Wether Jesus existed...

E

exsto_human

Transitional
Registered Senior Member
or not would not mean much, the bible would still be just as false or non-false.

It is my personal belief that Jesus did exist and was a (somewhat overhyped) wise-man, but what he may or may not have said has been warped and twisted abbreviated and exaggerated over time, and one thing he never meant to do was to start Christianity. Just like the Buddha never meant to start Buddhism.

Christianity is not the belief in Christ, I concur there is substancial evidence of his existence, Christinaity is a belief in the words of the Bible that has evolved over the past 2000+ years.

Discussion??:)
 
Ok this could be a good discussion. Th first thing is Jesus did mean to start christianity. He told his desciples before and after he died that they were to be filled with the Holy Spirit and go tell the world the Gospel (or good news). Next, you said "Jesus did exist and was a wise-man" But (As I have said in other threads) Jesus can not be seen as just a wise man. If someone came up to you and said "Hi I'm the son of God, I'm here to save you..." You would either believe him to be the son of God or a lunatic. You could not logically say he was just a wise man. Comments?

In Christ's love,

Mystee
 
Originally posted by Mystee
Ok this could be a good discussion. Th first thing is Jesus did mean to start christianity. He told his desciples before and after he died that they were to be filled with the Holy Spirit and go tell the world the Gospel (or good news). Next, you said "Jesus did exist and was a wise-man" But (As I have said in other threads) Jesus can not be seen as just a wise man. If someone came up to you and said "Hi I'm the son of God, I'm here to save you..." You would either believe him to be the son of God or a lunatic. You could not logically say he was just a wise man. Comments?

In Christ's love,

Mystee
Click to expand...

Hi, I'm the Son of GOD

Anyways... the Jesus you're referring to NEVER did Exist. The NT is a compilation of some factual events which were then taken and for the majority made false. Figuring out which parts are which is the problem, and therein lies the problem of xtianity

Xtianity today is alive and corrupted largely due to Paul, the liar

Jesus is not God, he is a man-made myth as written in the bible

Sorry Xtians... but that bullcrap jesus died for you and washed away your sins is complete horse crap

As it is understood to those who follow the Torah, man is already saved

Xtianity is in its last days. Soon Rome will be no more, and the evil lie that Rome created with the trinity shall be destroyed

-Jahiro
 
Originally posted by Jahiro

Anyways... the Jesus you're referring to NEVER did Exist.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't know what you don't know. Only a fool would make such a statement with such baseless confidence.

Originally posted by Jahiro

As it is understood to those who follow the Torah, man is already saved.
Click to expand...
In its section on Redemption In the Talmud, the Encyclopedia Judaica writes:
  • The sages know nothing of a miraculous redemption of the soul by external means. There is no failing in man, whether collectively or as an individual, which requires special divine intervention and which cannot be remedied, with the guidance of the Torah, by man himself.
But, then again, who are they to stand against such an august person as yourself?
 
Originally posted by Jahiro
Xtianity today is alive and corrupted largely due to Paul, the liar

Sorry Xtians... but that bullcrap jesus died for you and washed away your sins is complete horse crap

Xtianity is in its last days. Soon Rome will be no more, and the evil lie that Rome created with the trinity shall be destroyed
Click to expand...

I have never heard of Xtianity before I came to this forum. What is the difference between Christianity and Xtianity? It sounds like we believe a lot of the same things.
Anyway all that stuff about the Bible not being true is wrong. I once read the book of Mormon in an attempt to be open minded. It sais right in it to pray that God will show you it is true as you read it. Well he didn't. I found nothing to convince me it was true. This got me questioning the validity of the Bible. So I prayed that God would show me it's truth as I read. He did. When you follow God's promptings it is a practical God-breathed book of truth. I know it is true because God constantly leads me to relevent scriptures, has my friends and I reading the same scriptures at the same time (Even between states) and has brought scripture to mind in hard times and in times of worship. So who am I to believe you or God? I'm going with the one who made me.

In Christ's undying love,

Mystee
 
Mystee,

I have never heard of Xtianity before I came to this forum. What is the difference between Christianity and Xtianity? It sounds like we believe a lot of the same things.
Click to expand...
X is an abbreviation for Christ, arising from the Greek term Christos, which starts with a Greek Chi, written as X. This usage dates back to the 1500s.

Anyway all that stuff about the Bible not being true is wrong.
Click to expand...
Is that because you do not understand the evidence that shows it is wrong, or you simply do not want the bible to be wrong? I understand that it would be difficult for you to accept that this “truth” you think you have found so recently can be so easily shown to be wrong, but if you genuinely want to discover truth then you need to examine what you choose to believe with significantly more objectivity than you have to date.

I once read the book of Mormon in an attempt to be open minded.
Click to expand...
Is this an admission that you accept that you are closed minded?

When you follow God's promptings it is a practical God-breathed book of truth.
Click to expand...
It is like a comforter blanket that most children eventually reject.

I know it is true because God constantly leads me to relevent scriptures, has my friends and I reading the same scriptures at the same time (Even between states) and has brought scripture to mind in hard times and in times of worship.
Click to expand...
Reinforcement of a comfortable belief system by only listening to others with the same beliefs and at the same time rejecting all ideas that might detract from your comfort is simply self deceit.

So who am I to believe you or God? I'm going with the one who made me.
Click to expand...
You should not believe me. I would not have believed someone like me when I was a believer. You need to think for yourself.

In Christ's undying love,
Click to expand...
Still sending blanket insults I see.
 
Oh, calm it, rocker. The page loads just fine.

It's a long article going over points in teh Bible to suggest that Jesus never lived, and if he did, any accounts of his life are wildly inaccurate.
 
Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
There's a reason they call it "faith."
Click to expand...
"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb." -Richard Dawkins
 
Fraggle,

And your opinions on this –

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

.
.
.
.
.
 
What a Fragile and Disingenuous Little Dance

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
Tertiary or even quaternary research, admittedly. But the scholarly sources I have learned to trust when it comes to anthropology seem content with the accuracy, authenticity, and audit trail of the contemporary records.
Click to expand...
What tertiary or even quaternary pedantic bullpuckie! Just what relevant "anthropology" and what "accuracy, authenticity, and audit trail" of what "contemporary records"?

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
Rome was after all a consummate bureaucracy and left voluminous records on everything.
Click to expand...
Very well, present the "voluminous records that support historicity and the pretentious claim than "There's no serious doubt as to Jesus being a real historical figure".

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
But don't take my word for it ...
Click to expand...
You've yet to say anything of worth.

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
You could spend a week with Google researching the issue to your satisfaction.
Click to expand...
Your sophomoric assertions are matched only by your condescension. Having claimed that those who argue against historicity are not "serious", you now presume that those who take you to task are ignorant.

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
This is not one of those threads like IT or language, where I slap my credentials down and expect people to accept my authority.
Click to expand...
Nor, apparently, is this one of those threads where you 'slap down' anything of substance to support your claim that "There's no serious doubt as to Jesus being a real historical figure." I look forward to your presentation of the "voluminous [Roman] records" addressed above. Then, perhaps, you can peruse Kirby's site and show us why those opponents of historicity are unserious.

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
I find in a case like this that the quickest way to discover a consensus of scholars ...
Click to expand...
This is simply disingenuous. At issue is not the "a consensus of scholars". No one would question that opposition to historicity is a minority position. Yours was a far different claim, and your unwillingness to speak to this claim speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
I remember my wife's course in "the Bible as literature" was quick to assure everyone that Jesus was real.
Click to expand...
What a joke. :rolleyes:

Once again:
  • what relevant "anthropology" of
  • what "accuracy, authenticity, and audit trail" of
  • what "contemporary records", and
  • what "voluminous records
pertaining specifically to your claim that "There's no serious doubt as to Jesus being a real historical figure".
 
There never was a Jewish man named "Jesus" in all of the surviving documents, and copies of documents, contemporaneous with "Saul's imaginary superhero."

To this day, not one believer has harmonized this glaring problem with the Nazarene/Hebrew names "Yesh, Y'shua, Yeshua, or Yahshua" without resorting to fraud.

It may seem trivial, but similar facts have helped demolish the claims made by the faithful about such writings as those of Josephus. (Someone probably forged the passage about "Christus" attributed to him; an unlikely topic for Josephus, given the surviving body of his other works.)

With regard to Western History, the secularized Western Calendar itself was based on the (Pagan) Roman Calendar, ammended by Julius Ceasar in 45 B.C., and used until the Gregorian reform in the 1500's.

"No God, No Jesus, No Problem."
 
There never was a Jewish man named "Jesus" in all of the surviving documents, and copies of documents, contemporaneous with "Saul's imaginary superhero."
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus is a greek name. Many Jewish Christians do call Jesus Yeshuah.

It may seem trivial, but similar facts have helped demolish the claims made by the faithful about such writings as those of Josephus. (Someone probably forged the passage about "Christus" attributed to him; an unlikely topic for Josephus, given the surviving body of his other works.)
Click to expand...
Josephus talks about the Pharisee's and other Hebrew sects at that time. He also mentions the other rebellion that occurred in Jerusalem and was mentioned in Acts. We also have writings from Ignatius and Polycarp both disciples of John and letters from Mary. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm
The evidence suggest that Josephus did talk about Christ but perhaps the last line of the chapter was later added.
 
Originally posted by qwerty mob
There never was a Jewish man named "Jesus" in all of the surviving documents, and copies of documents, contemporaneous with "Saul's imaginary superhero." To this day, not one believer has harmonized this glaring problem with the Nazarene/Hebrew names "Yesh, Y'shua, Yeshua, or Yahshua" without resorting to fraud.
Click to expand...
Are you saying:
  1. there is no extrabiblical evidence of Jesus/Yeshu[a], or
  2. there is no explanation for the derivation of the name "Jesus" from the name "Yeshu[a]"?
The latter is clearly incorrect. As for the former, would you also argue that the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church were likewise fabrications?
 
jesus, he's that guy, you know with the hair and sandals, who does that stuff with that thing

but wait jesus as was born from mary but jesus IS god so jesus is his own dad, kinky. i wonder if in the empregnating process god let mary get *her's* too ya know orgasim wise.
 
Excellent Post!!!

Originally posted by qwerty mob
There never was a Jewish man named "Jesus" in all of the surviving documents, and copies of documents, contemporaneous with "Saul's imaginary superhero."

I love your description of Saul/Paul! By now, you've probably read my previous posts about history's dislike of Saul/Paul by his closest associates. When I read your post, it came to mind that Saul/Paul was probably the first well-published sci-fi writer!

To this day, not one believer has harmonized this glaring problem with the Nazarene/Hebrew names "Yesh, Y'shua, Yeshua, or Yahshua" without resorting to fraud.

It may seem trivial, but similar facts have helped demolish the claims made by the faithful about such writings as those of Josephus. (Someone probably forged the passage about "Christus" attributed to him; an unlikely topic for Josephus, given the surviving body of his other works.)

I read recently that Saul/Paul also wrote in the name of Josephus. Other than this one citation, I don't know if its true, but I am still researching. Also, Paul was attributed to have written Acts, but an Israeli Bible scholar in the Myth of Christianity: Paul's invention of Jesus, by H. Maccoby, states that Acts was written by Saul/Paul's good friend Luke about Saul/Paul. In any event, the more I read and research about Saul/Paul, the more I find to discredit him and his invention of Jesus X and Xianity.

With regard to Western History, the secularized Western Calendar itself was based on the (Pagan) Roman Calendar, ammended by Julius Ceasar in 45 B.C., and used until the Gregorian reform in the 1500's.

Speaking about the calendar... The first calendar was, of course, the Sun and Moon. In a previous post I stated that the sun, moon, planets and stars were the first 'gods' that the early humans worshipped, feared and awed. Sun worship goes back a long, long time. It is no wonder that this worship invented the 'Sun of God.' The moon was the feared dark side. Interestingly, the Aramaic word for moon is 'sin!' That's how the Pagans got a bad rap. They worshipped all nature and the universe, especially the phases of the moon and, therefore, Xians tried to stamp them out (i.e. convert them) by saying moon worship (i.e. sin worship) was evil.

"No God, No Jesus, No Problem."
Click to expand...


Amen to that!
 
ConsequentAtheist,

Thanks for your post. To clarify, I am saying there were no Jewish men named "Jesus" in Judeah, or Palestine, or anywhere else- ever.

It was *not* his name even *IF* he were a historical figure, and we have *no* credible evidence he was. Even the Qumran scrolls fail to mention any Jesus, a Yeshu, or anything resembling that.

It's not like I'm saying that there are no "Roberts" named "Bob" or "Roberto"- it's more like saying there aren't any "Roberts" named "Rudolph."

So why do Christians the world-over worship any "Jesus" if "Yeshua" was *really* his name? It's a flagrant problem with that religion.

It is as absurd as worshipping "God" knowing full-well *His* preferred *name* was "Jehovah" or "Yaweh" or "Allah" or whatever the flip.

Perhaps it appears pedantic, but the etymology is clear, and points away from the Greco-Roman fairy-tale of a "Jesus".

To reiterate, it's the difference between "Jacob" and "James" and "Iago."

"Batman" and "Spiderman."

Superman, and the Silver Surfer.

Or, more accurately, "Nicholas" and "Santa Claus."

You get the idea.

:)



Edit: P.S.- Thank you too, Medicine Woman, for your posts. Sin is also the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top