Did Jesus Exist?

[Checkmate]

Just in studying the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, I sense that these writings were not altared significantly... until maybe these transcribers for these different versions, such as KJV, couldn't help but put the spin of the day into their works. In other words... it's just my opinion at the moment Pritish, fwiw. 

Amanda, precisely to what "manuscript" are you referring? It is obvious that you are shamefully unaware of how the KJV has come into being. You would be better served in doing some REAL homework prior to posting on THIS subject again.

 

The KJV is a compilation of PRECEDING bibles. (Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndales, Vulgate, etc.) Crafted by translators at the behest of King James who simply wanted a new bible that read the way HE wanted it to read.

 

Here's a link to get you started. The Canon of the Bible by Larry Taylor

 

And if the testimony of a non-believer is untrustworthy, then go to www.scrollpublishing.com and purchase David Bercot's CD on The King James Bible. Bercot is very MUCH a Christian and will say PRECISELY the same thing about the formation of the bible.

 

As regards the "bible", one need not rely upon "opinion". It is all proven facts. You just need to open your eyes and be honest.

[MQTA]

what I want to know is, WHAT is the Gideon bible in hotels called? Is it the KJV ?

[Ouroboros]

what I want to know is, WHAT is the Gideon bible in hotels called?  Is it the KJV ?

I think (but not certain) it is NIV or NKJ, but not the original KJV.

 

--edit--

 

I take that back, I checked, and it looks like it's KJV.

[MQTA]

thanks

[Asuryan]

*thinks*

 

So, what would be the best bible to read, if one does not know any greek or latin and still wants the *maximum* possible accuracy and the least rehandling and repackaging of all the bibles out there?

I've read the KJV bible and the CEI (official roman catholic) bible, and the differences are there, subtle nuances but nonetheless differences. Now I want something less repackaged, as adherent as one can to the ancient greek, latin and hebrew manuscripts.

 

Any suggestions?

 

A question for Amanda: do you agree that there are no evidences for christ and his existence? I mean, historical evidences, not christian gospels and paul's letters, because (apart from having been written by people who weren't even eyewitnesses or apostles) those would be just slightly biased, don't you think?

There are lots of people on these forums that can show you why exactly there isn't any concrete evidence on the existence of a spiritual leader called jesus.

Let's say that you discover, here on these forums, that there is no evidence at all pointing at the existence of an historical jesus, much less a mythical one; would you still believe in jesus?

Right now you don't believe in Zeus, or Ishtar, or other gods or goddesses. You believe in Jesus though. That is because of your education and cultural background. I wonder, though, if faced with proofs that show you how the existence of Jesus is as real as the existence of the greek gods, would you manage to break the chains that keep you tied down to the Jesus concept?

If you say no, it won't be a shame at all, it's just to know if, and how much, would make sense to explain to you the aforementioned thesis. No sense at all if you already know that whatever we say, you won't even consider the possibility that Jesus didn't exist.

I just ask because I've seen you discussing, and receiving answers to your questions, both historical, philosophical and theological, but never changing your point of view, no matter the data you have in your possession. Of course, I don't mean to offend you or anything, you are after all one of the most reasonable christians here.

[MQTA]

The Teachings and Personality of Jesus

 

Let us look now at the teachings of Jesus. First we note that many of the sayings attributed to Jesus are demonstrably false.

 

From this collection of sayings we can summarize a few things about the teachings of Jesus:

 

they were meant for the Jews only. (This is to be expected of a first century ethno phobic Galilean peasant itinerant preacher.) they were fundamentally about the imminent "coming of the kingdom of God" and not much else.

 

the atonement, the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world, such a central part of Christian theology, did not originate from Jesus.

 

his ethical lessons were unimpressive and unoriginal.

 

From these collection of sayings, we can also discern something about the personality of the Galilean peasant.

We find that he:

 

did not have a great intellect.

 

has a personality probably not much different from other peasant preachers of his era. He was a fanatic, preaching love at one moment and cursing his enemies the next.

 

Some psychologists even went as far as to say he was insane!

 

Almost all Christian denominations claim that Jesus is God. Yet when we look at the authentic sayings of Jesus, taken from the synoptics, we find that he never claimed to be God. We find many examples where Jesus expressly affirmed his subordination to the divine. Part of the confusion comes from an early misunderstanding among the church fathers of the terms Son of Man and Son of God. We also conclude that, in all probability, the "I am" sayings in the gospel of John are unhistorical. We do not know what he actually claimed himself to be. We are not sure if he even claimed to have been the Jewish messiah.

 

Of course all these considerations have not stopped fundamentalists from coming up with proofs of Jesus' messianic status or divinity. One of the most commonly used proofs is the claim that details about Jesus and his life were predicted by Old Testament prophecies. We see that these claims are clearly false.

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

[MQTA]

more from that page

 

 

Trial and Condemnation

 

There are also many difficulties associated with the stories regarding Jesus' trial and condemnation:

 

There are three mutually incompatible sequences of the trial of Jesus (first by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then by the Romans) in the gospels.

 

The account in the synoptics of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious council, given what is known about Jewish traditions, is almost certainly unhistorical.

 

John's account of the trial before the Jewish authorities is completely different from the synoptics but is also of doubtful historicity.

 

The trial before Pontius Pilate is also largely fiction. The gospels' portrayal of Pilate as a weak and uncertain man, is in direct contradiction that what we know of him from other historical sources.

 

The account of the trial (before the Sanhedrin and before Pilate) probably evolved because of the historical development of Christianity away from its Jewish roots towards a Roman home.

[MQTA]

that site has the most awesome historical research against the Bible, Jesus, Paul, and more, than I ever saw before, especially all in one place.

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

 

Obligatory warning ala crazy_tiger: takes hours to read and absorb

[Mythra]

So, what would be the best bible to read, if one does not know any greek or latin and still wants the *maximum* possible accuracy and the least rehandling and repackaging of all the bibles out there? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most accurate is probably the NASB (New American Standard Bible).

 

A version that is hyped as being accurate, but it isn't (this is the bible I have - is the ESV) English Standard Version.

 

biblegateway.com has all of em. You can cross-reference or do keyword searches, or anything you want.

[Mythra]

Oh, and Young's Literal Translation.

 

The arrangement of the words in that one makes it hard to read, though. Greeks had a weird way of putting a sentence together.

[Amanda]

Amanda, precisely to what "manuscript" are you referring? 

-----------------------

Here's a link to get you started.  The Canon of the Bible by Larry Taylor

 

And if the testimony of a non-believer is untrustworthy,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hello Mr. Grinch!

 

The manuscript which I am referring is the one that is cross referenced to the Strong's Concordance and their lexicons. I use to use another concordance and lexicon I like better, yet that one had to be researched manually instead of a computer program. Now, I'm lazy and use the crossreferencing programs on Crosswalk.com. These references seem to go back to Hebrew and Greek writings. I like to take the word and research it all the way back to its prime root meaning and see how it evolved.

 

I enjoyed this site you referenced immensely. Thank you very much! May I ask you, as I see that these books have been tampered, and I suspected that to a great degree already... but, do you think that these Hebrew and Greek resources they used to produce these varied versions and translations have been changed much? It seems that because those people of those days, in the first and second century, were not as articulate as we, there's a lot of room for spin in choosing which english word is most accurate for representing the thoughts behind the Bible. I have been suspect as to the choice of the english word they have chosen to represent the Hebrew/Greek meanings, and it is even common to include their spin in the lexicon translations, yet at least they denote that in the material.

 

There's never been any reason for me to hold your word untrustworthy, and I would sincerely appreciate your opinion in regards to the question I asked you above, if you know. Thanks again my friend.

[Amanda]

A question for Amanda: do you agree that there are no evidences for christ and his existence? I mean, historical evidences, not christian gospels and paul's letters, because (apart from having been written by people who weren't even eyewitnesses or apostles) those would be just slightly biased, don't you think? 

There are lots of people on these forums that can show you why exactly there isn't any concrete evidence on the existence of a spiritual leader called jesus.

Let's say that you discover, here on these forums, that there is no evidence at all pointing at the existence of an historical jesus, much less a mythical one; would you still believe in jesus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Asuryan!

 

This topic of 'evidence proving a historical Jesus' has already been presented here, while I've been here. It was definitely eye-opening for me, as I had considered Jesus's actual existence a 'given'. Listening to everyone, and doing my own research... I have found that there are documentations other than the Bible for his historical existence. Now... the credibility of these claims were always up for debate. No surprise. Here are some references made about Jesus other than Biblical ones, fwiw:

 

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

 

I have said, if there were credible evidence of Jesus only being a myth... it would rock my foundations a bit, but hopefully I remain open minded enough to accept truth. The historical existence of Jesus is not what is important to me though. These messages I have come to understand, via these principles taught by the character of Jesus, speak for themselves. They have been life altering to me and have shown me a better life in regards to their influence on my thinking. How can I now deny that?

 

I just ask because I've seen you discussing, and receiving answers to your questions, both historical, philosophical and theological, but never changing your point of view, no matter the data you have in your possession. Of course, I don't mean to offend you or anything, you are after all one of the most reasonable christians here. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Asuryan, for considering me off the very bottom of the list, of being unreasonable. :wink: I am sincere in my thanking you.

 

Having said that, there are many, many areas I have changed my previous POV here! I have learned so much here, and it is obvious to me anyway. I use to think there were original manuscripts by these disciples... NOT! I've changed my views on the OT considerably, mostly about these accounts and what it was really saying about our evolving ideas of God. These mythological contributions to Biblical teachings and Christian festivities seemed too evident for me to dismiss. Oh yes, I've changed a lot! That isn't even all of it!

 

Respectfully, I wonder how many people, as yourself, have changed their mind ANY... given information and POVs from the other side? I find it hard to believe that the Christian side had to be ALL wrong in EVERYTHING. Still, it seems it would be hard to improve on this great group here!

[Antlerman]

Respectfully, I wonder how many people, as yourself, have changed their mind ANY... given information and POVs from the other side? I find it hard to believe that the Christian side had to be ALL wrong in EVERYTHING.    Still, it seems it would be hard to improve on this great group here!

For myself, the Christian's I feel who have offered anything worth considering are those who do not embarrass themselves insisting on Biblical inerrancy. They are few, but always refreshing to me.

[Checkmate]

Hello Mr. Grinch!

..................

These references seem to go back to Hebrew and Greek writings. I like to take the word and research it all the way back to its prime root meaning and see how it evolved.

Frankly, I consider the "root word meaning" study method (etymology) to be an inconvenient dodge that more often than not leads to confusion.

 

For instance, did you know that the root meaning for "gas" comes from the Greek word meaning "chaos"? The root word for "employee" is "to fold". The root meaning for "coin" is "wedge". And so on and so forth.

 

Do you see how if you tried to "better grasp" the meaning of words it could lead to even MORE confusion than if you simply gave words their "face value" meaning? The BEST way to understand what someone truly is saying and meaning is to go by CONTEXT, not by "root meanings."

I enjoyed this site you referenced immensely. Thank you very much! May I ask you, as I see that these books have been tampered, and I suspected that to a great degree already... but, do you think that these Hebrew and Greek resources they used to produce these varied versions and translations have been changed much? It seems that because those people of those days, in the first and second century, were not as articulate as we, there's a lot of room for spin in choosing which english word is most accurate for representing the thoughts behind the Bible. I have been suspect as to the choice of the english word they have chosen to represent the Hebrew/Greek meanings, and it is even common to include their spin in the lexicon translations, yet at least they denote that in the material.

Again, you make the mistake of believing that those who were CLOSER to the time of these alleged "manuscripts" would be less "educated" to understand them. On the contrary. These people of the first and second century THOUGHT and SPAKE in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. They instinctively KNEW and understood BETTER than some 21st century "scholar", who has merely learned by rote to speak clumsily in these languages. Idioms and colloquialisms are not lost on those who THINK in a language. Whereas those who've only been TRAINED to read or speak it, lose MUCH in the translation! Cultural clues play a GREAT part in understanding what is said.

 

And as for your question regarding whether or not someone "changed" any manuscripts? I don't concede that there were any "manuscripts" to change. But, IF there were, I would be more inclined to believe that any "changes" would occur down the line. Much like today, where you have translation after translation of "bibles" being tweaked to satisfy each doctrinal view and denomination.

 

Besides which, "manuscripts" prove NOTHING towards the point of validating the truth of "Jesus". Dredging up old first century documents that "agree" with what is written in today's "bible" proves only an accurate transmission. Not "truth".

 

There's never been any reason for me to hold your word untrustworthy, and I would sincerely appreciate your opinion in regards to the question I asked you above, if you know. Thanks again my friend.

Thank you for the compliment. I will endeavor to remain worthy of your trust.

[SkepticOfBible]

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There is an very interesting rebuttal to the website that you forwarded. I hope you take the time to read it.

 

ExChristian Forum

[Asuryan]

Hello Asuryan!

The historical existence of Jesus is not what is important to me though. These messages I have come to understand, via these principles taught by the character of Jesus, speak for themselves. They have been life altering to me and have shown me a better life in regards to their influence on my thinking. How can I now deny that? 

I'm not talking about denying what jesus, as a character of a story, has taught to you. It is clear that it is part of your cultural and personal background. Rejecting your past would be wrong. I myself am happy to have been a christian, and to have become an atheist around 12-13 instead of having born inside an atheist family. I think that the passage allowed me to more fully understand things, having been on both sides of the barricade and looked at the world both with the eyes of a christian and with the eyes of an atheist.

I hate Christianity. I don't hate Christians. I am not proud of having been a Christian. I am proud of having been a Christian and escaped it. I reject nothing of my background, just as you do.

However, there are lots of characters in religious stories that can teach people good lessons, constructive lessons, whether they really lived or not. My guess is that it doesn't matter if what triggered your pulsion to betterment is a character named jesus, or buddha, or mohamed, or amaterasu, or heimdall, or cuchulain. It's only by chance that you were born in a christian family and thus that character has been jesus for you. If you were to discover that the historical jesus never existed, and thus that the gospels are pure invention, or you were to drop the jesus concept already (after all, why using the word "jesus" if nothing like that ever existed?), I don't think that you would lose anything of your background, as I didn't lose my christian past when I've become an atheist.

Sure, I use that past as both an armor and a weapon, but that's a matter of choice

 

Thanks Asuryan, for considering me off the very bottom of the list, of being unreasonable. :wink: I am sincere in my thanking you.

 

I don't think that you as a person are unreasonable, I think that believing in a sky god as cruel and reckless as presented in the bible, or believing in the bible at all, requires one to be a little less reasonable than an atheist usually is presumed to be. I admit I have been puzzled by some of your posts, but - here's the chant - you in fact *discuss* and *argument* your opinions. That is something that people like Gerbil, Pug, and Daniel_1012 (not to mention spirit1st and lots more) are clearly unable to do. So, yes, I'm complimenting you. For a christian you are surprisingly open minded (and of course, you know that this open mindedness would bring the rest of christianity, both protestant and catholics, to call you heretic and self deluded, right?)

 

 

Respectfully, I wonder how many people, as yourself, have changed their mind ANY... given information and POVs from the other side? I find it hard to believe that the Christian side had to be ALL wrong in EVERYTHING.

 

Eh, my dad was a left winger, now he's a right winger. I was a christian, now I am an atheist. My boyfriend was an otaku, now he's a regular guy... people change I guess points of view naturally evolve and change with time.

 

About christianity being ALL wrong in EVERYTHING, or not, well... if a bastard rapist serial killer pedophile would once say "forgiveness is important... as is love... people should love one another... war is wrong... and we should protect the environment too...", would that change the fact that he is a bastard rapist serial killer pedophile?

I think not.

Christianity (both catholics and protestants) has too much blood on its hands to claim purity and innocence. It won't be a nifty phrase from the gospels about turning the other cheek that will cancel out all people tortured and burned at the stake

[Amanda]

My guess is that it doesn't matter if what triggered your pulsion to betterment is a character named jesus, or buddha, or mohamed, or amaterasu, or heimdall, or cuchulain. It's only by chance that you were born in a christian family and thus that character has been jesus for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Again Asuryan!

 

You might be surprised to know that I was born in an agnostic family. My family never went to church, nor had a Bible around, nor mentioned God or Jesus. Of course I was raised in a Christian cultured country, but later had the opportunity to travel abroad extensively... including Asia. I also enjoy studying Buddhism, Suffism, Islam, and am now pursuing some Zen. I am unfamiliar with Amaterasu, Cuchulain, or Otaku. And Heimdall is our very own knowledgable cofounder to this site!

 

For a christian you are surprisingly open minded (and of course, you know that this open mindedness would bring the rest of christianity, both protestant and catholics, to call you heretic and self deluded, right?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha! How did you know? As I've said, these people here act more like the concept I have of Christ, than the "Christians"... generally speaking. AND of course, I sincerely mean that as a compliment to this site.

About christianity being ALL wrong in EVERYTHING, or not, well... if a bastard rapist serial killer pedophile would once say "forgiveness is important... as is love... people should love one another... war is wrong... and we should protect the environment too...", would that change the fact that he is a bastard rapist serial killer pedophile?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Asuryan, respectfully, I guess it's just a matter of difference in interpretation, as I just don't see the character of Jesus that way.

[Kryten]

Hi Again Asuryan!

 

You might be surprised to know that I was born in an agnostic family. My family never went to church, nor had a Bible around, nor mentioned God or Jesus. Of course I was raised in a Christian cultured country, but later had the opportunity to travel abroad extensively... including Asia. I also enjoy studying Buddhism, Suffism, Islam, and am now pursuing some Zen. I am unfamiliar with Amaterasu, Cuchulain, or Otaku. And Heimdall is our very own knowledgable cofounder to this site! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most people raise in North America or Europe are exposed to Christianity, whether their parents taught it to them or not.

If your parents were non-believers, but never taught you that Christianity, Islam, astrology, homeopathic "medicine", or the bible was false (or why), then you are vulnerable to whatever beliefs you are exposed to.

 

You, Amanda, travelled enough to be exposed to other religions, which may be why you don't buy all of the Christianity package as sold by the mainstream denominations in the west. The point is still valid and obvious-- people growing up in Christian areas are most likely to become Christians if they choose any religious belief, unless their parents teach them otherwise.

[Antlerman]

Ha! How did you know? As I've said, these people here act more like the concept I have of Christ, than the "Christians"... generally speaking. AND of course, I sincerely mean that as a compliment to this site.

Thank you so very much! It seems so ironic it took rejecting Christianity to become more like the ideal that Christ is supposed to represent. Go figure... (Of course, I'm being presumptuous I'm included in your fine compliment )

[Amanda]

Thank you so very much!  It seems so ironic it took rejecting Christianity to become more like the ideal that Christ is supposed to represent.  Go figure...  (Of course, I'm being presumptuous I'm included in your fine compliment  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Antlerman...

 

Of course YOU are included!

 

We know them by their behavior, not their label! I go by what I see, surely not by what label someone has.

 

If you considered the religous right of Jesus's day... what has changed? The exclusive religous right said 'only they' were going to heaven. One has to believe a certain way to get there. They condemned everyone else, but loved themselves and placed themselves on a pedestal.

 

When people had ordinary sins, Jesus just said things like, rise and go and sin no more... as to the adulteress. These Pharisees asked Jesus how he could eat with the publicans and the sinners? Jesus replied, the harlots and the sinners shall see the kingdom of God before they do! He also calls them vipers, he says they're like a bowl you only clean on the outside...

 

Yet, if we judge the religous right, then we are no better than they are. *sigh*

 

Like I said, we know them by their behavior, not their labels...

[Mythra]

You're right, Amanda. How come the "religious right" don't pay any attention to the "throw the first stone" teaching?

 

Either they're all sinless, or they ignore the teachings of their master and LORD.

[Fweethawt]

You're right, Amanda.  How come the "religious right" don't pay any attention to the "throw the first stone" teaching? 

 

Either they're all sinless, or they ignore the teachings of their master and LORD.

Because they know that they can always use the forgiveness card in the end.

[Fweethawt]

Thank you so very much!  It seems so ironic it took rejecting Christianity to become more like the ideal that Christ is supposed to represent.  Go figure...  (Of course, I'm being presumptuous I'm included in your fine compliment  )

Just continue to tread carefully.

 

You don't want to "backslide".

[Amanda]

The point is still valid and obvious-- people growing up in Christian areas are most likely to become Christians if they choose any religious belief, unless their parents teach them otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hello Kryten!

 

I agree, so perhaps we should forgive them because they were 'set up' predisposed to the religous right mentality... weren't they? They can hardly help it, right? If they were born in China, it probably would have been different... I agree.

 

Yet, forgiveness does NOT mean we condone or excuse disrespectful/condescending behavior... but, perhaps just changes our heart of how we feel about them?

[Amanda]

Just continue to tread carefully.

 

You don't want to "backslide".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Fwee!

 

Respectfully, your post made me laugh!

 

I've had many posts with Antlerman, and I assure you...

I'll let him know when it's freezing in hell.