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

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]

[QUOTE]The Historical Jesus is a reconstruction of Jesus using modern historical methods.

Paul Barnett pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognized the 'subjectivity' factor in their available sources" and "have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand." He noted that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.[118]

In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigm

[IMG]http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4[/IMG]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.

[QUOTE=Hawker][IMG]http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4[/IMG]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.[/QUOTE]
In here?

:wtf:


that's crazy...

Seems to be enough historical evidence to declare the man existed, but not enough to tell us anything of significance about him, why he was crucified or if he ever married. Have to rely on biblical sources for that.

There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.

[QUOTE=Zombles]Seems to be enough historical evidence to declare the man existed, but not enough to tell us anything of significance about him, why he was crucified or if he ever married. Have to rely on biblical sources for that.[/QUOTE]
Some people think he was married to Mary Magdalene, and that part of why she is labeled a prostitute is that the people that rewrote Bible passages before their inclusion in the Bible had a misogynist agenda. Don't ask me for evidence of that though, I have no idea where they're coming from, aside from possibly putting too much stock in "the Da Vinci Code."

[QUOTE=Nanners]There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.[/QUOTE]
There are Jewish historians who describe him as the Bible does.

[QUOTE=Zombles][B]Seems to be enough historical evidence to declare the man existed[/B], but not enough to tell us anything of significance about him, why he was crucified or if he ever married. Have to rely on biblical sources for that.[/QUOTE]

Show me some of this evidence.

[QUOTE=Nanners]There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Looks like I strolled into the OTC at the perfect time, another good old-fashioned religion debate barn burner :banana:

And for the record, from everything I've read/seen the historical 'Jesus' was a man known only as the teacher of righteousness (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) , who was the leader of a breakaway group of Jews called the Essenes who were very much like early Christians.

Santa Clause:St. Nicholas of Myra
Jesus Christ:The Teacher of Righteousness

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Show me some of this evidence.[/QUOTE]

Many classical Roman historians, Tacitus most prominently, and many Jewish ones describe Christ. It wasn't really disputed by the authorities of the day, the men who immediately came after Christ.

“Nero…punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome” (The Annals of Imperial Rome, XV, 44).

[QUOTE=Hawker][IMG]http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLKC_vu01M2XrwEQoAEYwgQyCNNaSoa3d3i4[/IMG]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.[/QUOTE]
+1

Tacitus was born in 56AD and it's estimated Christ was crucified sometime towards the end of Tiberius's reign, which ended in 37AD.

So one, at most two, generations removed. There was another historian who predates Tacitus in mentioning Christ but I can't remember his name.

[QUOTE=Zombles]Many classical Roman historians, Tacitus most prominently, and many Jewish ones describe Christ. It wasn't really disputed by the authorities of the day, the men who immediately came after Christ.[/QUOTE]

Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery. No contemporary sources exist mentioning a man who, in front of large crowds, raised the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, gave sight to the blind, etc. No birth certificate, no tax records, no address, no death certificate... even though Romans took many census records and heavily taxed their territories. Jesus' birth supposedly drew the interest of Eastern Kings and instigated the slaughter of an entire generation of Jewish children... but there's no evidence ANYWHERE that this happened. Tacitus was born 20+ years after Jesus was supposed to have died (c. 33 CE) and is not a contemporary source, not that it matters since...


[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zombles]Tacitus was born in 56AD and it's estimated Christ was crucified sometime towards the end of Tiberius's reign, which ended in 37AD.

So one, at most two, generations removed. There was another historian who predates Tacitus in mentioning Christ but I can't remember his name.[/QUOTE]

Even if Tacitus was born in 56AD he didnt start writing history the day he was born. It has to be more than one generation

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery.[/QUOTE]

There's a pretty fierce scholarly debate over the authenticity of Josephus's passage but quite a few historians believe it has a historical core that was partially edited by Christian scholars over the years. I don't know which side to believe but it's not some settled debate.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]I don't know where you got this quote from but the original Tacitus references 'Christus' which was a title given to a few deities during that time (see Serapis Christus). Also, he makes it clear that what the 'Chrestians' believed was nothing more than a superstition.[/QUOTE]

ergo the word superstition in the quote.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Again, I will need more concrete evidence. Since no one has been able to produce non biblical accounts of Jesus' miracle birth (even though the differing biblical accounts contradict each other) Show me evidence of the slaughter of innocents by Herod during Jesus' birth that's found in Matthew. That shouldn't be too hard to find, you'd think someone would have recorded the event- a well known tyrant systematically murdering Jewish children all over Judea...[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying everything surrounding Christ is true, as an atheist I don't believe in any of it. Sounds like typical creationist mythology. But there's enough proof for me that some person Christ was based off of actually existed.

The concrete evidence you want just doesn't exist. It's a judgment call. Most scholars in the field reject the notion he was purely a creation derived from a pagan influence, and I'll side with most scholars in the field.

[QUOTE=Zombles]I'm not saying everything surrounding Christ is true, as an atheist I don't believe in any of it. Sounds like typical creationist mythology. [B]But there's enough proof for me that some person Christ was based off of actually existed. [/B][/QUOTE]

I already said from everything I've seen, the mythical Jesus is to the teacher of righteousness as Santa Claus is to St. Nicholas of Myra.

[QUOTE]The concrete evidence you want just doesn't exist. It's a judgment call. Most scholars in the field reject the notion he was purely a creation derived from a pagan influence, and I'll side with most scholars in the field.[/QUOTE]

The pagan influence is undeniable, can we agree there? I can copy and paste 2 pages worth of breakdown of how Jesus is an amalgam of Pagan Sun God worship religions/stories. Hell, even the earliest Church leaders made it CLEAR that the stories of the Christian messiah was to be regarded in the same way as 'the sons of Jupiter (Zeus)':

[QUOTE][B]And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.[/B]

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

[B]And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.[/B]

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)
[/QUOTE]

^This is an early Christian leader, in the religion's infancy (before the Council of Nicea, Rome usurping the religion, etc), saying that the story of Jesus' birth, life, deeds should be accepted in the same strain as the stories of the birth, life, deeds of the Sons of Jupiter/Zeus, ie, Pagan Gods.

Yet, we're here arguing if a [I]particular[/I] pagan myth actually existed?

so Don, where to you think the name "Jesus Christ" came from?

if there was never a real human with that name? who is responsible for creating it? and why was that name chosen, if there was no human with that name?

it would seem likely to me, that the name was at least inspired by a real human's name...

[url]http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=Batz][url]http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
so old...and long...and has nothing to do with a this topic...

this isn't a religious debate, this is a historical debate...

(there is a zeitgeist 2 btw if you weren't aware)

[QUOTE=Nanners]but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.[/QUOTE]

uhh what?

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]so Don, where to you think the name "Jesus Christ" came from?[/QUOTE]

The name Jesus is a transcription of the Jewish name Yeshua.

[QUOTE][B]Yeshua, spelled יֵשׁוּעַ (Yē

Anything written of a man after his death is just that scripture.

I do not believe in god , but I do believe there was Jesus , because he was not mythical, he was a legit person.

It is up to the masses and individual to determine if you want to worship to a dead human being , or a god that is not proven to be a being.

Western culture seems to believe that god takes on a human quality , but in ancient times could they have looked upon a god as an alien from another universe , solar system , or planet ? :confusedshrug:
no proven facts

No, Jesus as a historical figure is fictional as well.

[QUOTE=Nanners]There may have actually been a man named Jesus Christ who walked the earth, but Jesus the son of god as the bible describes him is an imaginary deity based on pagan sun worship.[/QUOTE]
i agree.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The name Jesus is a transcription of the Jewish name Yeshua.



Christ(Christus/Chrestos), from the Greek Kristos isn't a 'name' it's a title which means the anointed one.



And like I said before, other deities have had that cognomen/title:



Hope that cleared things up for you :cheers:[/QUOTE]
not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...

does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?

Balance of probability suggests that Jesus existed around that time in that area,l but as others have mentioned, it's the supposed deeds of this man, his alleged divinity and resurrection are really what is in question.

[QUOTE=Big_Dogg]Balance of probability suggests that Jesus existed around that time in that area,l but as others have mentioned, it's the supposed deeds of this man, [COLOR="Red"]his alleged divinity and resurrection are really what is in question[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]
not in this thread they aren't...

this is for "non-religious" types to debate...we have already come to the conclusion there was no man born from a virgin who is the "literal" son of God...

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...

does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?[/QUOTE]
I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.[/QUOTE]
well yeah...but I have to assume that is because of "Jesus" right?

I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?

If that is the case then I could change my views on this one...

[QUOTE]I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?[/QUOTE]
it was. it's the english translation for a hebrew term with the same meaning, which was certainly around prior to heyarnold's birth.

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]not really...you cleared up that the name "Jesus" came from the hebrew name Yeshua...

I meant more, how did the men that wrote the Bible come up with the name "Jesus" as the son of God?...not the origin of the name "Jesus"...[/QUOTE]

They got the name from the same place they got the name Hercules, or Zeus, or Mithra, or Santa Claus. The only difference is that Yeshua was a common name for Jewish males during the second period, so it would be like us getting together to write a script about a boxer and blatantly plagiarizing Rocky but changing the main character's name to something generic/common like James.

[QUOTE]does it not seem likely that it may have come from an actual man named "Jesus Christ"?

or do you think they just drew names out of a hat?[/QUOTE]

What don't you understand about 'Christ' not being a name, but a title? I broke this down in the simplest terms for you. Chirst=Khristos=the annointed one. The title didn't originate with Yeshua, I even showed you an example of a deity with the title 'Christus/Christ' who predates Jesus by a few centuries. Hell, even in the OT, Cyrus, who ended the Babylonian captivity, is called God's annointed one in Isaiah. Cyrus, who wasn't even a Jew, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was bestowed the TITLE.

[QUOTE][I]Thus says the LORD, your redeemer, . . . "I am the LORD, . . . who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers; who says to Jerusalem,

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]I am a devout Christian but Ill leave my personal religious views out of this for now. As for your question, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one or messiah depending on how you are translating it.[/QUOTE]

Thank you :cheers:

See that prime, even a devout follower of the faith knows the basic difference between a name and a title. But I'm sure you're still convinced Mary and Joseph's last name was Christ :oldlol:

[QUOTE=-playmaker-]well yeah...but I have to assume that is because of "Jesus" right?

I mean, are you telling me that is what the meaning of that name was BEFORE Christ was born?

If that is the case then I could change my views on this one...[/QUOTE]
yes, the christ term in his "name" definitely pre-dates the period.

Basically, his "name" is the equivalent of "Joe, the chosen one". Now, would he have a tattoo of it? On a tangential note, how can a supposed Xtian (like James) have that tattoo without realizing how blasphemous it is?

As to whether he existed as a historical figure, I have no idea. There isnt particularly strong evidence that he did, as almost all accounts are at least decades after his death and from different regions of the ancient Mediterranean world.

[QUOTE=boozehound]yes, the christ term in his "name" definitely pre-dates the period.

Basically, his "name" is the equivalent of "Joe, the chosen one". Now, would he have a tattoo of it? On a tangential note, how can a supposed Xtian (like James) have that tattoo without realizing how blasphemous it is?

As to whether he existed as a historical figure, I have no idea. There isnt particularly strong evidence that he did, as almost all accounts are at least decades after his death and from different regions of the ancient Mediterranean world.[/QUOTE]
also, almost all "relics" that have been examined (shroud of turin for example) are from much later time periods.

Now, it wouldnt be expected that any material culture attributable to a common man would have survived, but if he was really regarded as the messiah by thousands of people, it seems likely that at least some component of his life might have been saved and cherished.

[QUOTE=PistolPete]uhh what?[/QUOTE]
there are plenty of legit sources showing that almost all aspects of Xtianity are drawn from pagan rituals and beliefs. This is commonly done by new religions (or missionizing religions). See the syncretic Xtian religions among Native Americans in mexico or Santaria in Haiti or Condemble in brazil for more recent examples.

i think Jesus existed but people were stupid in those days, and the rumor mill was probably out of control. so word of mouth spreading of his miracles and divinity probably got exaggerated and more exaggerated each time it was told. who knows, his 'apostles' could've all working in collusion to make him out to be a savior for desperate people, where they were just scam artists.

i'm very doubtful the Bible accurately portrays him tho.

[QUOTE][B]Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery[/B]. No contemporary sources exist mentioning a man who, in front of large crowds, raised the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, gave sight to the blind, etc. No birth certificate, no tax records, no address, no death certificate... even though Romans took many census records and heavily taxed their territories. Jesus' birth supposedly drew the interest of Eastern Kings and instigated the slaughter of an entire generation of Jewish children... but there's no evidence ANYWHERE that this happened. Tacitus was born 20+ years after Jesus was supposed to have died (c. 33 CE) and is not a contemporary source, not that it matters since...[/QUOTE]
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]Again, I will need more concrete evidence. Since no one has been able to produce non biblical accounts of Jesus' miracle birth (even though the differing biblical accounts contradict eachother) Show me evidence of the slaughter of innocents by Herod during Jesus' birth that's found in Matthew. That shouldn't be too hard to find, you'd think someone would have recorded the event- a well known tyrant systematically murdering Jewish children all over Judea...[/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=Poodle]i think Jesus existed but people were stupid in those days, and the rumor mill was probably out of control. so word of mouth spreading of his miracles and divinity probably got exaggerated and more exaggerated each time it was told. who knows, his 'apostles' could've all working in collusion to make him out to be a savior for desperate people, where they were just scam artists.

i'm very doubtful the Bible accurately portrays him tho.[/QUOTE]
Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]No, Jesus as a historical figure is fictional as well.[/QUOTE]
Huh? Prove it.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]They got the name from the same place they got the name Hercules, or Zeus, or Mithra, or Santa Claus. The only difference is that Yeshua was a common name for Jewish males during the second period, so it would be like us getting together to write a script about a boxer and blatantly plagiarizing Rocky but changing the main character's name to something generic/common like James.



What don't you understand about 'Christ' not being a name, but a title? I broke this down in the simplest terms for you. Chirst=Khristos=the annointed one. The title didn't originate with Yeshua, I even showed you an example of a deity with the title 'Christus/Christ' who predates Jesus by a few centuries. Hell, even in the OT, Cyrus, who ended the Babylonian captivity, is called God's annointed one in Isaiah. Cyrus, who wasn't even a Jew, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was bestowed the TITLE.



So Cyrus, King of Persia, was the Christ centuries before Jesus.

What are you not understanding about this?[/QUOTE]
I didn't understand that the meaning of that title predates his existance. Read my reply to Raider.

I got it now though...and it is changing my thoughts on this.

I certainly think there was some man we know call Jesus. I think there's enough proof for that. How many of the storeis about him are actually true and how many are only a myth is different question of course.

[QUOTE=shlver]Huh? Prove it.[/QUOTE]

It should be easier to prove an existence than to disprove one...wheres all the overwhelming evidence of a historical figure?