Yes, There Was A Historical Jesus

[Michael]

I have thought about this for a few days and came to (my very personal) conclusion, that even when he was here on earth, that it does not proof a single thing. He might have been a real human being...but was he god? Did he rose from the dead? Were those miracles true? Was he the son of god? Is there a god? If there was a historical jesus than this is a proof, that there was a historical jesus. It is possible, that buddha was a historical person, but that does not say that the myths about him and his idea of salvation is the truth.

[hereticzero]

In the 21st Century, Carl the mechanic can come up with more reasonable solutions to live by than what was written over two thousand years ago. Two thousand years ago we all may well have bowed down to a rock in order for our crops to grow. But this is not two thousand years ago. This is today, and what is needed today is not more havoc by religion that destroys families and murders people because of their sexual orientation. We need people with determination to end the power struggle we have with religion. The only way to do that is to keep pushing for equal rights for everyone. Every time a politician gives into the pressures of a religion to pass laws to protect its beliefs, we take a step backwards 100 years. I have no desire to live my life like they did 100 years ago, let alone two thousand years ago. The church is finished and it's time to throw dirt on it and bury it.

[Skankboy]

All Tacticus proves (and I also fall on the side of it being legit) was that there were christians in his time and WHAT THEY BELIEVED.

 

It's second/third hand info. He's not saying "There was a Jewish leader they called christ". He's saying "there's a cult called the christians who say..."

 

I can appreciate where you're coming from, but Tacticus really doesn't speak to what you are talking about.

 

Personally, I think it's very possible there was a historical person (probably called yeshua or something). But the information you've provided doesn't really prove anything like that.

[Kuroikaze]

Well, that's not true. True among debates with skeptics, because a skeptic sometimes is like a fundamentalist Christian, they make it what they want. There are many references to Christians, the movement, the Apostles. The problem is that skeptics discredit them and put them on a higher level, one like the Bible.

 

The difference is that the Bible was composed by their heritage. Christ's was not liked by either Romans or any Jews that would have been influential at the time, which makes for the displaced literature about Him. We have documents, but they all get scratched off as, "Don't count".

 

Honestly, after this statement, and the others in pure redundancy; I wish I had never started this topic and probably won't be back to it much.

 

The reason is that history can't be history with the skeptic. It always becomes more than that. I have heard it said here before that, "We should have more than this for the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ"

 

All I will say is that even the Jews don't disagree that he existed and they think he was a false prophet. What more do people need?

 

Do you actually know what the definition of a skeptic is?

 

You seem to think the definition is that of an ideologue who refuses to accept plain facts.

In truth a skeptic is someone who asks for proof before consenting to an idea.

 

Look. Part of the problem here is that in the statement "did Jesus exist" the word "exist" is used in a rather vague way.

One can mean either

1. Did a person who exactly matches all the person described in the gospel and who did everything mentioned therein exist.

2. Did a person who did most of the stuff in the gospel's with slight embellishment exist.

3. Did person exist on whom the gospels were loosely based but had almost nothing at all to do with the writings.

 

 

Look, you already know our position on points one and two, and the Bible, or indeed any writing by itself is not sufficient evidence to believe that a person with supernatural powers existed. In any case, none of the extra biblical accounts of Jesus get into great detail or mention anything about miracles or supernatural powers. The can do no more than attest to the possibility of a person who existed who matches point 3.

 

I have no problem saying such a man might have existed....but so what? What does that get you? Nothing, and I do not particularly care if there was or not. The fact that many scholars doubt some of the extra biblical references are legitimate is true, but is important to me only as an issue of historical curiosity not one of ideological necessity as you seem to think.

The point of contention between me and Christianity is whether or not Jesus was the supernatural son of god, not whether or not some dude named Jesus ever existed.

 

When we argue about whether Jesus existed we are not arguing from a need to defend a position but simply disusing the facts on the ground. You seem to think the facts on the ground point to at least position 3, I find the facts presented tenuous at best and arguing the Jesus OBVIOUSLY existed on the facts we have is overstating the case. Might he have existed? Yes sure, but it is far from certain.

 

All I will say is that even the Jews don't disagree that he existed and they think he was a false prophet. What more do people need?

 

P.S. this quote says it all, you seem to think that the beliefs of modern Jews about Jesus existence should be enough to convince us he is real. This is patently absurd, I should not even need to explain why this fails ANY reasonable standard for evidence. If you consider this a valid argument on ANY level at all for your claim, I think it is your standards for evidence that need adjustment not ours

[NotBlinded]

...or Marcus Welby really existed or not.

HA! You are showing your age!

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The only theme throughout the OT and NT that is repeated over and over is what? God demands mercy and not sacrifice. God demands love that covers up sin and not the insane ramblings of the Law that points fingers at everyone and accuses everyone for no reason. Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do you any good! God demands mercy and not sacrifice because that is the only works not covered by the Law that Moses never got from god. Even the prophets knew God never told moses anything but how were they going to tell the Jew without being killed by the Jews?

 

The Law of love was not delivered to Moses so Jesus brought it. That is what the Kingdom of God is within you. Mercy and not sacrifice, and an accusation that traditions were taught as law, as commandments, when there were none given. To prove Jesus lived is impossible. To prove we need Jesus for salvation is impossible because you cannot prove he was sent by god to save us from what a talking snake did. Too many myths and not enough factual accounts. Every time we forgive each other we save each other because where forgiveness abounds there is no strife, no anger, no hate, no feelings of guilt. We don't need Jesus. We need common sense and the willingness to forgive.

 

Heretic,

 

I appreciate you answer and respect your opinion. I view many of the things you mentioned in the same light of what you said in my theology. I also understand it can all be confusing.

 

I that light, the light of your knowledge on the subject; that is one reason I used Tacitus as an example. It is not bias information. And though you are correct in that it is impossible to prove Jesus lived; IMO, the Tacitus content, for me, helps me to understand that He possibly lived.

 

I started this topic and it has escalated out of control. Originally, it was for those that bluntly attend to the notion that it is idiotic to even fantasize that Christ was real.

 

I contend with that, as it is worthy of research, as I see you have done. We just stand different;y. But, thank you for the sincere response. Your response is kind of what I was looking for. I will be reading you post more to better see your view.

[R. S. Martin]

IMO, the Tacitus content, for me, helps me to understand that He possibly lived.

 

 

So you're changing tact and admitting doubt that Jesus lived? Yet you also claim:

 

I started this topic and it has escalated out of control.

 

This does not sound like the statement of one who doubts that Jesus was a historical person.

 

You say the discussion is "out of control." How is it out of control? People are producing arguments supported by evidence. I suppose for a person who can't handle that kind of arguments, and who just wants people to agree with him, it might seem like it's out of control. That would lead me to conclude that you have no interest in truth but in proselytizing.

 

Originally, it was for those that bluntly attend to the notion that it is idiotic to even fantasize that Christ was real.

 

I think some of those people have responded in this thread but perhaps because you don't like their responses you say this discussion has "escalated out of control."

[Abiyoyo]

IMO, the Tacitus content, for me, helps me to understand that He possibly lived.

 

 

So you're changing tact and admitting doubt that Jesus lived? Yet you also claim:

 

I started this topic and it has escalated out of control.

 

This does not sound like the statement of one who doubts that Jesus was a historical person.

 

You say the discussion is "out of control." How is it out of control? People are producing arguments supported by evidence. I suppose for a person who can't handle that kind of arguments, and who just wants people to agree with him, it might seem like it's out of control. That would lead me to conclude that you have no interest in truth but in proselytizing.

 

Originally, it was for those that bluntly attend to the notion that it is idiotic to even fantasize that Christ was real.

 

I think some of those people have responded in this thread but perhaps because you don't like their responses you say this discussion has "escalated out of control."

 

R.S

 

If someone wants to believe Jesus was a real, they could, because there is history to point that he is real. If someone wants to believe Jesus is not real, they could, because there is not enough history about Him, directly, that can point Him out as being real.

 

So, that is why I say this thread got out of control; because now, we are going into trying to discredit a great work within classical antiquity, which, IMO, is kind of childish.

[Shyone]

So, that is why I say this thread got out of control; because now, we are going into trying to discredit a great work within classical antiquity, which, IMO, is kind of childish.

Would you be so concerned if we were criticizing Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars? Or is it the content in particular of this particular work that you don't want to see discredited?

[Abiyoyo]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

It's not just about philosophy. It's about prophecy of the human race also, which fascinates me regardless of the material.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

And the Legend Grows.

 

I see your points and have researched in depth all the things mentioned. They are exactly how you assert them Shyone, oddities. They could be nothing more than just oddities, or parts Christ made mention to the disciples. For all we know, Paul could've inlaid these attributes of prophecy to help win over the Jews. Who knows.

 

But, does it really matter?

 

I see it much more simple than above. David was promised one from Judah to have an everlasting kingdom, one came, claimed it, died, supposedly was reported as speaking talking with disciples after his death, and said He would be at the right hand of God, then, light to Gentiles, chief cornerstone rejected, followers, church that is still standing as His rock, end times

 

I see the details as details. Everything that surrounds Christ has come true, even those that oppose him, or the spirit of the anti-Christ.

[Abiyoyo]

So, that is why I say this thread got out of control; because now, we are going into trying to discredit a great work within classical antiquity, which, IMO, is kind of childish.

Would you be so concerned if we were criticizing Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars? Or is it the content in particular of this particular work that you don't want to see discredited?

 

If you were criticizing this work in relation to the same degree, then yes, because though their was an agenda, the content is still historically significant. I don't see any agenda (and not sure if anyone else other than Skeptics) see a vertain underline agenda through this work for Christianity. I see it as an important tidbit of information within an entire content related to other matters.

[Vigile]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

It's not just about philosophy. It's about prophecy of the human race also, which fascinates me regardless of the material.

 

You could say the same about every cult leader that ever existed. I realize it fascinates you. It doesn't fascinate me. Moreover IMO the world would be a better place if less people bought into this stuff.

[Heimdall]

I reiterate, check my thread - http://www.ex-christ...liny-the-elder/ using Tacitus is not very logical, especially since his friends writing at the same time contradicted his report of Christians being responsible for burning Rome...it was inserted in the 6the century CE by Sulpicus Servius and noted forger of "antique" documents and a staunch Christian. The Latin of the insert isn't quite up to Tacitus level of education according to epigraphers specializing in Roman documents. - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

I reiterate, check my thread - http://www.ex-christ...liny-the-elder/ using Tacitus is not very logical, especially since his friends writing at the same time contradicted his report of Christians being responsible for burning Rome...it was inserted in the 6the century CE by Sulpicus Servius and noted forger of "antique" documents and a staunch Christian. The Latin of the insert isn't quite up to Tacitus level of education according to epigraphers specializing in Roman documents. - Heimdall

 

Okay, I quit. Good luck guys.

[Shyone]

Who gives a shit if he existed or not? I can name at least 20 20th century writers and philosophers who offer a more profound and useful view on humanity than that sappy shit Jesus came up with in the Sermon on the Mount. And apart from that, most of what he preached was detrimental to mankind, not a boon.

It's not just about philosophy. It's about prophecy of the human race also, which fascinates me regardless of the material.

The realization that prophecy is entirely bunk was one of the major reasons I could not longer believe in the Christian God.

 

Which prophecy of Jesus has come true? The one where he came back during the generation of those standing when he said he would? Or do you prefer the Excuse Mode Apologetic approach?

 

There are predictions, and then there are prophecies. Robbing a bank and then predicting that you will be arrested is not prophecy. Neither is pissing all over the Sanhedrin and predicting that one will be executed.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

There are predictions, and then there are prophecies. Robbing a bank and then predicting that you will be arrested is not prophecy. Neither is pissing all over the Sanhedrin and predicting that one will be executed.

 

End time prophecy is basically what I was referring to here. And, as I'm sure you know, the prophecies are very close to complete with Jesus end time prophecy, with satellite communications. So, that, Isaac Newton's prophecy, Mayan prophecy, Sumerian writings, NASA's development, Nostradamus.

 

Predictions, prophecies. Whatever your choice. I don't think there has been any other point of time that this many prophecies, predictions, pointed so closely together.

[Abiyoyo]

 

The realization that prophecy is entirely bunk was one of the major reasons I could not longer believe in the Christian God.

 

 

Well, that is a common reason. i have found that much of it is interpreter perception. Some may have seen one prophecy as spiritual, hundreds of years later, then, now, 1000 years later, not quite the exact fit for the prophecy, not enough confirmed prophecy, etc.

 

The problem is there are to many opinions to dilute the mind. But, there are answers out there and I will say what I have always said, "For every one that debuns the prophecy, there is another that explains it differently. Reader interpretation. That subject for me is like this subject of Tacitus for you, could've been this or that. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's untrue.

 

But, definitely, the road goes both ways as far as Christ prophecies.

[Shyone]

 

 

There are predictions, and then there are prophecies. Robbing a bank and then predicting that you will be arrested is not prophecy. Neither is pissing all over the Sanhedrin and predicting that one will be executed.

 

End time prophecy is basically what I was referring to here. And, as I'm sure you know, the prophecies are very close to complete with Jesus end time prophecy, with satellite communications. So, that, Isaac Newton's prophecy, Mayan prophecy, Sumerian writings, NASA's development, Nostradamus.

 

Predictions, prophecies. Whatever your choice. I don't think there has been any other point of time that this many prophecies, predictions, pointed so closely together.

Ok, I'll go with you on this. You're saying that the end times prophecies are true because you see things that you think were prophecied or at least correspond loosely to the predictions.

 

What will it take to falsify your idea that the end times prophecies are coming true? What will allow me to know that they actually have come true?

 

Will you stop believing if you live to January 1, 2013?

 

Will you stop believing if you live to 2020?

 

Make it as easy for us as Hal Lindsey did with the Late Great Planet Earth. Give us a date when we can all laugh about this together.

[florduh]

Will you stop believing if you live to 2020?

No, because there is a scriptural failsafe. No man knows the time, but in truth the "signs" have always been with us. Clever how prophecy works.

[Shyone]

Will you stop believing if you live to 2020?

No, because there is a scriptural failsafe. No man knows the time, but in truth the "signs" have always been with us. Clever how prophecy works.

Well, shit. We already have to die to find out about this God thingy. Now we're going to have to die before any prophecy comes true.

 

What's the point in worrying about something that's not going to happen until we die?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Make it as easy for us as Hal Lindsey did with the Late Great Planet Earth. Give us a date when we can all laugh about this together.

 

Between 2012 and 2060 would be my official end time looney bird prophecy. I would go with Isaac Newton's calculations, along with the possibility that 800AD mark is incorrect by 47 years, and Newton didn't count year 0. 1BC, 1AD. So, minus a year for that would put it at 2012 instead of 2060.

 

I stick to 2012, respectfully of course, since the Bible Code predicts a destruction in 2010 and 2012.

[Abiyoyo]

Will you stop believing if you live to 2020?

No, because there is a scriptural failsafe. No man knows the time, but in truth the "signs" have always been with us. Clever how prophecy works.

 

I wouldn't stop believing, but, I would go supply up on any firearm I could get my hands on because this stuff is starting to get in churches, in church people, movies, and is starting to flare up. So, the disappointment alone within Christianity would make me nervous of the outcome.

[NotBlinded]

 

 

Make it as easy for us as Hal Lindsey did with the Late Great Planet Earth. Give us a date when we can all laugh about this together.

 

Between 2012 and 2060 would be my official end time looney bird prophecy. I would go with Isaac Newton's calculations, along with the possibility that 800AD mark is incorrect by 47 years, and Newton didn't count year 0. 1BC, 1AD. So, minus a year for that would put it at 2012 instead of 2060.

 

I stick to 2012, respectfully of course, since the Bible Code predicts a destruction in 2010 and 2012.

You poor guy Abi. How do you sleep at night with such horrors in your head?

[Abiyoyo]

 

You poor guy Abi. How do you sleep at night with such horrors in your head?

 

I am ready to meet my maker