Rate the following people in terms of actually existing

[Patrick Chewing]

10 people. 10 names from History or Mythology that may or may not have existed. Feel free to give your opinions one way or the other on the order of your list.

In no order:

Odin
Achilles
Jesus Christ
Goliath
Zeus
King Arthur
Thor
Horus
Beowulf
Ragnar Lothbrok

[TripleA]

10 people. 10 names from History or Mythology that may or may not have existed. Feel free to give your opinions one way or the other on the order of your list.

In no order:

Odin/not real
Achilles/ I think he was a real warrior but his abilities exaggerated
Jesus Christ/ real
Goliath/real
Zeus/not
King Arthur/ based on ruler
Thor/not real
Horus/not real
Beowulf/ based on kings but wasn't a real person

Ragnar Lothbrok/don't know who that is

:applause:

[Akrazotile]

Jesus of Nazareth most definitely existed. Usually the kings of Viking saga's are loosely historically based, even if the stories are highly exaggerated. So Ragnar existed. Odin and Thor were Viking gods, correct? So they probably were not based on specific people. Achilles probably was (just a guess). Zeus, no. The others I'm not too familiar with.

[ROCSteady]

You're putting Jesus and Zeus in the same may/may not have existed category??

Damn you're stupid.

There is no respectable debate that Jesus wasn't really a man.

[GIF REACTION]

Most of the characters and stories in religion are just ancient fables passed down through the civilizations of humanity... The branding and details might change, but the core is always the same. Religion. An effective tool to enslave individuality, thought and imagination. Good or bad? Irrelevant

[CavaliersFTW]

I wonder if there are people on ISH who believe Jesus Christ is the son of a mystical tyrant named god and turned wine into water and shit. And that if he even existed at all he was white and not brown skinned and didn't have a mother who lied about screwing around with the town blacksmith to avoid being stoned to death in the barbaric ancient middle east :lol

[CavaliersFTW]

You're putting Jesus and Zeus in the same may/may not have existed category??

Damn you're stupid.

There is no proof that Jesus was an actual man.
fixed

But let's assume there was. Some DNA or something is eventually found and somehow someone concludes it's the blood of Christ. I predict all it'd prove is that he indeed had a father from the local population and not a fictional deity. Cause science and stuff produces some pretty reliable models. Unlike that bible.

[Akrazotile]

fixed

But let's assume there was. Some DNA or something is eventually found and somehow someone concludes it's the blood of Christ. I predict all it'd prove is that he indeed had a father from the local population and not a fictional deity. Cause science and stuff produces some pretty reliable models. Unlike that bible.


You seem really mad.

[CavaliersFTW]

You seem really mad.
nah just stirring up the ol ISH pot :cheers:

[ROCSteady]

fixed

But let's assume there was. Some DNA or something is eventually found and somehow someone concludes it's the blood of Christ. I predict all it'd prove is that he indeed had a father from the local population and not a fictional deity. Cause science and stuff produces some pretty reliable models. Unlike that bible.

:facepalm

Jesus the man is mentioned by many texts that have nothing to do with Christianity.

I bet you would readily accept the 'life and times' of a man who was mentioned as often as Jesus has been referenced throughout historical documents but from a lot further back than around 2000 years... as long as it's not Jesus.

I never said Jesus was the Son of God.

Your post makes you come off pretty ignorant and with blinders on. Cultural baggage has bettered you in this instance

[masonanddixon]

You're putting Jesus and Zeus in the same may/may not have existed category??

Damn you're stupid.

There is no respectable debate that Jesus wasn't really a man.

He's almost certainly a composite of several characters who were walking around at the time.

[StephHamann]

Jesus was a real g, no water for me homie. Only alcohol.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/64/6494d9a65195279d35717e6d97375037c34660e076011dc05b cc67011a212df0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BCFaY62.gif

[LJJ]

:facepalm

Jesus the man is mentioned by many texts that have nothing to do with Christianity.

By "many" you mean 2 texts that make a small reference to Jesus, written about a hundred years after Jesus supposedly died.

It makes sense that Jesus existed. If you look at other religions with a similar origin as Christianity, they all started with some guy claiming to be Gods messenger, so why would Christianity be any different? Why would early Christians make their founder up completely out of thin air, rather than just embellish and write a fantasy around a real figure? That makes no sense and there is no evidence for that.

But lets not act like there is a ton of written evidence directly proving Jesus existence or something. No one wrote about Jesus during his life, or after his death. Jesus only starts becoming a figure and starts getting mentioned after Christianity became a widespread movement, many years after Jesus died.

[Dresta]

By "many" you mean 2 texts that make a small reference to Jesus, written about a hundred years after Jesus supposedly died.

It makes sense that Jesus existed. If you look at other religions with a similar origin as Christianity, they all started with some guy claiming to be Gods messenger, so why would Christianity be any different? Why would early Christians make their founder up completely out of thin air, rather than just embellish and write a fantasy around a real figure? That makes no sense and there is no evidence for that.

But lets not act like there is a ton of written evidence directly proving Jesus existence or something. No one wrote about Jesus during his life, or after his death. Jesus only starts becoming a figure and starts getting mentioned after Christianity became a widespread movement, many years after Jesus died.
What are you talking about? Saul of Tarsus was dead before the year 70AD.

[QUOTE]For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[LJJ]

What are you talking about? Saul of Tarsus was dead before the year 70AD.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

Original date of composition believed to be about 2 decades after the death of Christ.

I was replying to this:


Jesus the man is mentioned by many texts that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Don't change the goal posts.

[Dresta]

Your post carried the implication that Jesus was not a prominent figure in the early years of Christianity, which is simply not true.

I'm not moving any goalposts, you evidently just said something you didn't quite mean.

"No one wrote..."

What else could that mean exactly?

[LJJ]

Your post carried the implication that Jesus was not a prominent figure in the early years of Christianity, which is simply not true.

I'm not moving any goalposts, you evidently just said something you didn't quite mean.

"No one wrote..."

What else could that mean exactly?

I meant Jesus starts become a known figure outside of Christianity many years after his death, but that it doesn't really make sense to think that Christians would make up Jesus even if there are no direct sources.


I guess you forgot to read the beginning "there are many sources for Jesus outside of Christianity", which was what I was refuting.

[KevinNYC]

I wonder if there are people on ISH who believe Jesus Christ is the son of a mystical tyrant named god and turned wine into water and shit. And that if he even existed at all he was white and not brown skinned and didn't have a mother who lied about screwing around with the town blacksmith to avoid being stoned to death in the barbaric ancient middle east :lol
Every time you post like this Wilt drops further out of my top ten.

Thurmond drops out of my top 50.

[SexSymbol]

Odin no
Achilles maybe
Jesus Christ maybe
Goliath no
Zeus no
King Arthur maybe?
Thor no
Horus no
Beowulf no
Ragnar Lothbrok no

[imdaman99]

Man when the hell is Vikings coming back? I miss me some Ragnar Lothbrook :pimp:

[DeuceWallaces]

Jesus is the most certain.

After that Arthur and Ragnar could be loosely based on someone, but there's little to no evidence.

[embersyc]

All of them really existed and all mythologies are completely true.

[senelcoolidge]

:facepalm


Your post makes you come off pretty ignorant and with blinders on. Cultural baggage has bettered you in this instance

Sounds like someone that is bitter. An atheist that has to badmouth and demean others is a sad sad little person. You don't believe in god than that's your deal, don't bully others.

[Town's Town]

What about Batman?

[ROCSteady]

Sounds like someone that is bitter. An atheist that has to badmouth and demean others is a sad sad little person. You don't believe in god than that's your deal, don't bully others.

:wtf: are u even talking about?

Go back and see the conversation in its proper context.

CavaliersFTW made a typical internet, "Show me Proof, Bible is fictional" post so the cultural baggage I was referring to was the jollies that ppl like to get off by thinking believers in The Bible or Jesus Christ as dumb or naive.

I really didn't take a stance either way saying 1.) Jesus was certainly an actual being on Earth to whatever capacity 2.) Comparing a figure like him, who is cross-referenced in historical documents to Zeus, the Greek version of the 'Bearded Sky Wizard' that smart internet dwellers like to poke fun at, is absurd and finally 3.) I do not claim with any conviction that Jesus is the son of the Father God

It's obvious you did not understand the exchange. You probably saw the 'cultural baggage' phrase and I thought I was putting down believers when in reality, I was referring to the other side of the spectrum; i.e. the ones who dismiss any fair conversation about divine Jesus because they automatically want to feel smarter or more educated or more practical than the ppl with faith