Question for non-religious types...(most of us I think)

[QUOTE=shlver]Proven? You're getting a little head of yourself. There's a consensus amongst Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage is authentic. You're saying a couple generations make the manuscripts disposable which is idiotic.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0"]Watch[/URL]

I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's been authenticated, most view it as having many 'interpolations'... at best.

And all I want is one contemporary mention of a man whose miracle birth drew the attention of a tyrant, the entire region's anticipation, caused 3 kings/magi from the east to travel to see him (with the blessing of the tyrant)... who in front of large crowds- raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, healed diseases, walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead. There is NOTHING that was written of him by anyone during his miraculous and extraordinary lifetime. No mention of him by Herod, even though he slaughtered an entire generation of children because of him, no mention of him by priests/religious figures of the time, none from bystanders who witnessed these miracles. No mention in censuses, tax records, birth or death records. No writings of his exist, not even a damn signature. All that we have of his supposed birth, life, death, resurrection, miracles, etc is third or fourth hand often contradictory accounts written decades or even centuries after he supposedly died.


[QUOTE]Huh? It was in the village of Bethlehem. Herod was a blood thirsty king that murdered his own family, and executed many people. Killing babies in a small village is not going to draw attention of the whole Roman World.[/QUOTE]

Even if it was just bethlehem (even though Matthew says it was that and the surrounding areas), don't you think someone would've written an account of the systematic murder of children 2 years old and younger in a town/region? Herod's other atrocities were well-documented, but the genocide of children is nowhere to be found in the historical record? Nothing in the biographies of Herod even hint that such an event occurred, same with Luke's claim that Augustus called for an Empire-wide Census. These were all fabrications by writers trying to force their imagined deity into the historical record and the messianic 'prophecy' of the Old Testament.

[QUOTE=shlver]

Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?[/QUOTE]


who says they really died for their beliefs tho?

i'm not saying what i said happened, more just throwing that out there.

i'm just really skeptical how a lot of our ancient history is remembered and taken so literally by so many today based on the Bible or any other book. Even recent history from 3-10 years ago is reinvented and twisted by people with agendas, and actually out there for people to believe, of which a lot of people do.

[QUOTE=macmac]It should be easier to prove an existence than to disprove one...wheres all the overwhelming evidence of a historical figure?[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.
[QUOTE]Watch

I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's been authenticated, most view it as having many 'interpolations'... at best.

And all I want is one contemporary mention of a man whose miracle birth drew the attention of a tyrant, the entire region's anticipation, caused 3 kings/magi from the east to travel to see him (with the blessing of the tyrant)... who in front of large crowds- raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, healed diseases, walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead. There is NOTHING that was written of him by anyone during his miraculous and extraordinary lifetime. No mention of him by Herod, even though he slaughtered an entire generation of children because of him, no mention of him by priests/religious figures of the time, none from bystanders who witnessed these miracles. No mention in censuses, tax records, birth or death records. No writings of his exist, not even a damn signature. All that we have of his supposed birth, life, death, resurrection, miracles, etc is third or fourth hand often contradictory accounts written decades or even centuries after he supposedly died. [/QUOTE]
Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.
[QUOTE]who says they really died for their beliefs tho?

i'm not saying what i said happened, more just throwing that out there.

i'm just really skeptical how a lot of our ancient history is remembered and taken so literally by so many today based on the Bible or any other book. Even recent history from 3-10 years ago is reinvented and twisted by people with agendas, and actually out there for people to believe, of which a lot of people do.[/QUOTE]
huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."

Yeah I think the historical evidence is out there and most things mentioned in the Bible are based on some sort fact and then twisted and sensationalized.

Now I can't say that I believe everything is based on just one man, instead of maybe being a collection of different personalities put into one mythos.

[QUOTE=shlver]:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.

huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."[/QUOTE]


huh? There have been millions of people in history who died based on false belief, scam, pride, etc. People do not need a lot of extra motivation to kill or die for a myth, a cam, etc, whatever you might call it. Are you so out of touch with history and the human mind that you cannot understand how hearsay, second-hand story and wishful thinking could turn a potential simple but wise men into a messiah in the eyes of people hoping for just such a messiah to free them from their suppressors? All people need in these situation is the idea of hope for them to die for this hope - it rarely matters if this is in the end true hope in person or belief.

[QUOTE=hookul]huh? There have been millions of people in history who died based on false belief, scam, pride, etc. People do not need a lot of extra motivation to kill or die for a myth, a cam, etc, whatever you might call it. Are you so out of touch with history and the human mind that you cannot understand how hearsay, second-hand story and wishful thinking could turn a potential simple but wise men into a messiah in the eyes of people hoping for just such a messiah to free them from their suppressors? All people need in these situation is the idea of hope for them to die for this hope - it rarely matters if this is in the end true hope in person or belief.[/QUOTE]
Lacking reading comprehension huh? He said those Apostles were in on the scam. They knew Jesus was a fake and still died for him?:facepalm

[QUOTE=shlver]Lacking reading comprehension huh? He said those Apostles were in on the scam. They knew Jesus was a fake and still died for him?:facepalm[/QUOTE]

Huh? what does this change? The above can be applied to the motivation apostles as well. Maybe they loved the attention they were getting, maybe they hoped for a better life by living this lie, maybe they feared they have more to loose then their lives if they reveal they were in on a scam that fooled hundreds of people? It is not farfetched for these times that loosing "ones face" is worse to a man than death itself.

I am not saying that I believe this is how it went down but i thnk it is ludicrous when giving the options between

a) a few guys hoping for a better life are in for a scam ... and
b) a few guys witnessed god in person

that people assume b) is more likely...use some logic and deductive sense for cryin gout loud. Option a) already happened thousands of times in history and probably happnes as we speak hundreds of times right now while b) - by its very definition only happened once in history!

Yeah, right but b) is the simplier and more logical explanation.

[QUOTE=hookul]Huh? what does this change? The above can be applied to the motivation apostles as well. Maybe they loved the attention they were getting, maybe they hoped for a better life by living this lie, maybe they feared they have more to loose then their lives if they reveal they were in on a scam that fooled hundreds of people? It is not farfetched for these times that loosing "ones face" is worse to a man than death itself.

I am not saying that I believe this is how it went down but i thnk it is ludicrous when giving the options between

a) a few guys hoping for a better life are in for a scam ... and
b) a few guys witnessed god in person

that people assume b) is more likely...use some logic and deductive sense for cryin gout loud. Option a) already happened thousands of times in history and probably happnes as we speak hundreds of times right now while b) - by its very definition only happened once in history!

Yeah, right but b) is the simplier and more logical explanation.[/QUOTE]
Bunch of hypothetical garbage.:blah :blah :blah

[QUOTE=shlver]Bunch of hypothetical garbage.:blah :blah :blah[/QUOTE]

Again, you are either dumb or playing dumb. How is the above scenario more hypothetical garbage than the option that they indeed witnessed all these wonders and god in person?

Option a) to the best of all our knowledge of science, laws of nature, history and the nature of man already happened many times on ears, while option b) defies laws of nature and by its own definition only happened once since time existed. In what universe is b) for you therefore less hypothetical than a) ?

There is a very simple expression that you do not seem to get your mind around :"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!". The claim of wonders and god himself revealing himself over a prolonged period of time to a selected group of peoples is pretty much the MOST EXTRAORDINARY claim one can make thus most extraordinary proof are needed to make this claim less hypothetical than claims that at least do not speak against the laws of nature and common knowledge.

[QUOTE=hookul]Again, you are either dumb or playing dumb. How is the above scenario more hypothetical garbage than the option that they indeed witnessed all these wonders and god in person?

Option a) to the best of all our knowledge of science, laws of nature, history and the nature of man already happened many times on ears, while option b) defies laws of nature and by its own definition only happened once since time existed. In what universe is b) for you therefore less hypothetical than a) ?

There is a very simple expression that you do not seem to get your mind around :"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!". The claim of wonders and god himself revealing himself over a prolonged period of time to a selected group of peoples is pretty much the MOST EXTRAORDINARY claim one can make thus most extraordinary proof are needed to make this claim less hypothetical than claims that at least do not speak against the laws of nature and common knowledge.[/QUOTE]
I didn't hypothesize anything you dolt. The apostles themselves said they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. He said that Jesus and the Apostles were in on an elaborate scheme. So, I asked for the motivation to continue something the Apostles knew was fake that would bring hardship, suffering, and maybe even death. You're pretty ****ing stupid.

[QUOTE=shlver]I didn't hypothesize anything you dolt. The apostles themselves said they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. He said that Jesus and the Apostles were in on an elaborate scheme. So, I asked for the motivation to continue something the Apostles knew was fake that would bring hardship, suffering, and maybe even death. You're pretty ****ing stupid.[/QUOTE]

Dear lord you are dumb. For one, I mentioned different kinds of motivation for them to act this way in the first place and continue to act this way even when facing suffering. Second, of course the apostles themselves would say they believed in it as this is the a priory requirement for them to be in a potential scam. How the hell would anybody pull of an elaborate scam and then go around the next second and say :"haha, but in all honesty I do not really believe this, I am just saying this to profit from a scam? How the hell would that work in real life? Basically if you could graps your mind of the idea that they might have lied, you are taking the words of the liars as justification for their true believes - do you not see a paradox in this situation?

And again, I am not saying that this scenario happened. All I am saying that giving the options, this scenario is still more likely than god walking on earth.

Shit, for all we know - and we do know nothing about them really - the apostles could have been a group of Charlie Zelenoffs truely believing in their own scam just like Charlie is disillusional about reality. Such a scenario (a bunch of Charlie Zs following a charasmatic leader) is still more likely to happen once in history than rising dead back from live. But I guess you cannot even admit this.

[QUOTE=hookul]Dear lord you are dumb. For one, I mentioned different kinds of motivation for them to act this way in the first place and continue to act this way even when facing suffering. Second, of course the apostles themselves would say they believed in it as this is the a priory requirement for them to be in a potential scam. How the hell would anybody pull of an elaborate scam and then go around the next second and say :"haha, but in all honesty I do not really believe this, I am just saying this to profit from a scam? How the hell would that work in real life? Basically if you could graps your mind of the idea that they might have lied, you are taking the words of the liars as justification for their true believes - do you not see a paradox in this situation?[/QUOTE]
That's all hypothetical bullshit you're spewing. First of all, what would they have to gain? Logically, no person will suffer or die for something they know is fake and we're talking about the motivations of scam artists.
[QUOTE]And again, I am not saying that this scenario happened. All I am saying that giving the options, this scenario is still more likely than god walking on earth.
[/QUOTE]
We're not arguing that you dolt. We're arguing whether or not the Apostles [B]BELIEVED[/B] Jesus was the Messiah. The idea that they truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah logically follows the acts of them dying and suffering claiming belief in Jesus as the Messiah.
[QUOTE]Shit, for all we know - and we do know nothing about them really - the apostles could have been a group of Charlie Zelenoffs truely believing in their own scam just like Charlie is disillusional about reality. Such a scenario (a bunch of Charlie Zs following a charasmatic leader) is still more likely to happen once in history than rising dead back from live. But I guess you cannot even admit this.
[/QUOTE]
You're still missing the point of the argument.

[QUOTE=shlver]:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

Yes there are interpolations, but that does not mean Josephus did not write about Jesus. He even said in that video "most scholars consider this passage to be genuine when interpolations are removed."
The Bible is an excellent source but you choose to discard it when it's one of the most preserved pieces of writing compared to some works of antiquity. We're not discussing whether Jesus performed those miracles, we've already seen references corroborating Jesus being an influential person to the Christians by two outside sources, Josephus and Tacitus. I'm debating the point that Jesus was a real person.
Sources written decades after someone's death is not reliable? Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death, but historians consider those works to be trustworthy.

huh? Christians were ostracized and martyred for their beliefs. They would have been better off to downplay and denounce their "Jesus Christ the Messiah" scam. They had nothing to gain. Give me a motive for them to die by continuing this "scam."[/QUOTE]
ok, the fact that you even use the term greco-roman as a legit cultural association for this time period shows how out of touch you are with the actual historical records.

You have yet to actually produce a single historical source from the time of jesus that mentions him. Sure, historians 40 years later mention him, but thats not direct historical evidence. I suggest you search your library and find a single source from the life of jesus that mentions him. Otherwise, you are simply arguing from your beliefs.

[QUOTE=boozehound]ok, the fact that you even use the term greco-roman as a legit cultural association for this time period shows how out of touch you are with the actual historical records. [/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?:facepalm

[QUOTE]You have yet to actually produce a single historical source from the time of jesus that mentions him. Sure, historians 40 years later mention him, but thats not direct historical evidence. I suggest you search your library and find a single source from the life of jesus that mentions him. Otherwise, you are simply arguing from your beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Well, people with adamant stances are hard to please, when the overwhelming majority of historical scholars agree Jesus was an actual living person.

What it all comes down to...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0&feature=av2e[/url]

:wtf: and :facepalm @ 90% of the posts here...

[QUOTE=shlver]That's all hypothetical bullshit you're spewing. First of all, what would they have to gain? Logically, no person will suffer or die for something they know is fake and we're talking about the motivations of scam artists.

We're not arguing that you dolt. We're arguing whether or not the Apostles [B]BELIEVED[/B] Jesus was the Messiah. The idea that they truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah logically follows the acts of them dying and suffering claiming belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

You're still missing the point of the argument.[/QUOTE]

I spell it out one more time for you since you fail to read what has been posted:

[B]What would they have to gain?[/B]
- To be in the original scam: prestige, influence, admirers, better life, etc.
- To hold onto this scam even when faced with suffering/death: losing their face, angry mob killing them anyway when finding out they toyed with their lifes and believes for years and exploited them, willing to become a martyr, nothing left to lose, etc.
Take your pick from the above if you want but don't tell me NONE of these reasons are 100% impossible. If you accept that one of those reasons might be highly unlikely but still 0.0000001% likely/possible, this likelihood still exceed the alternative explanation that god revealed himself to them for years and years in person.

[B]Apostles believed Jesus to be the messiah:[/B]
The only account and evidence you have that they truely believed Jesus to be their messiah are their actions and own words back then in a way. Exactly ALL of their actions and words that make you believe that they believed can also be explained by the scam explanation. Again, how can you differentiate between an apostle who truely believed in Jesus or who acted and said he believed in Jesus because of a scam based on his words and actions? You simply cannot as the very nature of a scam requires the apostles to play their part and let everyone believe that they believed...GET IT?

[B]you're still missing the point of the argument:[/B]
No. But I am now realizing that I am argueing with a person inept of logical argueing and playing back and forth with hypothetical scenarios and sociological concepts. You

[QUOTE=shlver]:oldlol: He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

[/QUOTE]

No they don't.

I believe in Jesus Christ, but I'm not the type of guy to go ape shit if someone expresses their own opinion. I've thought about it, and one of the only reasons I believe it is because I wouldn't know what the **** to do if I didn't believe it. I'm hoping that I die and go to heaven. If I didn't believe in God then what the **** would happen to me?

[QUOTE=LA_Showtime]I believe in Jesus Christ, but I'm not the type of guy to go ape shit if someone expresses their own opinion. I've thought about it, [B]and one of the only reasons I believe it is because I wouldn't know what the **** to do if I didn't believe it.[/B] I'm hoping that I die and go to heaven. If I didn't believe in God then what the **** would happen to me?[/QUOTE]

That shouldn't be your reason for believing in God. If you truly believe in him, you should do it out of faith, not fear.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]That shouldn't be your reason for believing in God. If you truly believe in him, you should do it out of faith, not fear.[/QUOTE]
there is no right or wrong in why someone chooses to believe in a certain religion...that is their business...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]there is no right or wrong in why someone chooses to believe in a certain religion...that is their business...[/QUOTE]

Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
he just said he didn't know what he would do without God in his life...

that is understandable to me...

I am a thiest and still scared of the unknown...I think most people are scared of death...some might not be, but most are...we are scared of the unkown, or just straight scared of never existing again...

without that fear, we would all just kill ourselves now...

that is a healthy fear to have...

I havent actually commented on this thread in terms of what the OP wanted. The fact is there is a suprising amount of ignorance among Christians regarding the history of our own faith. There are 4 common non Christian sources which are used to "prove" the historical existence of Christ. Those 4 sources are Josephus, Tacitus(both of these have already been mentioned), Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius. There is also a later Roman named Lucian who is also sometimes mentioned in these debates.

As for the disbelief in those sources, it has already been mentioned that almost all ancient figures have at least as much ambiguity regarding their origins as Jesus did. I don't believe that any of these histories are strong enough to provide incontravertible proof; however, that could be said of nearly any historical figure over 2000 years old. If you choose to believe that Jesus was the teacher of the Essenes I have no real problem with that. There are many cases of varying histories referring to the same person by different names.

Again Im not trying to get into a relgious debate regarding my beliefs versus others because I believe everyone has the right to believe what they wish. I am simply trying to answer the OPs question.

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]I havent actually commented on this thread in terms of what the OP wanted. The fact is there is a suprising amount of ignorance among Christians regarding the history of our own faith. [COLOR="Red"] There are 4 common non Christian sources which are used to "prove" the historical existence of Christ. [/COLOR] Those 4 sources are Josephus, Tacitus(both of these have already been mentioned), Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius. There is also a later Roman named Lucian who is also sometimes mentioned in these debates.

As for the disbelief in those sources, it has already been mentioned that almost all ancient figures have at least as much ambiguity regarding their origins as Jesus did. I don't believe that any of these histories are strong enough to provide incontravertible proof; however, that could be said of nearly any historical figure over 2000 years old. If you choose to believe that Jesus was the teacher of the Essenes I have no real problem with that. There are many cases of varying histories referring to the same person by different names.

Again Im not trying to get into a relgious debate regarding my beliefs versus others because I believe everyone has the right to believe what they wish. I am simply trying to answer the OPs question.[/QUOTE]
from the reading I have done on this subject (which is very little I admitt) it seems as though there will lnever be actual "proof" one way or another...

those in here claiming that they know he didn't actually exist make me...:rolleyes:

I don't think there is a for sure answer on this one way or another...

In the OP, I was basically just asking what people's opinions are...I asked if you had to "guess" on wether or not he existed what would you guess?

obviously those of faith think he did, but I was curious what all the non-religious types would say on this...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]from the reading I have done on this subject (which is very little I admitt) it seems as though there will lnever be actual "proof" one way or another...

those in here claiming that they know he didn't actually exist make me...:rolleyes:

I don't think there is a for sure answer on this one way or another...

In the OP, I was basically just asking what people's opinions are...I asked if you had to "guess" on wether or not he existed what would you guess?

obviously those of faith think he did, but I was curious what all the non-religious types would say on this...[/QUOTE]
If it wasnt clear, the reason I put the qoutes around prove was that obviously they don't actually prove anything.

Jesus of Nazareth was black man that was the son of god, the white romans couldn't take it so they killed him. The white man has been killing our black leaders since the beginning of time.
See 80% of the people in this thread in hell, while i'll be upstairs sleeping with lions.

ME>YOU

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]That shouldn't be your reason for believing in God. If you truly believe in him, you should do it out of faith, not fear.[/QUOTE]

That's obviously not the only reason I believe in God; there are many reasons to believe in a higher being. With that said, one of the main reasons is for the simple fact that I feel like I have to believe in something. I mean seriously, how was everything created? What happens when you die? What's hell like? It's a crazy thing to think about, really. It's the type of thing that could potentially drive you nuts.

Jesus Christ as he is portrayed... there is nothing real about him. He would been an arab looking guy.

As for there being a dude named Christ... yea I bet the was a dude named Jesus and dude named Christ and they just fused them to form one awesome name.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]Just curious, do you think that there really was a man named Jesus Christ that was crucified for claiming to be the son of God?

I don't think there is proof one way or another...but what is your guess?

do you think he was just completely made up out of the blue, or was he a real man?


found this in wiki:

[SIZE="3"][B]Jesus as a historical person[/B][/SIZE]



[B][SIZE="3"]Jesus as myth[/SIZE][/B]




I am leaning toward real...as opposed to a "myth"...[/QUOTE]

I'm going to give you the most accurate reply I can, without worrying about offending people. So anyone who would be offended at any negative speakings about Jesus, please do not read further, since it's not my intention to offend people. You can believe in what you want, don't let what other people say bother you.



He's actually a historical figure. But that doesn't mean he's the son of god. That was obviously bs. Same with the Prophet Mohammed. They just come up with some ideal and lie about themselves for rep so it can be spread.

There were even trials back then to prove that he was a fraud, but Jesus' followers had paid people off to lie and claim miracles. For example, when Jesus "healed the blind man so he could see again", he was brought to court later when the Jews were trying to uncover Jesus as a fraud. They brought in the "blind man since birth's" parents, and they, under oath, stated that he wasn't blind.

These are things you don't hear about much. Now, that may not be 100% true, but it was part of a play that was run a very very long time ago, shortly after the fact. As any true historian knows, old time plays are fairly accurate portrayals of things that have gone in in those times. The specific names aren't always the same, but the things that happen within them hint at events that actually took place.


---below here, is my opinion---

Even before I found that out, I had the same idea he was nothing more than a fraud anyway. It's obvious that religion was used to control the basic mentality of the people and to almost scare people into doing what they say. It is also very well documented that priests, bishops, and any church staff in general were extremely corrupt, constantly abusing their standing for their own benefit. It's hard to put faith into anything they claim as it is.

Every religion also makes similar claims. If you follow our religion, when you die you go to our heaven. If you don't follow our religion, you go to our hell. If every religion makes this claim, exactly how are logical people supposed to take any of it seriously?

[QUOTE=PistolPete]What it all comes down to...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0&feature=av2e[/url][/QUOTE]

The question posed by Prime isn't one of faith. He's not asking if you believe Jesus was the son of God, the messiah, etc. He wants to know whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. It is a question of facts, not faith.

I just find it strange that there is so very little tangible historical record of such an extraordinary person/deity who affected his region unlike anyone before or after him. Just a handful of 'interpolations' and pagan myth.

Strangely enough, if you tried to prove the historicity of much lesser figures you can do it easily. Let's take another messiah claimant who live about 100 years after Jesus supposedly died and try to see what proof there is that he lived.

[U][B]Shimon Bar Kokhba (Simon Ben Kosiba)[/B][/U]

[QUOTE]Shimon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎, also transliterated as Bar Kochba) was the Jewish leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state of Israel which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("Ruler"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 following a two-year war.

Documents discovered in the modern era give us his original name, Simon ben Kosiba, (Hebrew: שמעון בן כוסבא‎) he was given the surname Bar Kokhba, (Aramaic for "Son of a Star", referring to the Star Prophecy of Numbers 24:17, "A star has shot off Jacob") by his contemporary, the Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva.

After the failure of the revolt, the rabbinical writers referred to bar Kokhba as "Simon bar Kozeba" (Hebrew: בר כוזיבא‎, "Son of lies" or "Son of deception").

-Wiki
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: 'Aqiba, my master, used to interpret a star goes forth from Jacob as a Kozeba goes forth from Jacob.' Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Ben Kozeba, said: [B]'This is the King Messiah.'[/B] Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: 'Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!'

-Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]According to the Christian church historian Eusebius (c.260-c.340), Simon claimed to be a luminary who had come down to the Jews from heaven (History of the church 4.6.2). On some of his coins and in his letters, he calls himself 'Prince' (Nasi), a word that had very strong messianic connotations (cf. Ezekiel 37.24-25 and several Qumran documents). His loyal followers liked to make a pun on his name: his real name was Simon ben Kosiba, but he was usually called Bar Kochba (son of the star), which again is a messianic claim.

...

[B]The revolt was clearly religious in nature. The rebels were convinced that this was the apocalyptic war that had been predicted by prophets like Daniel and Zechariah.[/B] Their coins show a star on top of and the Ark of the Covenant inside the Temple; the legend is written in archaic Hebrew letters. Some coins were struck with the legend 'Eleazar the priest', which strongly suggests that a new high priest was elected.
[/QUOTE]


In addition to being mention in several religious books, Simon and details of his life are found in MANY writings by historians, many of whom were alive during the same period as Ben Kosiba....

[U][B]Some Sources:[/B][/U] 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 38.3; Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a-58b; Genesis Rabbah 65.21 (on 27.22); Lamentations Rabbah 1.16

[QUOTE=hookul]I spell it out one more time for you since you fail to read what has been posted:

[B]What would they have to gain?[/B]
- To be in the original scam: prestige, influence, admirers, better life, etc.
- To hold onto this scam even when faced with suffering/death: losing their face, angry mob killing them anyway when finding out they toyed with their lifes and believes for years and exploited them, willing to become a martyr, nothing left to lose, etc.
Take your pick from the above if you want but don't tell me NONE of these reasons are 100% impossible. If you accept that one of those reasons might be highly unlikely but still 0.0000001% likely/possible, [B]this likelihood still exceed the alternative explanation that god revealed himself to them for years and years in person.[/B][/QUOTE]
More hypothetical nonsense. All we know is that they died claiming belief in Jesus. and it's is completely logical for us to think that they believed Jesus was the Messiah. Regarding the bolded, that is not what the explanation is you dolt. The alternate explanation is that they believed(which is completely possible, more possible than your idiotic scam hypothesis), not whether or not God appeared to them. :wtf: There are a bunch of cults who believe more crazier stuff than this and there millions and millions of Jews all over the world who will believe in a Messiah that fulfills their satisfaction and prophecies.

[QUOTE][B]Apostles believed Jesus to be the messiah:[/B]
The only account and evidence you have that they truely believed Jesus to be their messiah are their actions and own words back then in a way. Exactly ALL of their actions and words that make you believe that they believed can also be explained by the scam explanation. Again, how can you differentiate between an apostle who truely believed in Jesus or who acted and said he believed in Jesus because of a scam based on his words and actions? You simply cannot as the very nature of a scam requires the apostles to play their part and let everyone believe that they believed...GET IT?
[/QUOTE]
But the scam explanation is not logical in any sort of way.:facepalm
[QUOTE][B]you're still missing the point of the argument:[/B]
No. But I am now realizing that I am argueing with a person inept of logical argueing and playing back and forth with hypothetical scenarios and sociological concepts. You

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The question posed by Prime isn't one of faith. He's not asking if you believe Jesus was the son of God, the messiah, etc. He wants to know whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. It is a question of facts, not faith.

I just find it strange that there is so very little tangible historical record of such an extraordinary person/deity who affected his region unlike anyone before or after him. Just a handful of 'interpolations' and pagan myth.

Strangely enough, if you tried to prove the historicity of much lesser figures you can do it easily. Let's take another messiah claimant who live about 100 years after Jesus supposedly died and try to see what proof there is that he lived.

[U][B]Shimon Bar Kokhba (Simon Ben Kosiba)[/B][/U]









In addition to being mention in several religious books, Simon and details of his life are found in MANY writings by historians, many of whom were alive during the same period as Ben Kosiba....

[U][B]Some Sources:[/B][/U] 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 38.3; Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a-58b; Genesis Rabbah 65.21 (on 27.22); Lamentations Rabbah 1.16

[QUOTE=shlver]I like how you say [B]some[/B] sources where the site you copied that from says just those sources.
Provide more please.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: You are really clutching at straws now, huh?

So mentions of Simon's life and deeds in religious and historical records (including contemporary ones), legal documents and letters from his own hand, and archeological evidence like coins he minted with his seal/title, etc is not good enough for you?

Ok.

[B]D. Ussishkin, Archaeological Soundings at Betar, Bar-Kochba's Last Stronghold
[/B]

^Betar is important because it was according to Bar-Kokhba in his letters, the Talmud, the Mishra, Eusebius, and Roman Historical record- the final stronghold during the rebellion. Ussishkin's excavation proved that Betar had been settled in the time in question and was heavily fortified against attack and military stockpiles dating to the time of the revolt were found.

Also, there are many modern scholars who have made a link between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba revolt.

So, that's just some more.

Show me anything concrete and contemporary about Jesus/Yeshua that even remotely suggests he lived in Judea from c.6 BCE to c. 33 CE or whenever he was alleged to have lived, taught, proclaimed Messiah, died... Simon Kokhba has several indications of his historicity, and I bet most if not all of the people in this thread have never heard of him... but the savior of the world left no record of his life, teachings, or death? No one recorded his miracles while he was alive?

Show me one example.

[QUOTE]My question to you is, if the historical evidence for the historical Jesus is enough for the majority of historical scholars, why isn't it enough for you?[/QUOTE]

Because I ask for more than bullshit stories written, suppressed and canonized centuries after someone supposedly lived, performed miracles, died and was resurrected leaving no historical trace. And there have been PLENTY historical scholars who have written volumes of works questioning the historicity of Yeshua ben Yosef.

But please, feel free to show me Yeshua's writings, any legal documents pertaining to him, birth certificate, death certificate, Luke says Caesar Augustus ordered an Empire-wide census (bullshit btw)... is there evidence of this? Where is Mary, Joseph, and Jesus' census information? Luke also says:


[QUOTE]11Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. 12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. 13When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry."
14Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" 15[B]The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.[/B]
16They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people." 17[B]This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea[a] and the surrounding country[/B].
-LUKE 7[/QUOTE]

^So this news of a miraculous resurrection spread throughout the region... but no one thought to write it down? Seems strange in a time where meticulous records were kept, no?

There is NOTHING from the time that this God was walking on Earth performing miracles that says he actually existed anywhere but in the plagiarized imaginings of the New Testament writers.

Of course, this is your opportunity to prove me wrong :violin:

2+ days and still no evidence? Maybe there will be another miracle on the third day...

But while we're waiting for that, maybe someone can answer a serious logistical flaw within the New Testament narrative of Jesus' miracle birth:

[QUOTE][B]After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod[/B], Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east[b] and have come to worship him."
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[c] was to be born.

-Matthew 2[/QUOTE]

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, Joseph took his family and fled to Egypt and waited until an angel of the lord told them it was safe to go back to Judea- which happened once Herod died.

Herod reigned from 37 BCE to 4 BCE.

[QUOTE][B]In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.[/B]

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

-Luke 2[/QUOTE]

So if we're looking for any sort of tangible proof that Jesus existed, Luke gives us a great starting point to look. Jesus, according to him, was born in Bethlehem after Joseph and Mary went there to register for the census of Quirinius on the orders of Augustus who called for a census of the entire Roman Empire. Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that's where his ancestor David (about 27-28 generations removed from Joseph according to Matthew) was from. Just another example of the NT writers going to great lengths to make Jesus the messiah of the OT :rolleyes:

Anyway, let's look at some problems posed by the 2 accounts...

[QUOTE]The "Census of Quirinius" refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes [B]taken in 6/7CE [/B]during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of direct Roman rule on what became Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea).[1] An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus,[2] who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.

[B]In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great.[/B] [B][SIZE="3"]Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke. [/SIZE][/B]

...


[B]This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6 CE, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, ten years earlier.[14] [COLOR="Red"]In addition, no historical sources mention a worldwide or even a Roman-controlled world census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only;[15] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes[/COLOR].[/B]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

So basically, the infallible word of God tells us two completely different birth dates, a decade apart, for his son/self, the messiah, and outright makes shit up that didn't happen. So the writers of the Gospel can't get their story straight and contradict one another AND history... so what reason is there to believe that [I]anything[/I] in Luke, Matthew, or the New Testament should be taken as truth? :confusedshrug:

Interesting article titled "The Sad State of Religion in the U.S."



[quote]“There’s no longer evidence for a need of God, even less of Christ. The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying.”

It matters who said this. If it came from Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens – the Four Horsemen of the New Apocalypse – few would accept it as an objective assessment. But the author of this quote was Pope Benedict XVI.[1]

The Pope’s candor fits well with other research sponsored by churches. When you count the people in the pews on Sunday rather than having a pollster ask whether or not they attend church, fewer than 18% attend church regularly.[2]

From 1980 to 2005 in the Southern Baptist Church, baptisms of people between eighteen and thirty four – in other words, their next generation of leaders – fell 40 percent, from 100,000 in 1980 to 60,000 in 2005.[3]

But the U.S. population grew by 27% during those 25 years, so the Baptists would have had to baptize 127,000 in 2005 just to stay even; they really fell by 52%.[4]

In 2006, the Southern Baptists – who claim almost six times more members than any other white evangelical church – made a concerted effort to baptize one million people. Not only did they fall over two-thirds short, they actually baptized even fewer than they had the year before.[5]

You might think that some faith group must have grown during the last thirty years, and you’d be right: atheists and nonbelievers more than doubled in the eleven years between 1990 and 2001, from 14 million to 29 million: from 8% of the country to 14%. There are more than twice as many atheists and nonbelievers as there are evangelical Christians.[6]

And since it’s hard to believe that all atheists/nonbelievers would be willing to confess that to pollsters, the number is probably much higher. From 2000 to 2005, church attendance fell in all fifty states.[7]

Nor is this trend a new phenomenon: American churches have not kept up with population growth in over a century.[8]

Then, to add insult to injury, when a sampling of non-Christians were asked to rate eleven groups in terms of respect, they rated evangelicals tenth. Only prostitutes ranked lower.[9]

Are believers more moral? No. When pollster George Barna – himself an evangelical – looked at seventy moral behaviors, he didn’t find any difference between the actions of those who were born-again Christians and those who weren’t. His studies and other indicators show that divorce among born-agains is as common as, or more common than, among other groups. One study showed that wives in traditional, male-dominated marriages were three times more likely to be beaten than wives in egalitarian marriages.[10]

Evangelicals constitute not 25 percent of the U.S. population – as they have claimed – but at most 7 percent, and their numbers are falling, not rising. All these numbers come from the churches themselves. (Wicker, p. 67) While evangelical women make up at least 3.5% of the population (half of 7%), they make up about 20% of the women who get abortions.[11]

“The Spirit,” as the Gospel of John says, “blows where it will.” Where is it blowing now? Adding together the data from pollsters, evangelical researchers and Pope Benedict XVI, it’s not a stretch to say the Spirit – the spirit of life and the truth that can make you more free – has settled in the land of atheists, nonbelievers, and church alumni.

[url]http://inewp.com/?p=4679[/url]
[/quote]

I thought the last three paragraphs were particularly interesting.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Of course it is their business, but doing it out of fear of the unknown is not a good reason in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

It is healthy for a man's soul, to believe in God out of fear; fear of his power, and fear of his almighty abilities. Belief from faith is expected as well, and when it comes to a belief system in such a magnificent being, faith must be part of the equation; but that doesn't exclude other reasons for belief as well (such as fear, emotion, hope, life experiences, etc).

Proverbs 1:7 - [I]The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.[/I]

[B]What does the Qur'an say about Jesus?[/B]

In the Qur'an, there are many stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic). The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, the miracles he performed by God's permission, and his life as a respected prophet of God. The Qur'an also repeatedly reminds that Jesus was a human prophet sent by God, not part of God Himself. Below are some direct quotations from the Qur'an regarding his life and teachings of Jesus.

[B]He Was Righteous[/B]
"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).

[B]He Was a Prophet[/B]
"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).
"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35).


[B]He Was a Humble Servant of God[/B]
"And behold! God will say [i.e. on the Day of Judgment]: 'Oh Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden. Never did I say to them anything except what You commanded me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I lived among them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things'" (5:116-117).

[B]His Teachings[/B]
"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.' But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement. So woe to the wrongdoers, from the penalty of a Grievous Day!" (43:63-65)

====================================

[B]Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam[/B]

Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator

[QUOTE=Legend of Josh]It is healthy for a man's soul, to believe in God out of fear; [B]fear of his power, and fear of his almighty abilities[/B]. Belief from faith is expected as well, and when it comes to a belief system in such a magnificent being, faith must be part of the equation; but that doesn't exclude other reasons for belief as well (such as fear, emotion, hope, life experiences, etc).

Proverbs 1:7 - [I]The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.[/I][/QUOTE]

i'm not sure if i follow? how can you fear gods power if you don't already believe in it? you can't fear gods power first and then believe because you've already accepted that god exists and has power in the first instance. but maybe i am just misunderstanding you?

[QUOTE=zizozain]
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator[/QUOTE]

Interesting.

What's this belief about Isa (Jesus/Yeshua) based on exactly? Seems like they kept the basic story of the Pauline Christians but tweaked it just so he wasn't the Son of God or God himself. Kept the virgin birth, Mary, even the second coming.