does it matter?- yes, to those many millions upon millions of Christians around the world, as well as how he is viewed as a prophet in two others.
As to the non-believers, that's their/your choice to not believe, but the fact of the matter is that an entire religion is built upon the story of Jesus as well as events post and prior to him.

Why shouldn't have he existed, why try and say he didn't? This man was and is the only person in history who was/is completely good hearted, did not hate others, encouraged friendship amongst all and would go so far as to sacrifice himself forus all as a sign of his love. One can easily say "But we sin all the time, why hasn't he come again?" and so on in that general area. I don't have a concrete answer, I can only venture a guess- evidently mankind can still do a lot worse, and that God has a lot of tolerance and patience.

Thats all I can give you.

Did Enkidu?

Did Gilgamesh?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

He did exist, historically. I'll show you a selection of sources -

1. The Talmud, a sacred Jewish text
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

This was written at a time when people would most assuredly know of such occurrences.

2. Pliny the Younger's letters to the Roman Emperor
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations."

This was written in 112 AD. That's just about 70 years or so after the death of Jesus.

3. Seutonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars"
""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"."

Chrestus is a greek form of the modern word Christ.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

He did exist, historically. I'll show you a selection of sources -

1. The Talmud, a sacred Jewish text
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

This was written at a time when people would most assuredly know of such occurrences.

2. Pliny the Younger's letters to the Roman Emperor
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations."

This was written in 112 AD. That's just about 70 years or so after the death of Jesus.

3. Seutonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars"
""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"."

Chrestus is a greek form of the modern word Christ. This was written within two decades after his death.

Why shouldn't have he existed, why try and say he didn't?
Who's said that he "shouldn't have existed"? People might say that he didn't, if they are not convinced by the evidence put forward, but "shouldn't"? Absurd.
This man was and is the only person in history who was/is completely good hearted, did not hate others, encouraged friendship amongst all and would go so far as to sacrifice himself forus all as a sign of his love
Some might say that such a paragon of virtue could only be a construct, an idealised "perfect being" whose attributes are to be held up to us as the ultimate role model.
I don't have a concrete answer, I can only venture a guess- evidently mankind can still do a lot worse, and that God has a lot of tolerance and patience.
I could venture a counter-guess, but I'm sure someone else will do it for me.

Whether Jesus is important to the sake of history and whether or not Jesus even existed are two wholesomely different matters. If we look at the numerous accounts such as from Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian, we hear of Jesus existence.
Even if we were to try to imagine Jesus existing, but not really being the Son of God, Jesus' teachings have not only influenced history and culture, but have even been used for the sake of religions he never knew of. Historically speaking, even if one were to imagine Jesus as a normal person, he still mattered.
But there are many who do believe Jesus is important. I am unsure though as to why most Christians label Jesus as important, because in spite of what he did, many seem to think they have to do works to please God, but I believe that when Jesus died, he saved humanity entirely. But having said that, it does not mean that I am troubled with questioning my world - religious and secular. I see Jesus as a man who did question His world, and wants us to do the same.
I have contempt for the notion that theism is for the unintelligent. In the first place, it's a ad-hominem fallacy. You aren't attacking theism, but the kind of people who argue for it. Yes, there are people who are theists who aren't intelligent, but that does not necessarily invalidate theism.
Just because I believe in Jesus, it doesn't mean that I'm not liberal. I believe in a very libertarian, ecologically friendly government that should provide the best of its services and at the same time giving us the optimum amount of freedom possible. I believe everyone goes to heaven (sounds delusional, I know. However, if you look carefully, scriptural support rests more on this than one might at first think).
I believe there are others out there like me. I believe there are others who have faith also who believe in questioning their world but still believe religion is important. Many of them are introverts because they see questioning as an internal thing - something that isn't an argument but more of an individual and social conversation amongst those who desire it. I agree with them, but at the same time I love to extend the invitation of Christ to people who don't understand. Christ didn't die merely because of you, but specifically for you. His love is a free gift, so there isn't anything I did, or you can do to earn it or boast about it. It feels good, but the love of Christ is something that you have to experience; it is not an object for the eyes to see or the ears to hear (I think the word is intangible?).

He did exist, historically. I'll show you a selection of sources -

1. The Talmud, a sacred Jewish text
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

This was written at a time when people would most assuredly know of such occurrences.

2. Pliny the Younger's letters to the Roman Emperor
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations."

This was written in 112 AD. That's just about 70 years or so after the death of Jesus.

3. Seutonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars"
""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"."

Chrestus is a greek form of the modern word Christ. This was written within two decades after his death.

Thank you for posting this info, so I don't have to. Still, the ignorants on this forum will stick their noses up and ignore the facts.

You're all wrong:

The Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko))

Thank you for posting this info, so I don't have to. Still, the ignorants on this forum will stick their noses up and ignore the facts.

Err...what? It clearly says he was hanged. The last time I checked, hanging and being nailed to a cross and left to die (until one is stabbed by a spear) are not the same thing.

Thank you for posting this info, so I don't have to. Still, the ignorants on this forum will stick their noses up and ignore the facts.

Unfortunately, "Christos" is the Greek form of the word, not "Chrestos." The latter was actually a not uncommon slave name in the 1st century. It's possible that Suetonius just mucked up the name and got the story slightly askew, he was writing about 50 years after the fact.

Those items only prove that there were Christians in those days, they don't say anything about whether the Jesus of Nazareth who is described in the Gospels actually existed as that person and did those things. All they say is that his followers were coming to the attention of the authorities.

Err...what? It clearly says he was hanged. The last time I checked, hanging and being nailed to a cross and left to die (until one is stabbed by a spear) are not the same thing.

Well ... people who were crucified were often said to be hung upon a cross.

Err...what? It clearly says he was hanged. The last time I checked, hanging and being nailed to a cross and left to die (until one is stabbed by a spear) are not the same thing.

Well, for him to have been hanged on a cross, was also known as being hanged on the tree. Galatians and Acts both say hanging on a cross or a tree. Its just the way they were wording things.

Unfortunately, "Christos" is the Greek form of the word, not "Chrestos." The latter was actually a not uncommon slave name in the 1st century. It's possible that Suetonius just mucked up the name and got the story slightly askew, he was writing about 50 years after the fact.

Those items only prove that there were Christians in those days, they don't say anything about whether the Jesus of Nazareth who is described in the Gospels actually existed as that person and did those things. All they say is that his followers were coming to the attention of the authorities.

And why were there Christians? How did they come about? Did one day, 12 guys come together and just make something up, then go about risking their lives talking about this thing they made up? Does that make any sense at all? No it doesn't. What makes sense, and is logical, is that there was a man they believed to be a messiah. They believed in him so much, that they decided to spread this message about him..But it was only because there was this man, that they did this.

I believe that the stories had to come from somewhere.

Was he born from a virgin? It's possible. It's proven that a female can get pregnant if a man comes on her naked body, if any of the seman happens to be close to the vaginal opening and some of it gets inside. It's very rare, but does happen, thus virginal birth.

A man can do many a things, not exactly turning water into wine and such, but giving people hope, yes, a man can do that. A man can also say: I don't like how the Jewish treat certain people, and so I will start a religion based on a magic man from God. This guy would be a good canidate, look they've already killed him because he wanted to teach.

So yes...a story and myth, but also based on true events, perhaps not even the true events of one person. And if you ask how Christianity can exist, I ask you how the Protistan and Lutheran religions came to be about? Its the same thing, people find something wrong with the popular religion of choice, at that point being the Jewish religion. They take what they want from it, thus why the Christian religions still have the old stories, and then add what they want, thus having the son of God, and on and on and on.

Also, I want proof that he existed, not stories created from men thousands of years ago. Stories that have been translated incorrectly for years upon years. I want scientific proof, not religious proof.

Was he born from a virgin? It's possible. It's proven that a female can get pregnant if a man comes on her naked body, if any of the seman happens to be close to the vaginal opening and some of it gets inside. It's very rare, but does happen, thus virginal birth.

Sounds more than interesting. Tell me more. A source (preferably of medical kind) describing this actually happening would be appreciated.

Well ... people who were crucified were often said to be hung upon a cross.

now your just reaching....


And why were there Christians? How did they come about? Did one day, 12 guys come together and just make something up, then go about risking their lives talking about this thing they made up?


.......hmmm....want some poison kool-aid?


what was that religion started on?

Well ... people who were crucified were often said to be hung upon a cross.

Well, for him to have been hanged on a cross, was also known as being hanged on the tree. Galatians and Acts both say hanging on a cross or a tree. Its just the way they were wording things.



And why were there Christians? How did they come about? Did one day, 12 guys come together and just make something up, then go about risking their lives talking about this thing they made up? Does that make any sense at all? No it doesn't. What makes sense, and is logical, is that there was a man they believed to be a messiah. They believed in him so much, that they decided to spread this message about him..But it was only because there was this man, that they did this.

Fair enough.

Well, for him to have been hanged on a cross, was also known as being hanged on the tree. Galatians and Acts both say hanging on a cross or a tree. Its just the way they were wording things.



And why were there Christians? How did they come about? Did one day, 12 guys come together and just make something up, then go about risking their lives talking about this thing they made up? Does that make any sense at all? No it doesn't. What makes sense, and is logical, is that there was a man they believed to be a messiah. They believed in him so much, that they decided to spread this message about him..But it was only because there was this man, that they did this.

Did I say, "And so Jesus didn't exist"? No, I didn't. All I said was, two out of three of those writers are making reference to Christians, not to Christ. And the Talmud one is new to me, so I'd be interested in more context on it.

No, I don't think twelves guy got together one day in Palestine and after going through the Aramaic equivalents of "Whattaya wanna do today?" decided to invent an imaginary friend.

I think there was a charismatic teacher, out of Galilee, who made a world-changing impression on a group of men in an age when there were rumors of the Messiah going around, when influences from the East and the West were fermenting all around the Mediterranean. And then, after getting into some trouble with the authorities in Palestine, they fled to Damascus in Syria and were lucky enough to convert one of their persecuters, Saul of Tarsus. After that, well, they were on their way. But was he as miraculous as the Gospels describe him? I don't think so, but they obviously did, and you appear to.

there was a charismatic teacher, out of Galilee, who made a world-changing impression on a group of men in an age when there were rumors of the Messiah going around, when influences from the East and the West were fermenting all around the Mediterranean. And then, after getting into some trouble with the authorities in Palestine, they fled to Damascus in Syria and were lucky enough to convert one of their persecuters, Saul of Tarsus. After that, well, they were on their way.
I like it. It's plausible enough, and we can get great merchandising if we spin it right. We need a hook though... something to set us apart from all the other religions that are kicking around... any ideas?

now your just reaching....





.......hmmm....want some poison kool-aid?


what was that religion started on?

Well, they were a cult that branched off of Christianity...

I think at that time, there was loads of people being unlawfully crucified by Roman governments, so other people didn't like this and made a group to try and topple the Roman government, Christianity, was just made because this group had a useful martyr, mind you alot of Christian teachings were written long after Jesus died, i guess so the Roman authorities wouldn't find them, In fact i think the old testament was written in code.
just my two pennies.

I think at that time, there was loads of people being unlawfully crucified by Roman governments, so other people didn't like this and made a group to try and topple the Roman government, Christianity, was just made because this group had a useful martyr, mind you alot of Christian teachings were written long after Jesus died, i guess so the Roman authorities wouldn't find them, In fact i think the old testament was written in code.
just my two pennies.

The Romans did not wander around the Mediterranean in armed bands nailing people to crosses. Nor were executions like the one Jesus suffered "unlawful." They were, in point of fact, quite legal, being carried out by the Roman authority in an area that was a province of the Empire.

Certainly there were groups which wanted to drive away the Romans. Palestine had its fair share of them, in fact, and they managed two unsuccessful revolts, the one in the late 60s and the other around 130. The last one got Jerusalem razed to the ground and rebuilt as a Roman colony, and a lot of people exiled.

Anyway, your two cents are more than a little far-fetched, especially in terms of what we know about the history of the early church.

I think at that time, there was loads of people being unlawfully crucified by Roman governments, so other people didn't like this and made a group to try and topple the Roman government, Christianity, was just made because this group had a useful martyr, mind you alot of Christian teachings were written long after Jesus died, i guess so the Roman authorities wouldn't find them, In fact i think the old testament was written in code.
just my two pennies.

Define long time. The time that most of the New testament(the 13 or so epistles) were written within 35-50 years of the death of Christ. Much of the people that knew the disciples, or Christ, were still alive at the time to attest to the truth that the letters were saying. The rest of the New Testament was written within 75ish years of when Christ was crucified. Now, in historical terms, I have been told by many history professors that this type of dating is excellent to prove that the writings were very reliable, in the sense that the were written so close to the actual event, that there could be very little chance that anything was changed, thrown out, or made up. Furthermore, the writings of the early church fathers, that is in the 100 or so years after the death of Christ, quote the new testament scriptures accurately THOUSANDS of times, which further proves that the new testament was written not a LONG TIME after the events happened.

Define long time. The time that most of the New testament(the 13 or so epistles) were written within 35-50 years of the death of Christ. Much of the people that knew the disciples, or Christ, were still alive at the time to attest to the truth that the letters were saying. The rest of the New Testament was written within 75ish years of when Christ was crucified. Now, in historical terms, I have been told by many history professors that this type of dating is excellent to prove that the writings were very reliable, in the sense that the were written so close to the actual event, that there could be very little chance that anything was changed, thrown out, or made up. Furthermore, the writings of the early church fathers, that is in the 100 or so years after the death of Christ, quote the new testament scriptures accurately THOUSANDS of times, which further proves that the new testament was written not a LONG TIME after the events happened.
Well, think of all the things written about JFK. Some of the writers survived him, some born after his death... Plenty of scopes to choose from. Truthfulness... matter of perception.

the events happened.

Well the problem is that it was humans who wrote about Jesus, so they could have made some of the stories up. Also notice how few roles women play in the bible, they are the "traditional" housewife who looks after children and don't in general fight.
Also if there was a crime committed by someone nowaday's it would take more than lots of other old men writing about it 50 years after it happened for it to be passed in court.

Well the problem is that it was humans who wrote about Jesus, so they could have made some of the stories up.
Of course it was humans that wrote about Jesus! Who else would do it, Reptoids? Humans also wrote about Pearl Habor, or -insert any event in human history here-. Use your brain! Its what it is there for!

The New Testament accounts were created as a history of the Church. For example, when talking about certain sermons, those sermons probably took hours to say, but when read from the bible, they only take a few minutes to read. They assumed that those reading the text would be able to understand that it is a historical account of what happened. It condenses things here and there. Another example of how these texts were meant to be historically accurate is in what paul says, when he says that over 500 people can attest to the resurrection of Christ(well, some were dead, but many were still alive). Furthermore, as was said in this thread, and in another thread, there are plenty of extrabiblical texts that talk about Christ, or the impact of his teachings and followers, and they were written within a short time span after the death of Christ.


Also notice how few roles women play in the bible, they are the "traditional" housewife who looks after children and don't in general fight.

This has nothing to do with the issue of whether Christ was real or not..But since you brought it up, I'll address it. Women are very important in Christianity. In fact lets list some women named, with big roles. Eve, Sarah, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, the Marys, Hagar, Rebbecca, etc.

In fact, here is a website that talks about the importance of women in the bible: http://www.womeninthebible.net/ (original name, eh? :p)

Also if there was a crime committed by someone nowaday's it would take more than lots of other old men writing about it 50 years after it happened for it to be passed in court.
Thats by today's standards, because we have so much technology and such, so proof is far easier to get. However, through history we see that we take facts about people or events, from texts several hundred years afterwards. For example, what we know about Alexander the Great, comes from text FOUR HUNDRED years after his life. Do you question that he was a great leader with an impressive empire? I bet not. So why would you not question text that was written 400 years after an event, but question text that was written only 35-75 years after an event?

Well the problem is that it was humans who wrote about Jesus, so they could have made some of the stories up. Also notice how few roles women play in the bible, they are the "traditional" housewife who looks after children and don't in general fight.
Also if there was a crime committed by someone nowaday's it would take more than lots of other old men writing about it 50 years after it happened for it to be passed in court.

yes but women do exist in leading roles in other gospels that were not accepted into the christian bible. not just mary magdalene who is so popular these days but other women who were prominent preachers and missionaries.

Bullshit.



Even more bullshit. Say, do you stage corridas?



You don't know who Enkidu is? *shakes head*

i don't think that u should say this because god is real atleast he is real to me he has healed and i don't think that anybody could have done that

Well, think of all the things written about JFK. Some of the writers survived him, some born after his death... Plenty of scopes to choose from. Truthfulness... matter of perception.

Haha. You use the JFK situation? In one corner you have intelligent people, with fact after fact after fact proving that there was only one gunman, and in the other you have conspiracy theorists.... Well, actually I suppose that is relevant to this situation, because in one corner, you have scholars with loads of proof that Jesus existed, and in the other corner you have people that will do anything to make a big name for themselves, such as the Morton Smith(iirc), who penned the "secret gospel of mark"

Haha. You use the JFK situation? In one corner you have intelligent people, with fact after fact after fact proving that there was only one gunman, and in the other you have conspiracy theorists.... Well, actually I suppose that is relevant to this situation, because in one corner, you have scholars with loads of proof that Jesus existed, and in the other corner you have people that will do anything to make a big name for themselves, such as the Morton Smith(iirc), who penned the "secret gospel of mark"
Exactly! You're not that dumb afterall.

flame, flame, flame.

Yes, he did exist. Enemies of early Christianity wrote about him, as well as the christians of the time. There is, through antiquated documents, more proof for Jesus Christ existing, than Julius Caesar.

Honestly, all it takes is for one to look at 1 Corinthians 15, and see how early it is written, after the death and resurrection of Christ, and one can EASILY see that there was a Jesus :)

isnt that a kind of silly thing to say? we have writings of julius caesar, we have coins, busts, histories. we have contemporaries who wrote about him having lived through his reign. we have shit i dont know about because im not up on ancient history.

with jesus we have 0 eyewitness accounts. no writings, no portraits, no matching up of history and the details of his life. nothing but writings done decades after his assumed date of death by people who never met him.

there is far more evidence that julius caesar lived than that jesus did.

Of course he existed.

isnt that a kind of silly thing to say? we have writings of julius caesar, we have coins, busts, histories. we have contemporaries who wrote about him having lived through his reign. we have shit i dont know about because im not up on ancient history.

with jesus we have 0 eyewitness accounts. no writings, no portraits, no matching up of history and the details of his life. nothing but writings done decades after his assumed date of death by people who never met him.


Susshhh!
This'd be interesting.

There was previous claim in this thread that "there's more evidence of Jesus than of any ancient figure 'bar' none". These two must know eachother.

isnt that a kind of silly thing to say? we have writings of julius caesar, we have coins, busts, histories. we have contemporaries who wrote about him having lived through his reign. we have shit i dont know about because im not up on ancient history.

with jesus we have 0 eyewitness accounts. no writings, no portraits, no matching up of history and the details of his life. nothing but writings done decades after his assumed date of death by people who never met him.

there is far more evidence that julius caesar lived than that jesus did.

0 eyewitnesses? oh boy..Peter? James, his half brother? The entire group of disciples? Many other people in 1st century palestine? Come on! There were plenty of witnesses! They made up the 1st century church! Why would those 11 apostles go to their deaths, based on just a story? Mind you, they went willfully, no in an attempt to gain political power or land or anything, but because they knew that what they had seen with their own eyes was needed to be told to whom ever they could tell it too. What other reason would otherwise zealous Jews go about and dedicate their entire life to spreading this message? And speaking of Julius Caesar, we have more documents saying the same thing about Christ, within in the first 100 Years of Christianity, than what we have regarding anything about caesar, within the 100 years after his death. And Caesar was the leader of pretty much the known world at the time. So what does that say?

Err...what? It clearly says he was hanged. The last time I checked, hanging and being nailed to a cross and left to die (until one is stabbed by a spear) are not the same thing.

well its more than just that. that does depend on what word they used for what we would call hanging and what word they used for what we would call crucifiction. i doubt they are the same but i really wouldnt know for sure.

but look at the quoted text:

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."


jesus wasnt killed on the eve of passover. he was not held for 40 days before he was executed. there was no herald sent out. he wasnt stoned, he wasnt charged with sorcery, there was no offer to let him go if someone would speak for him.

there is no reason to believe that this is the same man at all.

there is far more evidence that julius caesar lived than that jesus did.
It's a common claim I've heard stated by Christians that "there's more evidence for Christ than Julius Caesar", but I've never seen anyone show me these mountains of evidence.

Moreover, I imagine if anyone could produce proof of a Nazarene called Jesus, I think they'd find it pretty tricky to show any proof, outside of the Bible, of Jesus' miracles, resurrection, etc.

But, you know... blind faith and all that.

0 eyewitnesses? oh boy..Peter? James, his half brother? The entire group of disciples? Many other people in 1st century palestine? Come on! There were plenty of witnesses! They made up the 1st century church! Why would those 11 apostles go to their deaths, based on just a story? Mind you, they went willfully, no in an attempt to gain political power or land or anything, but because they knew that what they had seen with their own eyes was needed to be told to whom ever they could tell it too. What other reason would otherwise zealous Jews go about and dedicate their entire life to spreading this message? And speaking of Julius Caesar, we have more documents saying the same thing about Christ, within in the first 100 Years of Christianity, than what we have regarding anything about caesar, within the 100 years after his death. And Caesar was the leader of pretty much the known world at the time. So what does that say?

well, ok, peter.

dont you find it odd that when peter and paul fought over how the church should be set up he never used the "i hung out with jesus for 3 years and was set as the founder of his church" card?

anyway, 2nd peter probably wasnt written by peter. so we have first peter.

now im no big expert but i just breezed through it. peter doesnt claim to have met jesus in person. (i am eagerly awaiting you pointing out where he does) he gives NO details of the life of jesus other than that he suffered, turned himself in without a fight and was resurrected. i dont even see that it says he was crucified.

the letter of james wasnt written by an apostle so no, we have no eyewitness account from his half brother. there are no eyewitness accounts. things written decades after the fact by people who were not there who give no verifyable details are not good proof.

i dont know why people are willing to die for their faith but its not unique to christianity.

0 eyewitnesses? oh boy..Peter? James, his half brother? The entire group of disciples? Many other people in 1st century palestine? Come on! There were plenty of witnesses! They made up the 1st century church! Why would those 11 apostles go to their deaths, based on just a story?
But we don't have any first-hand accounts from any of the Apostles, only accounts up to a 100 years after Jesus' supposed life and death. The vast majority of scholars, Christian or otherwise, agree that the authors of the first four books of the NT were not disciples, but were followers of an already established church writing up to 100 years after the events were supposed to take place.

The letters of Paul are earlier than the Gospels, and even then they were written 10, 20 years after the apparent resurrection.

And that's not even getting into the similarity between Jesus' story and plenty other gods who were born of a virgin, hailed by sages and portents in the skies, had twelve followers, died on a tree and were resurrected, etc. Osiris and Dionysus are just two such gods.

Apologies if this has already been stated in this thread. Tl; dr.

Who is this Jebus guy everyone keeps talking about?

I would say yes. I of course do not believe he was the son of G-d or the Messiah, but historical record such as the writings of Josephus prove his existence.

Remember, before the 1840s when Masada was discovered, most people discounted the story as a myth. Josephus has been proven to be a reliable source for events of the era.

You know what’s funny? The fact that it was people like Saint Augustine and other early Christian writers that quoted people like Cicero enough so that we can now recreate most of Cicero's works from the minuscule fragments that we can still find and filling them in with Augustine's quotes. The same with Julius Caesar's’ writings, we do not have contemporary writings of his, we have Christian reproduced copies and quotes of these Roman books. Yet we argue today that these same people who kept and created all these copies are sufficient only for providing us with the accurate copies of books by Cicero and Caesar and we can read them to this very day because of them. But when these SAME church fathers recorded the books of Christian fathers before them, those books are questionable and doubtful that they ever existed? We say people like Saint Augustine must have made them up!

Make up your minds people, either people like Augustine were able to keep accurate copies of books older than themselves or they were not.

All this is is anti-historical Christian writings, biases and prejudices, through and through.

there are pictures of him
but that can be made up
idk about the cave and other stuff
but there are statically possibility that
it is made up.
if u think like this.
u believe in jesus
why cant u believe in buddha?
if you think buddha is fake
why cant jesus be fake?
lets put some logic in to religion
bc religion is just believe or die

Who did the secular non-Jewish historian (infact a roman historian) by the name of Josepheus write about?

Roman historians don't just write about any Jewish person, they hated the Jews. so why write about that one.

Josepheus was a guy who lived around the time of Jesus.

You know what’s funny? The fact that it was people like Saint Augustine and other early Christian writers that quoted people like Cicero enough so that we can now recreate most of Cicero's works from the minuscule fragments that we can still find and filling them in with Augustine's quotes. The same with Julius Caesar's’ writings, we do not have contemporary writings of his, we have Christian reproduced copies and quotes of these Roman books. Yet we argue today that these same people who kept and created all these copies are sufficient only for providing us with the accurate copies of books by Cicero and Caesar and we can read them to this very day because of them. But when these SAME church fathers recorded the books of Christian fathers before them, those books are questionable and doubtful that they ever existed? We say people like Saint Augustine must have made them up!

Make up your minds people, either people like Augustine were able to keep accurate copies of books older than themselves or they were not.

All this is is anti-historical Christian writings, biases and prejudices, through and through.

your rant would make more sense if we were talking about the accuracy of the modern new testament.

jesus didnt write anything. those who wrote about him didnt know him. its an entirely different problem than what did cicero write.

and besides, if cicero turns out never to have existed all that happens is that the person who proves it gets wonderful historical society acolades. no one's world view and most cherished beliefs are destroyed. we change a few lines in a few books and move on.

Who did the secular non-Jewish historian (infact a roman historian) by the name of Josepheus write about?

Roman historians don't just write about any Jewish person, they hated the Jews. so why write about that one.

Josepheus was a guy who lived around the time of Jesus.

josephus was writing about what other people told him. he didnt know jesus, he knew christians. or he knew ABOUT christians.

the stories of jesus developed over time. from the gospel of thomas where he is a smart guy who has some cool sayings to the gospel of john where is he is the word that has existed since the beginning of time.

go to www.earlychristianwritings.com and look at the stuff that didnt make it into the bible. its not a complete collection since many alternate gospels were supressed and only exist as titles and bits of parchment. but you can see that the jesus story varied wildy from area to area, group to group and writer to writer.

No and yes.

Jesus was an enlightened soul (I.E. he preached in a God, service to this God, and kindness to others regardless of beliefs). However, his story was stretched and he eventually become the son of God as Christians tried to find proof from the Torah that prophecizes him.

If Jesus didn't exist and everyone knew it, there would have been no militant Christianity and thus no:

Dvaita Vedanta (Hindu school arguably based off of Christian theology)
Islam (Muhammad allegedly got many beliefs from Christian businessmen he met)
People killing each other over what type of Christian they are (eg. Ireland)
Crusades
Papal conquests
Inquisition

Eh, Ireland wasn't so much killing because of religion. There were more political factors than anything. Really, 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' served more as identifiers of social and political groupings than as actual dogmatic ideologies.

your rant would make more sense if we were talking about the accuracy of the modern new testament.

jesus didnt write anything. those who wrote about him didnt know him. its an entirely different problem than what did cicero write.

Based on what? Your conclusion here is that you've already discredited the NT writings, claiming that they are not authentic, based on what? Based on the argument I was attacking, that the church fathers didn't record correct authorship apparently. But those same guys knew Cicero and identified him correctly, why would they get only Christian authors wrong?

and besides, if Cicero turns out never to have existed all that happens is that the person who proves it gets wonderful historical society acolades. no one's world view and most cherished beliefs are destroyed. we change a few lines in a few books and move on.

I'm not arguing that Cicero didn't exist, I'm sure he did, I know this from the same sources that say the NT authors existed equally. My position doesn't require that I choose when a historical father is lying or telling the truth based entirely only on whether or not I want to believe that the topic might be historical or not...

Err...what? It clearly says he was hanged. The last time I checked, hanging and being nailed to a cross and left to die (until one is stabbed by a spear) are not the same thing.

When most people were crucified, they weren't nailed but hung on the cross. Eventually, you die because your lungs collapse, death by blood loss was probably more humane. I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm guessing the source meant Jesus was tied to a cross, not nailed. It's still crucifixion, though.

EDIT: I was just reading Wikipedia, and the article on crucifixion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Location_of_the_nails)says that someone nailed to a cross would also have to be tied, which clears up something I've always wondered: how Jesus just didn't fall off, minus the palms of his hand. So he was both hung and nailed to the cross it would seem.

Based on what? Your conclusion here is that you've already discredited the NT writings, claiming that they are not authentic, based on what? Based on the argument I was attacking, that the church fathers didn't record correct authorship apparently. But those same guys knew Cicero and identified him correctly, why would they get only Christian authors wrong?


no one knows who wrote the gospels. the names associated with them are just names, not known identities.


I'm not arguing that Cicero didn't exist, I'm sure he did, I know this from the same sources that say the NT authors existed equally. My position doesn't require that I choose when a historical father is lying or telling the truth based entirely only on whether or not I want to believe that the topic might be historical or not...

im not suggesting that you were. im suggesting that if st augustine got some of cicero's words wrong, i hardly matters. if someone jotted down the words of jesus wrong, it does matter.

or if they made them up. or edited them to read a certain way.

How can the entire world calendar be predicated on the life and death of an allegedly fictional person? Where do you think B.C. and A.D. come from? But today, we are forced to use the politically correct C.E. (common era) to appease those who doubt Jesus' existence.

When most people were crucified, they weren't nailed but hung on the cross. Eventually, you die because your lungs collapse, death by blood loss was probably more humane. I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm guessing the source meant Jesus was tied to a cross, not nailed. It's still crucifixion, though.

EDIT: I was just reading Wikipedia, and the article on crucifixion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Location_of_the_nails)says that someone nailed to a cross would also have to be tied, which clears up something I've always wondered: how Jesus just didn't fall off, minus the palms of his hand. So he was both hung and nailed to the cross it would seem.

Thanks. My ignorance on the topic largely stems from a lack of knowledge on the details of crucifiction. Largely because I'm not, nor have I ever been, Christian, or into snuff.

How can the entire world calendar be predicated on the life and death of an allegedly fictional person? Where do you think B.C. and A.D. come from? But today, we are forced to use the politically correct C.E. (common era) to appease those who doubt Jesus' existence.

with such unassailable logic would could fail to be convinced?

How can the entire world calendar be predicated on the life and death of an allegedly fictional person? Where do you think B.C. and A.D. come from? But today, we are forced to use the politically correct C.E. (common era) to appease those who doubt Jesus' existence.

Normally I don't bother responding to one-post-wonders, but for the sake of easing boredom, I'll give it a shot. First off, the calendar itself is from pre-Christian Rome, with corrections (leap year) due to issues of accuracy in time keeping during that era.
The labels of B.C. and A.D. come from the Christian sources, which could be founded on a fictional character. Just like just about every other major world religion.

Actually There are allong with early christian redords, Roman court records and Jewish temple records that mark his existence.

but as a son of god i think not, that was decided onn later by church officials at the council of Nicea, where alot of christianities beleifs and services where voted on

read the divinci code

Actually There are allong with early christian redords, Roman court records and Jewish temple records that mark his existence.

but as a son of god i think not, that was decided onn later by church officials at the council of Nicea, where alot of christianities beleifs and services where voted on

read the divinci code

no.

if there were such records they would be well known by every christian and every anti-christian and we would be debating whether or not the roman record was accurate.

but feel free to point us to webpages that contain the text of these records...

Normally I don't bother responding to one-post-wonders, but for the sake of easing boredom, I'll give it a shot. First off, the calendar itself is from pre-Christian Rome, with corrections (leap year) due to issues of accuracy in time keeping during that era.
The labels of B.C. and A.D. come from the Christian sources, which could be founded on a fictional character. Just like just about every other major world religion.

but the unassailable logic....!


did you notice my post #201 that mentioned a few other problems with that jewish text quote besides the "can hung mean crucified" problem?

no one knows who wrote the gospels. the names associated with them are just names, not known identities.
That can only be true if we assume people like Irenaeus or Eusebius and the like are liars or already sucked into the falsehoods of NT authorship as early as the second century. Odd isn't it? It would be like saying Abraham Lincoln couldn't properly identify the difference between Thomas Jefferson writings and George Washington's writings...
im not suggesting that you were. im suggesting that if st augustine got some of cicero's words wrong, i hardly matters. if someone jotted down the words of jesus wrong, it does matter.
or if they made them up. or edited them to read a certain way.
Thankfully, there were enough church fathers that re-recorded the same books in different locations and at different times over the first few centuries, from Greece to Syria to Spain to Egypt, we could recreate the NT books by their quoting of it alone, so that if any one of them tried to change the scriptures we could fix it today with the other copies from other countries. These many copies and samples form different places with different traditions, for example, is how we know the differences from each other. IF there were great mistakes, we can find them.

but the unassailable logic....!


did you notice my post #201 that mentioned a few other problems with that jewish text quote besides the "can hung mean crucified" problem?

I did. It was an interesting going-over of the parts of the post that I don't really know much about, and it makes sense.

That can only be true if we assume people like Irenaeus or Eusebius and the like are liars or already sucked into the falsehoods of NT authorship as early as the second century. Odd isn't it? It would be like saying Abraham Lincoln couldn't properly identify the difference between Thomas Jefferson writings and George Washington's writings...


you probably should look into it before claiming anything about it. did irenaeus know "mark"?


Thankfully, there were enough church fathers that re-recorded the same books in different locations and at different times over the first few centuries, from Greece to Syria to Spain to Egypt, we could recreate the NT books by their quoting of it alone, so that if any one of them tried to change the scriptures we could fix it today with the other copies from other countries. These many copies and samples form different places with different traditions, for example, is how we know the differences from each other. IF there were great mistakes, we can find them.

after a while there came to be an educated class of christians who did indeed do a pretty good job of accurately copying the various books of the bible.

but there are lots of variations in the earliest texts. some are simple spelling errors, some are transcription errors, and some are deliberate additions, subtractions or editings of the texts.

but that STILL isnt the question. over all the variations are more hairsplitting differences that only the devout theology scholar would care about.

those things really dont matter if the original texts were made up by the authors from things they heard and things they wanted to be true rather than an actual knowledge of jesus and what he did and said.

I did. It was an interesting going-over of the parts of the post that I don't really know much about, and it makes sense.

im biding my time hoping that gravenidle will come in (like he wont be all holiday invoved) and tell us that he has read that talmudic text--in hebrew--and that they would NEVER use that word to mean crucifiction.

or not. you never know if these things will fall your way or not.

but i love it when he does that.

you probably should look into it before claiming anything about it. did irenaeus know "mark"? In this case, Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) knew Polycarp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp), and Polycarp was converted to Christianity by Apostles, he was taught by John the Apostle.

after a while there came to be an educated class of christians who did indeed do a pretty good job of accurately copying the various books of the bible.

but there are lots of variations in the earliest texts. some are simple spelling errors, some are transcription errors, and some are deliberate additions, subtractions or editings of the texts.

You see, that's exactly backwards. The first churches were founded by Apostles who were saying a similar good news statement. Later, during the second century, people started changing the first century message and gospels and letters and trying to write new ones so that they could convert Christians to gnostism. Then by the third and fourth century, the church fathers had to put an end to to peole making new stuff. They then canonized the stuff they could confirm to be the oldest stuff and most authentic stuff.

but that STILL isnt the question. over all the variations are more hairsplitting differences that only the devout theology scholar would care about. Agreed, that's what my argument is based on.

those things really dont matter if the original texts were made up by the authors from things they heard and things they wanted to be true rather than an actual knowledge of jesus and what he did and said. What reason to we have to assume this to be the case? IF the books were really written as late as the modern minimulist would like us to believe, then what books were they using in Rome (for example) before Paul went there? People forget that Christian communities existed all over the Roman world before Paul, and yet modern secular scholars want us to pretend that Paul's writings were the earliest? Nonsense.

The heretic gnostic gospels were the late creations, and that is why they were the ones that were rejected, they weren't compatible with the books that the Christian community was already long accustomed to by the second century.

Was Jesus a real person?No.
Does it matter?No.

In this case, Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) knew Polycarp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp), and Polycarp was converted to Christianity by Apostles, he was taught by John the Apostle.



You see, that's exactly backwards. The first churches were founded by Apostles who were saying a similar good news statement. Later, during the second century, people started changing the first century message and gospels and letters and trying to write new ones so that they could convert Christians to gnostism. Then by the third and fourth century, the church fathers had to put an end to to peole making new stuff. They then canonized the stuff they could confirm to be the oldest stuff and most authentic stuff.

Agreed, that's what my argument is based on.

What reason to we have to assume this to be the case? IF the books were really written as late as the modern minimulist would like us to believe, then what books were they using in Rome (for example) before Paul went there? People forget that Christian communities existed all over the Roman world before Paul, and yet modern secular scholars want us to pretend that Paul's writings were the earliest? Nonsense.

The heretic gnostic gospels were the late creations, and that is why they were the ones that were rejected, they weren't compatible with the books that the Christian community was already long accustomed to by the second century.


im not saying that we must assume that the gospels are made up. im saying that there is no reason to say that they ARENT since they are full of stolen stories that were common in the ancient world and details that dont match up to things that we know happened.

where do you start believing once you realize that the pertinent details of the life of jesus cant be true?

I know that historians have been debating Jesus' existence for a long time but I'm sure that he existed because if he didn't then he would have had no followers. People at some point had to have seen the guy speak, write, act, etc. or else they would have had no basis to form the religion around him and it would been formed around Peter, maybe. Maybe some other apostle, I don't know.

Also even if the historical Jesus as we think of him didn't exist there were a plethora of supposed Messiahs around this time who had different groups of followers. The Romans executed many people for being "The King of the Jews" (Jesus' supposed death sentence according to my old Rabbi)

Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) (c. 4 BCE)
Simon (c. 4 BCE)
Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE)
Jesus
Theudas (44-46) in the Roman province of Judea

These 5 people all lived within 50 years of Jesus and all claimed to be the Messiah. Plus you can look at Life of Brian, while Monty Python pokes fun, most of their jokes hold a true point that there were Messiahs aplenty. One can only assume that this is a small number of those who survived so to have a large number of Messiahs running about claiming to solve for everything wouldn't be unrealistic and therefore somebody like Jesus existed even if he, as we think of him today, did exist.

im not saying that we must assume that the gospels are made up. im saying that there is no reason to say that they ARENT since they are full of stolen stories that were common in the ancient world and details that dont match up to things that we know happened.

where do you start believing once you realize that the pertinent details of the life of jesus cant be true?

Did you have any pertinent details that can't be true, in mind? I'm not sure if I agree with the premise or not.

Try this one on for size:

Did Mohammed really exist? I mean, who else would have founded the Arabic Empire that eventually extended from Portugal to Afghanistan? Just some regular guy who happened to unite Arabia under a religion that he knew (at least to himself) to be ficticuous? Or was he therefore delusional?

Because of course, there is historical evidence that someone united Arabia between 622 and 632 A.D.

Did you have any pertinent details that can't be true, in mind?
I would also ask her the same question. It should be interesting?

Try this one on for size:

Did Mohammed really exist? I mean, who else would have founded the Arabic Empire that eventually extended from Portugal to Afghanistan? Just some regular guy who happened to unite Arabia under a religion that he knew (at least to himself) to be ficticuous? Or was he therefore delusional?

Because of course, there is historical evidence that someone united Arabia between 622 and 632 A.D.

Precisely.

We have strong corroborating evidence of the existence of Mohammed - written texts regarding the man by uninvolved sources, a clear effect on his surrounding culture, and archaeological that some, at least, of what he is claimed to have done, was actually done.

With the exception of a single passage of Josephus, who does not claim to have met Iesus or anyone who had, we have no such corroborating evidence for Iesus.

Who did the secular non-Jewish historian (infact a roman historian) by the name of Josepheus write about?

Roman historians don't just write about any Jewish person, they hated the Jews. so why write about that one.

Josepheus was a guy who lived around the time of Jesus.

Actually, Josephus WAS Jewish. He switched sides during the Judean Revolt, made some pretty shrewd moves, and wound up a Roman Citizen. Also, he wrote some forty years after Iesus, being born about 37 AD.

Interesting guy. The Wikipedia article covers him shallowly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus),I'd suggest you look him up in other sources.

Did (insert name) exist?

In the end, it's history and history is what we make it. I never saw Napoleon take over France, but I read a lot of stuff from people that "supposedly" did. History can be manipulated, falsified, etc. So in the end, can you really prove either way, without a doubt, that Jesus did or did not exist?

Did (insert name) exist?

In the end, it's history and history is what we make it. I never saw Napoleon take over France, but I read a lot of stuff from people that "supposedly" did. History can be manipulated, falsified, etc. So in the end, can you really prove either way, without a doubt, that Jesus did or did not exist?

If you're speaking of absolutes, no, you can't. But there do exist certain standards, accepted by historians and historical societies the world over, which set out what's required before any certain piece of information should be considered factual, likely, or unlikely. The biblical Jesus, due to lack of corroboration, falls into the "unlikely" area; but the existence of someone by that name doing something like the events described has a far higher likelihood.

In this case, Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) knew Polycarp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp), and Polycarp was converted to Christianity by Apostles, he was taught by John the Apostle.

Unless Im mistaken, theres no actual proof that the "John" who instructed Polycarp in his youth, was the same "John the Apostle". particularly since John would have been very, very old at the time.

It could have been any of four "Johns", if I recall.

If John the Apostle was roughly the same age as Jesus, and Polycarp was about 20-25 when this occured, that means John would would have been in his 90's.
This is pretty unlikely considering the average life expectancy of the day.

If you're speaking of absolutes, no, you can't. But there do exist certain standards, accepted by historians and historical societies the world over, which set out what's required before any certain piece of information should be considered factual, likely, or unlikely. The biblical Jesus, due to lack of corroboration, falls into the "unlikely" area; but the existence of someone by that name doing something like the events described has a far higher likelihood.

Well, my whole point was that someday in the future someone could manufacture evidence, and say something that was previously thought untrue, is true. What would happen to history, is the past not different then?

When it comes to Jesus though, I do believe that there was certainly a Jesus. What happened? Can't truly say, but I think evidence points to his existence.

It's a common claim I've heard stated by Christians that "there's more evidence for Christ than Julius Caesar", but I've never seen anyone show me these mountains of evidence.

Moreover, I imagine if anyone could produce proof of a Nazarene called Jesus, I think they'd find it pretty tricky to show any proof, outside of the Bible, of Jesus' miracles, resurrection, etc.

But, you know... blind faith and all that.

You mean lack of faith.
People who truly believe in Jesus, who have true Faith, do not need to make silly claims like "there is more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar" or "thousands of eyewitness accounts exist". They believe regardless.

Only the ones that have weak faith need to fabricate such stories.

I know that historians have been debating Jesus' existence for a long time but I'm sure that he existed because if he didn't then he would have had no followers. People at some point had to have seen the guy speak, write, act, etc. or else they would have had no basis to form the religion around him and it would been formed around Peter, maybe. Maybe some other apostle, I don't know.


Picture this:

Your a Jewish sheepherder in some po-dunk town, in Isreal.

Someone offers you a new religion, and its WAY better than yours!
Theres action, romance, all the elements of a good story.
Heres the clincher....the main focus is around this Hero, who just so happens to the Son of the Living God Made Flesh Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice For His Followers!

It gets better....if you DONT join, when you die, you will burn forever in a proverbial HELL, forever!

BUT....all you have to do to avoid this....is join!

Now, imagine that this guy never actually existed.
How would you make this new religion, and yet offer a multitude of people everything they could want in a diety?

You'd make up a great story, and spread it.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, former professor of law at Harvard University and once recognized by the Supreme Court to be perhaps the greatest authority on legal evidence who has ever lived, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, quoted by L.A. Drummon and P.R. Baxter in the 1986 book How to Respond to a Skeptic. (Chicago: Moody Press, p 117.) He concluded that in any uinbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any. St. Luke, for example, turns out to be as meticulous a geographer and historian as anyone now living. Calling his Gospel "mythology" is like calling Caesar's Gallic Wars "legendary." Contempt prior to investigation is no way to determine the facts. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible is filled with specific names, dates, places. Fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to scorn these as legendary or inaccurate, but having such an attitude today requires one to ignore libraries full of research in history, archeology and linguistics. Which of course is your privilege; but the recently-published "Under the Influence" by Alvin Schmidt shows that virtually everything that makes the world today better than it was in Roman times stems directly from the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

Intruiging :)
Of course, that was 200 years ago - and the claim that other religious works do not name dates and places is nonsense. But intruiging none the less.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

I call crap. where was this article taken from?

I call crap. where was this article taken from?
This whole thread is mostly crap? I would even go so far as to say it is a troll trap. There certainly are a lot of unsupported opinions floating around in this cesspool.

Throwing this out there for consideration: ...The New Testament, the writings of fanatics, is not documentary evidence.

You mean lack of faith.
People who truly believe in Jesus, who have true Faith, do not need to make silly claims like "there is more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar" or "thousands of eyewitness accounts exist". They believe regardless.

Only the ones that have weak faith need to fabricate such stories.And there really is not more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar.

The New Testament, the writings of fanatics, is not documentary evidence.

Actually, technically it is. But it suffers from severe levels of bias, internal inconsistency, and near-certain post-authorship alteration. So, it is considered highly untrustworthy.

you can call me a stupid mush brain christian if you want to and YEA i AM a christian and PROUD of it because when Jesud died on the cross he SAVED me from eternal death in HELL do some research on christianity maybe you might see how real he was and IS

you can call me a stupid mush brain christian if you want to and YEA i AM a christian and PROUD of it because when Jesud died on the cross he SAVED me from eternal death in HELL do some research on christianity maybe you might see how real he was and ISYour religious drooling does not impress anyone around here. And research on Christianity only shows how primitive the faith and its supposed originator really are/were.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

Dr. Simon Greenleaf sounds like a fraud - in any unbiased courtroom in the world, 2000 year old documents would not be accepted as evidence. They're not even originals - they've been copied and re-copied many times over the millenia.
Unless anyone can persuade me that the Bible comes under this category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_document
As far as I can see, it falls down very badly on point 2.
Even then, that would only be one court of law, hardly 'any unbiased courtroom in the world'.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

Not buying it.

Resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and there isn't even ordinary evidence to support it, much less 'extraordinary' evidence.

The first discussion texts of Jesus are the Gospels, and they didn't appear within decades of the lleged crucifiction. As evidence for resurrection (an event which none of the scriptures actually describe as being witnessed...) they are sorely wanting.

It occurs to me that this Greenleaf fellow, may not have been entirely free of bias, himself. To the extent, that it has compromised his testimony.