Did Jesus ever Live ?

[robtex]

If I could make an arguement for some of the religions here:

If I were catholic I would say in response to my articulation of Corth's 1 15 vs that the catholic church has never claimed that the bible is witout error or is the inerrant word of God. By contrast the canon is the continuing education on man's relationship with God and my standard of validity ( Biblical historical accuracy) is not the Catholic standard of validity.

If I were LDS I would say the same thing about Acts chapter 9. j Smith had a vision in the forest which has become the cornerstone of the LDS faith. This vision deemed as valid by the LDS is no different in proposition than Paul seeing Jesus in a vision in Acts 1 chps 1-10. Again the issue of what is valid is in question.

For the pleothra of debators who are trying ot distinguish between the historical JC and the biblical Jesus if the biblical Jesus is the son of God and the historical is anything other than the son of God I would ask who cares if the historical Jesus exists? If the definition of the "historical Jesus (which buy the way is a loaded way of presented the term), is the son of God than you are asserting that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are one and the same.

 

[Smoke]

For the pleothra of debators who are trying ot distinguish between the historical JC and the biblical Jesus if the biblical Jesus is the son of God and the historical is anything other than the son of God I would ask who cares if the historical Jesus exists?

Well, I do. Lots of people do. History is interesting in its own right. Why should I care about Harold Godwinson or Abraham Lincoln? Because I just do. I don't think such interests require any justification. Learning is its own reward.

More to the point, I guess, the question is a historical question, and history is not equipped to answer questions like whether Jesus is the Son of God. To wander into area is to leave the field of history.

 

[Majikthise]

If Jesus did exsist, only as a man, not the son of god, then he should be numero uno in the con -man's hall of fame.
My friends have tried to get me to at least admit that Jesus actually lived even if I don't believe he was a messenger from god. If that that were the case, then he was either a genious working towards his own benefit or a complete lunatic. And I don't believe for one second that the bible has anything but the slightest remnants of actual historical fact, if any at all.

The exsistance of Jesus has always been a matter of finding convincing historical evidence for me. Looking into the history of th Roman Empire ,and and leaving the bible to sit this one out , has convinced me that a Jewish prophet probably exsisted that provided the basis for christian myth. I still believe that his life story was greatly embellished to suit the needs of those seeking noteriety and power. Christianity was in the right place at the right time and , now I realise , actually kept the Roman Empire alive long after the Western Empire was lost , in the form of the Byzantine Empire.
Not bad for a mediocre philosiphor, eh?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Looking into the history of th Roman Empire ,and and leaving the bible to sit this one out , has convinced me that a Jewish prophet probably exsisted that provided the basis for christian myth.

What, specifically, in "the history of th Roman Empire" could possibly be deemed convincing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I do. Lots of people do. History is interesting in its own right. ... More to the point, I guess, the question is a historical question, and history is not equipped to answer questions like whether Jesus is the Son of God. To wander into area is to leave the field of history.

Excellent!

 

[Majikthise]

What, specifically, in "the history of th Roman Empire" could possibly be deemed convincing?

Well, it was more like the origins of christianity mixed in with Roman history. From what I understood there were many prophets , philosiphors and whatnot claiming to be messengers from god. There were so many that the Romans didn't bother to keep detailed records of them all.
About 60 years after Jesus's death this Paul guy maybe comes across old records or talks to some senile old people about this wonderful guy named Jesus they still remember from years ago .Paul sees the opportunity to start his own gig using the stuff stuff Jesus already came up with. Maybe a lot of people remembered him and his teachings so Paul couldn't just claim them as his own. All I'm saying is that this senario doesn't sound that far fetched. I wouldn't discount the idea of christianity being based on plagiarism, I kinda find it fitting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, it was more like the origins of christianity mixed in with Roman history. From what I understood there were many prophets , philosiphors and whatnot claiming to be messengers from god. There were so many that the Romans didn't bother to keep detailed records of them all.
About 60 years after Jesus's death this Paul guy... All I'm saying is that this senario doesn't sound that far fetched. I wouldn't discount the idea of christianity being based on plagiarism, I kinda find it fitting.

So ...

Looking into the history of th Roman Empire ... has convinced me that a Jewish prophet probably exsisted that provided the basis for christian myth.​

is equivalent to ...

this senario doesn't sound that far fetched​

In other words, you don't really know too much about the period - have clearly never taken the time to even superficially study the period - but have yet to stumble across anything that renders an historical Jesus unlikely, and so choose to presume that one existed.

 

[Majikthise]

It's kind of a toss up between really seriously spending my limited time digging into the history of this time period or really digging into the tech manuals and never ending service bullitens I need to entrench in my tiny brain to do my job.

So , yeah, you're right.:yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's kind of a toss up between really seriously spending my limited time digging into the history of this time period or really digging into the tech manuals and never ending service bullitens I need to entrench in my tiny brain to do my job.

That's fully understandable. Less understandable is why you would then preface your remarks, and justify your position, with the phrase ...

"Looking into the history of th Roman Empire ... has convinced me"​

It's best to save such wording until such time as you actually look into the history.

 

[Majikthise]

That's fully understandable. Less understandable is why you would then preface your remarks, and justify your position, with the phrase ...

"Looking into the history of th Roman Empire ... has convinced me"​

It's best to save such wording until such time as you actually look into the history.

Poor choice of words on my part, I'll work on it. Thanks

 

[robtex]

*bump*

 

[logician]

There is almost no independant historical evidence that there was even a man that remotely fit the bibilical stories of Jesus. What little exists are extremely likely to be forgeries, and are very general at best.

Let's face it, there's as much evidence that the Easter bunny exists as there is that a historical Jesus did.

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

You do realise that Christianity was illegal in the first century under penalty of death, don't you?

False.
This is simply not true.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

Read your history books for starters. The Romans documented him in their history. If you wish to get into further detail, I can point you to some books.

No they didn't.
There are no Roman historical records of JESUS.

Just some LATER Roman writers who mention the beliefs of Christians.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

You mean while he was alive? If you look passed the religious connotation, The Gospels could be considered as such.

Rubbish.
The Gospels were all written LONG after the alleged time of Jesus.

There are documents about Jesus (and relating to) that were written shortley after his death.

So why can't you cite or quote these documents?

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

Jesus' brother James was stoned to death for renouncing his lack of faith for who he brother claimed to be.

Rubbish.
What is the evidence for this?
Just more Christian stories.

That's the problem -

when pressed for evidence for the stories,
Christians just preach OTHER Christian stories in support.

But never any hard evidence.

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Miraculous healings and miracles happen all the time around the world. It doesn't become the top story on the 10 o'clock news.

Because they are FAKE!

If a person REALLY, provably, resurrected from the dead - it would be the biggest news in history.

The reason there is no evidence of Jesus resurrecting is because it never happened.

The reason there is no evidence for Jesus is because he never existed.

Iasion

 

[logician]

Let's put it this way, there is as much evidence for the existence of a real Jesus, as there is for his counter parts - Mithras, Osiris, and Dionysus in other religions. Perhaps they all existed, more than likey they were all mythical creations.