Printable View
[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: