Yes Jesus was real. He's my homeboy.
Poll
Did Jesus Exist?
Yes, he was the son of God | 34% | 34% - 105 | ||||
Yes, he was a regular guy, but not the son of God | 10% | 10% - 31 | ||||
Yes, he was a regular guy and God doesn't exist | 22% | 22% - 68 | ||||
Not Enough Evidence to Prove or deny his Existence | 12% | 12% - 38 | ||||
No, he's a myth, but God does exist | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
No, he's a myth and God doesn't exist | 8% | 8% - 27 | ||||
Jesus Christ, Another Religious Thread? | 11% | 11% - 34 | ||||
Total: 303 |
Only proof of Jesus is the Bible. But for all we know it could have been written by a crazy old man in a cave 2000 years ago.
Believe the book, don't believe the book. Its up to you. There is only conjecture on Christ when searching for material proof.
I believe the book.
Believe the book, don't believe the book. Its up to you. There is only conjecture on Christ when searching for material proof.
I believe the book.
I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.topal63 wrote:
Exactly. The only things left are utter distortions - that is not my idea of a historical person.Bertster7 wrote:
Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.usmarine2005 wrote:
Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus? Or the Easter Bunny?
If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.
If his name is not Jesus, but might be Yeshua, and all I know is a distortion, and most of the other parts conform to common mythical god-man dying stories, or conform to other sources (Jewish messianic thought; writings) - what do I really know about this unknown, face-less person? A historical reconstruction is not history.
What does it even mean to say - I believe a historical Jesus existed - but well, it really doesn't represent the reality of whoever that man was - "but he might have been like .... "
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-10 13:14:04)
you guys can believe what u want... its a free world right?? (well, kinda) so lets get on with our lives and quit bashing what we cannot prove(in your eyes) or disprove....CameronPoe wrote:
I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.topal63 wrote:
Exactly. The only things left are utter distortions - that is not my idea of a historical person.Bertster7 wrote:
Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.
If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.
If his name is not Jesus, but might be Yeshua, and all I know is a distortion, and most of the other parts conform to common mythical god-man dying stories, or conform to other sources (Jewish messianic thought; writings) - what do I really know about this unknown, face-less person? A historical reconstruction is not history.
What does it even mean to say - I believe a historical Jesus existed - but well, it really doesn't represent the reality of whoever that man was - "but he might have been like .... "
If you believe in God might aswell believe in ghosts magic ect.
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.CameronPoe wrote:
I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.topal63 wrote:
Exactly. The only things left are utter distortions - that is not my idea of a historical person.Bertster7 wrote:
Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.
If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.
If his name is not Jesus, but might be Yeshua, and all I know is a distortion, and most of the other parts conform to common mythical god-man dying stories, or conform to other sources (Jewish messianic thought; writings) - what do I really know about this unknown, face-less person? A historical reconstruction is not history.
What does it even mean to say - I believe a historical Jesus existed - but well, it really doesn't represent the reality of whoever that man was - "but he might have been like .... "
What sort of proof would you like?Smitty5613 wrote:
ok, lets see some proof of that then?Bertster7 wrote:
Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.usmarine2005 wrote:
Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus? Or the Easter Bunny?
If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.
The Easter bunny is surrounded by pagan symbolism, that's obvious. A rabbit, laying eggs, in spring - what bigger symbol of fertility do you want? A giant phallus perhaps?
The modern day version of Santa has been formed by gradual corruptions of the stories about St Nicholas - who was real. It has been a gradual process and the Santa we think of today is the product of Coca Colas marketing department.
Jesus was a man who probably existed and was executed by the Romans. It seems probable that Jesus embraced ideologies that could be described as communist and the Romans killed him for these dodgy beliefs. That has become the story of the son of god who was raised from the dead - just goes to show what a bit of spin and a lot of time can do.
Christianity is full of pagan symbolism. The timing of the festivals, Christmas, Easter etc. The myths about Jesus, all ripped off (virgin birth, being son of god, rising from the dead at easter, communion stuff, the concept of a final judgement - even having a pope as religious leader, all pagan beliefs taken from Mithraism). The man at the heart of Christianity, Jesus, we know nothing about (historically speaking) - except that he came from Judea and got executed by Pilate (allegedly). What we do know is that he wouldn't have been white - as he is usually depicted - a great example of how an image can become so distorted over time (much like the transition from St Nicholas' robes to the attire we now associate with Santa).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-10 13:32:07)
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.CameronPoe wrote:
I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.topal63 wrote:
Exactly. The only things left are utter distortions - that is not my idea of a historical person.
If his name is not Jesus, but might be Yeshua, and all I know is a distortion, and most of the other parts conform to common mythical god-man dying stories, or conform to other sources (Jewish messianic thought; writings) - what do I really know about this unknown, face-less person? A historical reconstruction is not history.
What does it even mean to say - I believe a historical Jesus existed - but well, it really doesn't represent the reality of whoever that man was - "but he might have been like .... "
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.Smitty5613 wrote:
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.CameronPoe wrote:
I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.
Yep...and the Europeans burned witches also.Smitty5613 wrote:
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....
lol. The message is largely OK (the four gospels that is) but the dogma and fairytale nonsense is delusional bullshit.rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.Smitty5613 wrote:
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.
So what if it was founded on Christianity?
and it promotes more than "compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values", like other religions. Islam also promotes that. And i don't need to say anything about that religion.
and it promotes more than "compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values", like other religions. Islam also promotes that. And i don't need to say anything about that religion.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-07-10 13:30:32)
Granted..but, think about what they knew at the time and the ways they would have to explain things so others would understand and then you get an idea why so much fiction was used.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. The message is largely OK (the four gospels that is) but the dogma and fairytale nonsense is delusional bullshit.rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.
yeah, but islam also promotes blowing urself up to get a bunch of chicks from allah....Mekstizzle wrote:
So what if it was founded on Christianity?
and it promotes more than "compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values", like other religions. Islam also promotes that.
Ben the womanizer? Or Jefferson the slave fucker? <-----LOL @ Christianity.Smitty5613 wrote:
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.Smitty5613 wrote:
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....
I like George. Can't say much bad about him.
Christianity is based on faith; if you have faith in it, then its real; but if you dont, then its fake to you.... u just gotta watch wat u believe in, it might be false.....rawls2 wrote:
Granted..but, think about what they knew at the time and the ways they would have to explain things so others would understand and then you get an idea why so much fiction was used.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. The message is largely OK (the four gospels that is) but the dogma and fairytale nonsense is delusional bullshit.rawls2 wrote:
Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.
That's because they weren't such religious nutters. If they were I would expect they wouldn't have created such a secular nation.Smitty5613 wrote:
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.Smitty5613 wrote:
maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....
Shame people had to fuck it up by adding nonsense like "one nation under god".
hey, at least Jefferson wasnt racist then ..... lets see what u have to say about the rest of the founding fathers that believed in God.....Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Ben the womanizer? Or Jefferson the slave fucker? <-----LOL @ Christianity.Smitty5613 wrote:
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.
I like George. Can't say much bad about him.
That was added in the middle of 20th century.Bertster7 wrote:
That's because they weren't such religious nutters. If they were I would expect they wouldn't have created such a secular nation.Smitty5613 wrote:
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.
Shame people had to fuck it up by adding nonsense like "one nation under god".
@topal you seem very uncomfortable with the possibility of Jesus existing and being a real man.
@Bertster I agree with you in almost everything you said.
@CamPoe He could have been a political activitst, in fact I started a thread about it
@usmarine If you don't have anything interesting to say, then don't say anything dude
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-10 13:44:39)
OK, fine ... I thought I could end this quickly ...topal63 wrote:
I tell you what let's not.OrangeHound wrote:
But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment. Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.
OK .... I can do Josephus.topal63 wrote:
Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.
You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.
Assuming that Antiquities is a valid historical work, let me address 18.3.3. I believe that whereas most scholars agree that the Josephus text is a genuine text overall, there is also wide speculation (perhaps the majority speculation) that the text was embellished ... prejudiced toward the deity of Christ. Perhaps the debate then centers around three possibilities:topal63 wrote:
(c.) ... And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century writings make no mention of this - so called Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.
I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgey; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christainity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.
- The entire section of 18.3.3 was inserted
- The text of 18.3.3 had an original form, but it was embellished to promote the deity of Jesus
- These are the actual words of Josephus, accurately communicated from the originals.
- First, why only a small tidbit of information in Josephus' works? Why not insert much more detail about Jesus than merely an offhand paragraph or two? I could see tremendous value to the cause of Christianity by mentioning the miracles and the crowds. Yet, 18.3.4 writes more details about Paulina than 18.3.3 writes about Jesus.
- Second, why not make "Christian" additions to hundreds of other historical documents at the time ... under the authority of Constantine, the church had wide authority and would have had ample opportunity to make a wholesale change to history at this point. Yet, that didn't happen. The references are small, rather than widespread ... and this was during a dark period of church history.
So, we have three points of support for Josephus mentioning Jesus. First, there is today's manuscripts ... though I recognize the weakness in this point. Second, we have earlier historians connect Josephus with Jesus, and there seems to be suggestions that an unembellished version might exist. Third, there was not a wholesale movement to write Jesus into secular history, so some sort of conspiracy on this point is invalid.
Overall, the debate about whether or not an original Josephus manuscript mentioned Jesus leans much more heavily toward the affirmative - and the majority of scholars agree on this point. The argument for an insertion is much weaker, and so this document is actually supporting evidence for a historical Jesus.
If you believe in God, are you a better person than someone who doesn't?Smitty5613 wrote:
hey, at least Jefferson wasnt racist then ..... lets see what u have to say about the rest of the founding fathers that believed in God.....Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Ben the womanizer? Or Jefferson the slave fucker? <-----LOL @ Christianity.Smitty5613 wrote:
hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?
I like George. Can't say much bad about him.
he existed. he mows my lawns
on topic:
i believe that he did exist but he wasnt a messiah
on topic:
i believe that he did exist but he wasnt a messiah
nope, unless that person who doesnt is a rapist, but even then, he is still equal to anyone else in God's eyes...Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
If you believe in God, are you a better person than someone who doesn't?Smitty5613 wrote:
hey, at least Jefferson wasnt racist then ..... lets see what u have to say about the rest of the founding fathers that believed in God.....Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Ben the womanizer? Or Jefferson the slave fucker? <-----LOL @ Christianity.
I like George. Can't say much bad about him.
holy crap, u wrote a book!OrangeHound wrote:
OK, fine ... I thought I could end this quickly ...topal63 wrote:
I tell you what let's not.OrangeHound wrote:
But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment. Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.OK .... I can do Josephus.topal63 wrote:
Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.
You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.Assuming that Antiquities is a valid historical work, let me address 18.3.3. I believe that whereas most scholars agree that the Josephus text is a genuine text overall, there is also wide speculation (perhaps the majority speculation) that the text was embellished ... prejudiced toward the deity of Christ. Perhaps the debate then centers around three possibilities:topal63 wrote:
(c.) ... And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century writings make no mention of this - so called Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.
I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgey; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christainity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.
- The entire section of 18.3.3 was inserted
- The text of 18.3.3 had an original form, but it was embellished to promote the deity of Jesus
- These are the actual words of Josephus, accurately communicated from the originals.
Since this is a dialog about references to the historical Jesus, then options 2 & 3 would lend supporting evidence for a historical Jesus ... and only option 1 would give support against a historical Jesus. I think we can agree on that.
On the subject of embellishment. Now, normally I see only the debate between options 2 & 3 with some scholars arguing for the embellishment while others argue for the original. As part of these arguments, the proponents of option 2 might cite Shlomo Pines' work as he quotes from a 10th century Arabic work. The text he cites is worded as:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.
This version is much more neutral in its position on the deity of Jesus as Christ/Messiah/God, than is that which comes from Eusebius. It is also written down by a Christian, Agapius, and many suggest it is from memory. Pines suggestion is that this is the original and more accurate version of 18.3.3, and the more popular version is an embellishment.
What is interesting about Pine's theory, is that it is somewhat closer to Origen's review of Josephus (Origen predates Eusebius). Origen references the 20.9.1 but ignores what should have been a substantial reference in 18.3.3, particularly if worded in the way of Eusebius. Rather, Origen only comments that Josephus did not think of Jesus as the Messiah (which implies that Josephus wrote something about Jesus ... perhaps that something is closer to Agapius' version of 18.3.3)
On the subject of insertion. Now, whereas I think Eusebius' version might be thought of as embellishment, I'm not sure that an argument for total insertion of the text is valid. First, we have two references to Jesus (first in 18.3.3 and also in 20.9.1), and not merely the single reference. For, if there were such an undertaking, why only a poverty of works? First, why only a small tidbit of information in Josephus' works? Why not insert much more detail about Jesus than merely an offhand paragraph or two? I could see tremendous value to the cause of Christianity by mentioning the miracles and the crowds. Yet, 18.3.4 writes more details about Paulina than 18.3.3 writes about Jesus.
Secondly, why not make "Christian" additions to hundreds of other historical documents at the time ... under the authority of Constantine, the church had wide authority and would have had ample opportunity to make a wholesale change to history at this point. Yet, that didn't happen. The references are small, rather than widespread ... and this was during a dark period of church history.
So, we have three points of support for Josephus mentioning Jesus. First, there is today's manuscripts ... though I recognize the weakness in this point. Second, we have earlier historians connect Josephus with Jesus, and there seems to be suggestions that an unembellished version might exist. Third, there was not a wholesale movement to write Jesus into secular history, so some sort of conspiracy on this point is invalid.
Overall, the debate about whether or not an original Josephus manuscript mentioned Jesus leans much more heavily toward the affirmative - and the majority of scholars agree on this point. The argument for an insertion is much weaker, and so this document is actually supporting evidence for a historical Jesus.