Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Jesus?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 12:59:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oddly enough, it is entirely plausible that Jesus is a fabricated character, and never existed.

We don't really know, and either side could come up with a convincing rationale to support their position.

I'm of the opinion that a man named Jesus did walk around, and say a lot of things. He was probably a very different character than what most people think of him as.

Jesus was very clearly a pimpin' party animal. Anyone who hangs around with tax collectors and hookers has to know how to break a few knees. Anyone who turns water into wine AFTER everyone drank through the first barrel knows how to party.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 1:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?

Oh boy, this will get messy very fast
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 1:11:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:

Was Jesus really "real?"

It is accepted so yes there is little contention that Jesus existed in the academic community. There is contention over some of the specific acts, see for example the Christian vs Muslim interpretation of the resurrection.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 1:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jesus going to Kashmir to form Led Zeppelin seems plausible enough, and is personally what I think happened.

Then again, I only know of one sect of Islam that holds to that belief. It's also the only sect of Islam that has an interpretation of the Koran that doesn't make Islam look like a religion for @ssholes.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 4:25:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 1:23:49 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Jesus going to Kashmir to form Led Zeppelin seems plausible enough, and is personally what I think happened.

Then again, I only know of one sect of Islam that holds to that belief. It's also the only sect of Islam that has an interpretation of the Koran that doesn't make Islam look like a religion for @ssholes.

Yes, there is a sect of Islam that believes Jesus was actually crucified rather than being sent up to heaven by God. It's actually one of the more reasonable, less insane sects and one I would consider following if I ever went back to Islam.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 5:01:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 1:23:49 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Jesus going to Kashmir to form Led Zeppelin seems plausible enough, and is personally what I think happened.:

Win.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 5:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?:

I think there is a sufficient amount of extra-biblical literature from various historians to assume that Jesus did in fact exist, that he was in fact executed, but that the stories surrounding him were greatly embellished.

Jesus legend was more than likely a game of telephone.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 11:10:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?

This topic has always interested me.

There's plenty of evidence that he existed. The writings of Josephus and Taictus and others (only two names I can remember) mention him and some of these are non Christians. Also many religions acknowledge him as a great prophet or man.
That he was a good moral teacher is often accepted by atheists. But much of what the Bible says about him has not been proven. However I came across an interesting thing a while ago. This was a while ago so I can't site any sources, but I relocated the comment so I'll edit and post it here.

The Talmud is "a collection of writings very important in Judaism." In the Talmud it talks about Jesus, saying; "Jesus was a false Messiah, who practiced magic and deceived the people." It also calls Jesus a sorcerer.

This shows that the people who wrote the Talmud knew that Christ was a real person. It also proves that unless they were lying (which they had no reason too) Jesus preformed what appeared to be signs and miracles. They say He preformed magic and was a sorcerer. Jesus preformed many signs and miracles such as, healing the sick, healing the blind, raising the dead and making the lame walk.

I find this interesting because even the Talmud acknowledges that Jesus preformed miracles. They just say it was witch craft.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 7:02:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 5:05:02 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think there is a sufficient amount of extra-biblical literature from various historians to assume that Jesus did in fact exist, that he was in fact executed, but that the stories surrounding him were greatly embellished.

Jesus legend was more than likely a game of telephone.

I'm not sure about that - the extra biblical evidence, as far as I can tell, would be evidence of Christian belief in Jesus, but none of it is contemporaneous. It's all decades after Jesus supposedly died. There are some good arguments that I've read in favor of the Gospels being literary inventions (at least, for the most part) - Richard Carrier develops a plausible one, for instance.

That said, I think it's more parsimonious to think that Jesus existed. It's not a strongly supported contention, however. I've seen a lot of Christians argue that it's without doubt, which is absurd.

I've read plausible arguments against the existence of Socrates, Confucius, Mohammad, and many others. I have not read any 'home run' arguments either way about these figures (and Jesus), so I tentatively accept that they probably existed in history.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Jewish historian Josephus (a contemporary of Jesus) writes about him being a trouble make, so most believe he was real. Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up. Who he really was will always be a mystery.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 2:16:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up.

Also quite possibly one of the worst secular documentaries on the subject ever.

Zeitgeist gets its own category of awful.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:32:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 2:16:18 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up.

Also quite possibly one of the worst secular documentaries on the subject ever.

Zeitgeist gets its own category of awful.

So many of good fellows are telling me to do research when all they have done is watch crappy documentaries (The Zeitgeist 5 times a day)
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:57:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
The Jewish historian Josephus (a contemporary of Jesus) writes about him being a trouble make, so most believe he was real. Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up. Who he really was will always be a mystery.

Not "always a mystery". When people die then they will absolutely know for sure.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:11:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:57:59 AM, twsurber wrote:
At 4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
The Jewish historian Josephus (a contemporary of Jesus) writes about him being a trouble make, so most believe he was real. Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up. Who he really was will always be a mystery.

Not "always a mystery". When people die then they will absolutely know for sure.

Not if the atheists are correct.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:13:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 7:33:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
The Jewish historian Josephus (a contemporary of Jesus) writes about him being a trouble make, so most believe he was real. Check out the video "The God who wasn't There" for the evidence that he was made up. Who he really was will always be a mystery.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, his histories were written somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 AD. I think he might have been born in he 30's, but that doesn't make him a contemporary. Further, there are two passages where he mentions Jesus. One is believed to be heavily interpolated. While I think that his passages lend credence to Jesus' historicity, they are far from a slam dunk. At best he was reporting what early Christians believed. He did not claim to be an eye witness.
Living4Christ08
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:20:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since Jesus himself didn't leave behind any writings of his own, we're dependent upon the records of others for knowing what jesus said and did. This is not unusual for figures of antiquity, example is Socrates who also left nothing behind so we're dependent upon his disciple plato for most of our knowledge of socrates' life and teaching. How can we tell if the records are historically accurate?
Up until the modern era these sorts of questions were basically unanswerable. But the rise of textual criticism and modern study of history, historians began to develop the tools t unlock these questions. Today jesus is no longer just a figure in a stained glass window, but a real, flesh and blood person of history, whose life can be investigated by the standard methods of history.
Writings in the new testament can be scrutinized using the same historical criteria that we use in investigating other sources of ancient history like Thucydides' Peloponnesian War or the Annals of Tacitus.
Jesus is referred to in a range of ancient surces inside and outside the new testament, including christian, roman and jewish sources. Its extraordinary when you reflect on how obscure a figure jesus was. He had at most a 3 yr. public life as an itinerant galilean preacher. Yet we have far more info about jesus than we do for most major figures of antiquity.
The most important of the historical sources have been collected into the new testament. Reference to jesus outside the new testament tend to confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don't really tell us anything new.
Many laymen don't understand the procedure. They think that if you examine the new testament writings themselves rather than look at sources outside the new testament, then somehow you're easoning in a circle, using the bible to prove the bible. If you even qote a passage out of the new testament, they think you're somehow begging the question, presupposing that the new testament i reliable.
But that's not at all what historians are doing when they examine the new testament. They're not treating the bible as a holy book ad trying to prove it's true by quoting it. rather they're treating the new testament just like any other collection of ancient documents and investigating whether these documents are historically reliable.
It's importantto understand that originally there wasn't any such book called the new testament. There were just these separate documents handed down from the first century, things like the gospel of luke, the gospel o john, the acts of the apostles, paul's letter to the church in corinth, greece, and so on. It wasn't until a couple centuries later that the church officially collected all these documents under one cover, which came to be known as the new testament.
The church chose only the earliest sources, which were closest to jesus and the original disciple, to include in the new testament and left out the later, secondary accounts like the forged apocryphal gospels, which everyone knew were fakes. So the best historical sources were included in the new testament. People who insist on outside sources don't understand what they're asking historians to do. They're demanding that historians ignore the earliest, primary sources about jesus in favor of sources that are later, secondary, and less reliable.
This is important because all of the radical reconstructions of the historical jesus in the news are based on later writings outside the new testament, in particular the so-called apocryphal gospels. What are the apocryphal gospels? they're gospels forged under the apostles' names, like the gospel of thomas, the gospel of peter, the gospel of philip, and so forth. They first began to appear in the second half of the second century after christ. Revisionists claim that these extra biblical writings are the key to correctly reconstructing the historical jesus.
Professor Luke johnson, a distinguished new testament scholar at emory university, points out that all of the recent spate of books claiming to uncover the real jesus follow the same predictable pattern:
1 The book begins by trumpeting the scholarly credentials of the author and his prodigious research.
2 The author claims to offer some new, and maybe even suppressed, interpretation of who jesus really was.
3 The truth about jesus is said to be discovered by means of sources outside the bible that enable us to red the gospels in a new way that is at odds with their face-value meaning.
4 This new interpretation is provocative and even titillating, for example, that jesus married mary magdalene or was the leader of a hallucinogenic cult or a peasant cynic philosopher.
5 It is implied that traditional christian beliefs are therefore undermined and need to be revised.
How historically reliable are the new testament documents?
1 There was insufficient time for legendary influences to erase the core historical facts.
2 The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends"
3 The jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.
4 There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles' supervision.
5 The gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

Criteria of Authenticity
signs of historical authenticity:
1 Historical fit.
2 Independent, early sources
3 Embarrassment
4 Dissimilarity
5 Semitisms
6 Coherence

Jesus' radical personal claims and activities, culminating in his trial and crucifixion, constitute the proper historical context fr evaluating the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Historians are unanimous that jesus of nazareth, having been condemned by the jewish authorities for blasphemy and delivered to the roman authorities on the pretext of treason, met his death by crucifixion.
Mike
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 2:21:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nothing is more annoying than watching an apologetic trying to convince you that a miracle, which is by definition improbable and implausible, is more probably and plausible than the more mundane explanation.

The one debate I had on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection was straight up retarded. The mental gymnastics these people pull when confronted with their own ignorance.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 10:05:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?

By ANY historical criteria a man called Jesus Christ certainly existed.. it is His claims that we must decide upon.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 10:14:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 10:05:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?

By ANY historical criteria a man called Jesus Christ certainly existed.. it is His claims that we must decide upon.

"Certainly"? I don't think so. I think it's a reasonable conclusion, but it's not certain by a long shot. Neither are other historical people (socrates, etc).
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 10:16:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 10:14:35 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2011 10:05:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/24/2011 11:50:23 AM, comoncents wrote:
Was Jesus really "real?"
I understand that the evidence we have towards this topic is hearsay, but even most hearsay does not fly in a court of law.

Is there anything else on the guy?

By ANY historical criteria a man called Jesus Christ certainly existed.. it is His claims that we must decide upon.

"Certainly"? I don't think so. I think it's a reasonable conclusion, but it's not certain by a long shot. Neither are other historical people (socrates, etc).

I'm VERY happy to say it's as reasonable as Socrates..
The Cross.. the Cross.