First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Jesus was not a real person
Posted 7/18/09
~edited topic headline and deleted posts

I'm going to reiterate what mod Ryo has said in her post:


If this thread turns back into a religious debate, which is going to be hard to avoid since deals with a main figure of a certain religion, then it will be locked. But lets see if people can manage to explain their opinions on the topic without bringing religion into it, and I admit I don't think it is going to be easy.


Also, this is directed at Darkphoenix and Seraph - if you're going to make long posts and start quoting each other, which you are undoubtedy, then edit your posts to put the quotes into spoilers or delete the quotes altogether. Avoid building up quote pyramids as it makes it hard for other people to read the thread as well as stretching out the page immensely.

Like Ryo said, if this thread turns into another religious debate then it's going to be locked again. Religious threads have been a pain in the ass in the past so I'm going to be strict about this.
Otherwise, continue.
Posted 7/19/09 , edited 7/19/09
There seems to be something bugged about this thread, when I clicked on the last page of this thread animoo_x's post didn't show up, only after I posted something myself...it showed up. Good thing, hopefully it fixed it.
Oedi 
8588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/19/09
geez darkphoenix, you just like to post bomb shell topics don't you? I just don't see how anyone cannot at least bring up religion in these arguments haha.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

Oedi wrote:

geez darkphoenix, you just like to post bomb shell topics don't you? I just don't see how anyone cannot at least bring up religion in these arguments haha.


Thats the task at hand to find Non religous evidence for a person who should have been well known In history. I do not think I am asking to much.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

There seems to be something bugged about this thread, when I clicked on the last page of this thread animoo_x's post didn't show up, only after I posted something myself...it showed up. Good thing, hopefully it fixed it.


Nothing is bugged : P , I guess, this happens when some post/s -from the middle- are deleted; last post get lost, since the post/s which were before it, deleted. But when someone post a new replay (like what you did), it seems the relation between posts re-build, the last post find his brothers and the problem is fixed . Perhaps this should be applied to deleted posts case as well.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/09

animoo_x [\

Also, this is directed at Darkphoenix and Seraph - if you're going to make long posts and start quoting each other, which you are undoubtedy, then edit your posts to put the quotes into spoilers or delete the quotes altogether. Avoid building up quote pyramids as it makes it hard for other people to read the thread as well as stretching out the page immensely. .


I would just like to point out that by the end of the second page the quotes were already being shortened for that very purpose. Also, in addition to this, Dark have you gotten done with your research yet? I’m still waiting for a return. I can’t really just keep arguing if my points already made.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/22/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


animoo_x [\

Also, this is directed at Darkphoenix and Seraph - if you're going to make long posts and start quoting each other, which you are undoubtedy, then edit your posts to put the quotes into spoilers or delete the quotes altogether. Avoid building up quote pyramids as it makes it hard for other people to read the thread as well as stretching out the page immensely. .


I would just like to point out that by the end of the second page the quotes were already being shortened for that very purpose. Also, in addition to this, Dark have you gotten done with your research yet? I’m still waiting for a return. I can’t really just keep arguing if my points already made.
Sorry I been out all day and night with my friends for my 29th birthday, I am now getting over the after affects. Give me a few hours and I be ready to debate again.


10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/09

Darkphoenix3450

I would just like to point out that by the end of the second page the quotes were already being shortened for that very purpose. Also, in addition to this, Dark have you gotten done with your research yet? I’m still waiting for a return. I can’t really just keep arguing if my points already made.
Sorry I been out all day and night with my friends for my 29th birthday, I am now getting over the after affects. Give me a few hours and I be ready to debate again.




Cool.
Oedi 
8588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/22/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Oedi wrote:

geez darkphoenix, you just like to post bomb shell topics don't you? I just don't see how anyone cannot at least bring up religion in these arguments haha.


Thats the task at hand to find Non religous evidence for a person who should have been well known In history. I do not think I am asking to much.


I quite agree with you. For someone who is well documented in one piece of "history" why is there not more supporting evidence. And the ones that have been used by the church has been forges, or fakes or in the most compelling evidence we are not even completely sure which Jesus the historian was referring to. We have lots of history on other great figures before Jesus so it is quite the shock if you think how come Jesus did not receive as much supporting evidence compared to other figures of the time. Other prophets such as Buddha and other historic Greek - Roman figures in society had some prove of their existence. Jesus has a book. no offense to others but the logical side of me is quite skeptical of it's existence. Even when people tell me its the word of God, I am pretty sure that the new testament have been modified numerous times throughout history so even if it was perhaps the word of God, it has been tainted by the stories of mortal men.
30807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Brick, NJ
Offline
Posted 7/23/09
As someone who studies the history of Abrahamic religions, there is no definitive proof that Jesus existed. What we know as the New Testament wasn't put into writing until 500 years after Jesus' alleged life and death. And the time period in which Jesus would have lived was marked by turmoil for the Jews because of Roman rule. Many would-be messiahs were appeared during the time period, but none of them can be historically documented at being Jesus. There have been more messianic claims then most people could imagine, Jesus was the only one that stuck. Though one cannot deny the impact Jesus, a real person or not made on this world, there is no historical evidence of his existence.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/09

sheisswank wrote:

As someone who studies the history of Abrahamic religions, there is no definitive proof that Jesus existed. What we know as the New Testament wasn't put into writing until 500 years after Jesus' alleged life and death. And the time period in which Jesus would have lived was marked by turmoil for the Jews because of Roman rule. Many would-be messiahs were appeared during the time period, but none of them can be historically documented at being Jesus. There have been more messianic claims then most people could imagine, Jesus was the only one that stuck. Though one cannot deny the impact Jesus, a real person or not made on this world, there is no historical evidence of his existence.


There are proofs in this thread about how Jesus existed. Some of your information isn't factual. The New Testament was written just a few years after Jesus' Resurrection. We have copies that we know are at least from 130 A.D. (not the originals, but copies that are that old). The Books of the Bible were written by people who lived with Jesus' or at the time of His ministry. Jesus was the only Messianic claim that stuck because He was the Messiah, and because He angered the Sanhedrim and was crucified. It stuck because the Jewish leaders and people hated Him. Not just that, but also because the disciples went to other parts of the world to spread the Gospel. Jesus wasn't a fictional character, His Messianic claims can be questioned, but there is proof that Jesus lived during the time.
30807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Brick, NJ
Offline
Posted 7/23/09 , edited 7/23/09

Actually it isn't. The New Testament was put into written word hundreds of years later. Any religious textbook could tell you that. Not bible, not religious text, any textbook about Abrahamic religions will tell you that. That is not to say there weren't stories handed down by mouth. But the New Testament was not put into word until hundreds of years after his death.There are no books written IN Jesus' lifetime. Sorry. If we did there wouldn't be such a huge debate among historians. You are talking from a bias point of view though. Because you are claiming he is the Messiah. I am looking at it from a provable historical document view. I never claimed he was not the Messiah, or that he was. There has not yet been discovered a document of historical integrity and proof that Jesus existed. I am sorry, but I trust my professors who have dedicated their lives to learning about the HISTORY of religion. I never said he didn't exist, just like Greek heros whom we only know by stories handed down generation after generation. We cannot prove they existed, nor that they didn't exist. And there is no proof Jewish leaders hated Jesus. The bible which we know today was written in a time where Christians wanted to separate themselves from the Jewish community which was rebelling against Rome. Many believe that is why the Bible puts such an emphasis is placed on the Jews and not the Romans. In order to gain the favor of their rulers. Jews were not allowed to execute people during Roman rule actually. And the Roman's were never fond of the people whom they though freakish for circumcision and their refusal to eat pork. It is semi-laughable the a government which would force them to eat pork or die would allow them to play judge and jury.

I have read a lot of Josephus' work. Primarily about revolts. But he was a bias historian. Just because someone was called Jesus, does not mean it was Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean it wasn't, but it doesn't mean it was. And again there were many messiah's who gained following. Like won "messiah" made an army and took over the holy land for a short period of time. And I believe some parts of Josephus' works are regularly up for debate on Authentication. If it can't be authenticated, it isn't historian grade proof. Not to mention there may be translation troubles. Like the reason why the schism between the Roman and Russian Orthodox happened. Historical documents work different then just books and such. Everything needs a reliable source.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/09

sheisswank wrote:


digs wrote:


sheisswank wrote:

As someone who studies the history of Abrahamic religions, there is no definitive proof that Jesus existed. What we know as the New Testament wasn't put into writing until 500 years after Jesus' alleged life and death. And the time period in which Jesus would have lived was marked by turmoil for the Jews because of Roman rule. Many would-be messiahs were appeared during the time period, but none of them can be historically documented at being Jesus. There have been more messianic claims then most people could imagine, Jesus was the only one that stuck. Though one cannot deny the impact Jesus, a real person or not made on this world, there is no historical evidence of his existence.


There are proofs in this thread about how Jesus existed. Some of your information isn't factual. The New Testament was written just a few years after Jesus' Resurrection. We have copies that we know are at least from 130 A.D. (not the originals, but copies that are that old). The Books of the Bible were written by people who lived with Jesus' or at the time of His ministry. Jesus was the only Messianic claim that stuck because He was the Messiah, and because He angered the Sanhedrim and was crucified. It stuck because the Jewish leaders and people hated Him. Not just that, but also because the disciples went to other parts of the world to spread the Gospel. Jesus wasn't a fictional character, His Messianic claims can be questioned, but there is proof that Jesus lived during the time.


Actually it isn't. The New Testament was put into written word hundreds of years later. Any religious textbook could tell you that. Not bible, not religious text, any textbook about Abrahamic religions will tell you that. That is not to say there weren't stories handed down by mouth. But the New Testament was not put into word until hundreds of years after his death.There are no books written IN Jesus' lifetime. Sorry. If we did there wouldn't be such a huge debate among historians. You are talking from a bias point of view though. Because you are claiming he is the Messiah. I am looking at it from a provable historical document view. I never claimed he was not the Messiah, or that he was. There has not yet been discovered a document of historical integrity and proof that Jesus existed. I am sorry, but I trust my professors who have dedicated their lives to learning about the HISTORY of religion. I never said he didn't exist, just like Greek heros whom we only know by stories handed down generation after generation. We cannot prove they existed, nor that they didn't exist. And there is no proof Jewish leaders hated Jesus. The bible which we know today was written in a time where Christians wanted to separate themselves from the Jewish community which was rebelling against Rome. And the time period in which Jews had the ability to persecute Christians is a blink in time compared to all the persecution Christians performed. Many believe that is why such an emphasis is placed on the Jews and not the Romans. In order to gain the favor of their rulers. Jews were no allowed to execute people during Roman rule actually. And the Roman's were never fond of the people whom they though freakish for circumcision and their refusal to eat pork. It is semi-laughable the a government which would force them to eat pork or die would allow them to play judge and jury.


I have studied the Bible and theology in university. Historians and scholars alike believe the Gospels were written between 60-75 A.D. They were written by Eye witnesses of Jesus. We have copies that we can accurately date to be from roughly 100-135 A.D. The New Testament was put into words just a few years after Jesus' Resurrection. They were mainly written to the churches of the first century and were copied numerous times throughout the years. You are right in that there were no books written while Jesus' was alive on earth, but is that necessarily a problem? We have writings from Jewish theologians and the Sanhedrim that condemned the person we know as Jesus. Why would they condemn someone who doesn't exist? Another cool fact is that some of the Gospels were written before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Empire. Jesus prophesied this and it was put into writing before it every happened. We have works by Christian apologists from the year 150 A.D. that commented on the Biblical manuscripts and Christian theology. I happen to be a Christian and I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but this doesn't automatically make my view biased in regards to the historicity of the New Testament and the dates it was written. And we do have historical documents that Jesus existed. Here is an article you may want to look at, it discusses extra-Biblical writings about Jesus. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1304954/posts. We have definitive proof that Jesus Christ walked the earth and was crucified, and not just because the Books of the New Testament say so. Regardless, the New Testament is also a historical record, they were not written with the intent of becoming scripture, but rather to share about Jesus and educate people in the early Christian Church about Christ and His ministry. It was written by eye-witnesses of Jesus ministry. The Church took these books and canonized them as Scripture because they concluded through research and study that these books are accurate and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We have proof from the Talmud that the Jewish leaders hated Jesus, and the teachings in the Talmud even slander Him because He claimed to be the Messiah.

The Bible wasn't written to differentiate itself from Judaism, the fact is that there were many non Jewish Christians. The Jewish people regarded Christians as blasphemers and never alined themselves with them. It was never thought that Jews and Christians were the same, and the Christians were heavily persecuted by the Jews and later the Roman Empire. You are right in that the Jewish people were rebelling against Rome, but in 70 A.D Jerusalem was destroyed and destroyed again around 135 A.D. by the Roman Empire. Socially Christians were persecuted by the Jews and in the Roman Empire. They were seen by the Romans as atheists because they didn't believe in the gods of the Roman Empire. During Jesus life the Roman Empire gave autonomy to the land of Israel. And in the Bible it was Pilate (the Roman leader) who gave permission for Jesus to be crucified. The Jews didn't just do it on a whim by their own judgment, they went before the Roman court and had Jesus tried and punished by crucifixion that was led by the Romans. In the Bible it clearly states that Roman guards carried it out and that Jesus' trial was brought before the Sanhedrin (which had some autonomous authority) and later brought before Pontius Pilate.
prusecuted
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/09

Oedi

I quite agree with you. For someone who is well documented in one piece of "history" why is there not more supporting evidence. And the ones that have been used by the church has been forges, or fakes or in the most compelling evidence we are not even completely sure which Jesus the historian was referring to. We have lots of history on other great figures before Jesus so it is quite the shock if you think how come Jesus did not receive as much supporting evidence compared to other figures of the time. Other prophets such as Buddha and other historic Greek - Roman figures in society had some prove of their existence. Jesus has a book. no offense to others but the logical side of me is quite skeptical of it's existence. Even when people tell me its the word of God, I am pretty sure that the new testament have been modified numerous times throughout history so even if it was perhaps the word of God, it has been tainted by the stories of mortal men.


Actually, the other major teacher of that time and place was Hillel the Elder and he didn’t receive as much historical attention as Jesus; moreover, there’s actually more writings about Jesus from around that time period than there are about Caesar invading Gaul.
1178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 7/23/09
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. But the idea of him and his ideals are a great way to live by. His 'teachings' might have been copied from other religions, but when the ideals get around, who cares in what way? And then there are the people who kill in his name, and that's just no cool.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Akisame-sama wrote:

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. But the idea of him and his ideals are a great way to live by. His 'teachings' might have been copied from other religions, but when the ideals get around, who cares in what way? And then there are the people who kill in his name, and that's just no cool.


Shakes head... It matters for this debate because that what this debate is about.
Its a exersize for you to learn to question everything around you, then go out and seek out the facts, not just believing something is true or not without ever looking into it.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.