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

[DonDadda59]

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.

Thank you

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

[boozehound]

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...

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.

[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.

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.

[boozehound]

uhh what?

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.

[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.

[shlver]

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?

[shlver]

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

Huh? Prove it.

[-playmaker-]

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?

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.

[beermonsteroo]

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.

[macmac]

Huh? Prove it.

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

[DonDadda59]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Poodle]

Scam artists willing to be die for their beliefs?

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.

[shlver]

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

He said the historical Jesus is not real when Jewish, Greco-Roman, and other historians mention him in their writings.

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.

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.

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.

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."

[Timmy D for MVP]

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.

[hookul]

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."

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.