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

[-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:

Jesus as a historical person

[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

[Hawker]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.

[-playmaker-]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.

In here?




that's crazy...

[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.

[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.

[Real Men Wear Green]

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.

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."

[shlver]

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.

There are Jewish historians who describe him as the Bible does.

[DonDadda59]

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.

Show me some of this evidence.

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.

Bingo.

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

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

[Zombles]

Show me some of this evidence.

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).

[Black Joker]

This is the ad I get on the sidebar.

+1

[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.

[DonDadda59]

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.

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]

[Nanners]

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.

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

[Zombles]

Christians always bring up Josephus and the passage which has been proven for centuries to be a forgery.

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.

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.

ergo the word superstition in the 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 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...

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.

[DonDadda59]

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.

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.

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.

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)':

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.

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)

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.

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.

-Justin Martyr, Early Church Father (103-165 CE)

^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 particular pagan myth actually existed?