Did Jesus ever Live ?

[sojourner]

Many written hundreds of years after Jesus alleged death.

The canonical gospels were all written probably within sixty years following the crucifixion. The sources used by the synoptics were written much earlier, as well as the source material for Thomas. Paul's first letter was written ca. 50 c.e., only 20 years following the death of Jesus.

Basically what went into the bible is what sounded good to the original church.

Which "original church?" There are several groups that claim original ties, with several differing canons of scripture.

The historical Jesus was in Paul's head.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Other than that nobody else mentions him that doesn't either know Paul or use the Bible as their source for info on Jesus.

Which you seem perfectly willing to do with the Acts reference...What's your point?

God sent his only son to die for sins as an act of predestination

That's a theological position -- not provable or evidenciary, by your standards. (BTW, God became flesh in the person of Jesus. Jesus was obedient to the point of death. God did that as an act of sacrificial love -- not as an act of predestination. I don't believe it was his death that atoned for our sin.)

 

[dan]

most of the old testament bible was taken form the Babylonian epic "Enuma Elish ".

Really...I have the Enuma Elish sitting in my lap right now. Which part of it is the original of the Old Testament (or the majority of it)?

 

[Defij]

Can you list some of those sources, and more importantly did they use the Bible or the Christian faith as a reference when talking about Jesus. Realize anything written after 50 a.d. would have used Christianty as a reference.

There are plenty of Roman historians that talk about Jesus. And of course they used "references", what historian doesn't? Take Thucydides and his history of the Peloponnesians Wars for instance. Does that make them any less "plausible"? Of course not. Thucydides himself states that some of the stuff he wrote is an assumption of how he believes it went. That is why we have literary criticism (both form and source) to separate the historical truth of the issue to how the historian viewed the subject matter. So when we apply these types of criticism to both our Christian and Non-Christian historical accounts, we can be very sure, to a high degree of plausibility that Jesus did indeed actually exist.

 

[logician]

Christianity is absurd from most any viewpoint. It is a barbaric religion based upon blood sacrifice. You would think after 2000 years this mythical relic would be abandoned in favor of scientific reason , and freethought. The only WAY ANY religion can maintain power is to stifle reason and objectivity.

 

[logician]

No historian that lived WHEN the supposed Jesus lived ever mentioned the man, his apostlles, his miracles, or the essentials of the passion story. WHAT little exists in history was most certainly a forgery of the church in later centuries, and is hearsay - i.e. not an eyewitness account.

 

[Bishka]

Christianity is absurd from most any viewpoint. It is a barbaric religion based upon blood sacrifice. You would think after 2000 years this mythical relic would be abandoned in favor of scientific reason , and freethought. The only WAY ANY religion can maintain power is to stifle reason and objectivity.

*Sigh* are you really that uninformed?

Why couldn't Jesus live? Hmm....how about Plato, Socrates, Josephus. Did someone just make those up too? Is the only reason you have about Jesus not living is because he is a Messiah figure to some? So what, that doesn't mean he couldn't have not lived.

 

[Defij]

Edit: Double post. My bad.

 

[Defij]

Christianity is absurd from most any viewpoint. It is a barbaric religion based upon blood sacrifice. You would think after 2000 years this mythical relic would be abandoned in favor of scientific reason , and freethought. The only WAY ANY religion can maintain power is to stifle reason and objectivity.

This is perhaps the most asinine nonsensical illogical statement I've heard in quite some time. What, pray tell, do "scientific reason" and Christianity even have in common?!

 

[logician]

Socrates, Plato, and JOsepus wrote extensively and had contemporaries write about them. The supposed Jesus wrote nothing, and no contempory historian mentions such a man.

 

[logician]

"What do scientific reason" and Christianity even have in common?! "

NOthing, obviously.

 

[Defij]

"What do scientific reason" and Christianity even have in common?! "

NOthing, obviously.

So why then would you compare the two and say that one must abandon Christianity for "scientific reason" when by your own statement, they have nothing in common? It's like saying one must abadon algebra for political science. It's nonsensical.

 

[logician]

I am an atheist. I abandoned Christianity long ago for the objectivity of freethought and reason. In these days ANYTHING should be examined from a reasoned viewpoint, and that includes ancient religions.

 

[Bishka]

"What do scientific reason" and Christianity even have in common?! "

NOthing, obviously.

That's your own opinion.

 

[Bishka]

I am an atheist. I abandoned Christianity long ago for the objectivity of freethought and reason. In these days ANYTHING should be examined from a reasoned viewpoint, and that includes ancient religions.

Including atheism..

 

[logician]

The vatican again announced today the condemnation of condoms. contraception, abortion, and same sex marriage, relegating millions to suffer, and showing that the RCC still lives in the dark ages. Society needs to be set free from this unscientific, evil tradition that mainly exists to keep power and money.

To think that the church wouldn't stoop to forging documents to make up a human Jesus is the ultimate in naivity.

 

[Bishka]

The vatican again announced today the condemnation of condoms. contraception, abortion, and same sex marriage, relegating millions to suffer, and showing that the RCC still lives in the dark ages. Society needs to be set free from this unscientific, evil tradition that mainly exists to keep power and money.

To think that the church wouldn't stoop to forging documents to make up a human Jesus is the ultimate in naivity.

Sure...Sure......So know it's just against the Catholic Church, I see where you are coming from.:sarcastic

 

[logician]

The onus is always on the person who posits something to prove it, not on somone else to disprove it. I can say the moon is made of green cheese, which implies I had better have evidence to back my claim. The onus is NOT on the other guy to prove the moon isn't made of green cheese. LIkewise, Christianity says that Jesus lived, performed miracles, died, and was ressurected, yet offers no convincing proof whatsoever that such a fantasy really happened.

 

[Bishka]

The onus is always on the person who posits something to prove it, not on somone else to disprove it. I can say the moon is made of green cheese, which implies I had better have evidence to back my claim. The onus is NOT on the other guy to prove the moon isn't made of green cheese. LIkewise, Christianity says that Jesus lived, performed miracles, died, and was ressurected, yet offers no convincing proof whatsoever that such a fantasy really happened.

It's called the Bible and other scriptual texts which are enough to convince us. You can think whatever you want.

 

[logician]

"It's called the Bible and other scriptual texts which are enough to convince us"


But certainly not enough to convince someone looking at the evidence w/o bias.

 

[Bishka]

"It's called the Bible and other scriptual texts which are enough to convince us"


But certainly not enough to convince someone looking at the evidence w/o bias.

And? If you wanted to believe in God, you would. God is not going to prove himself to you. You can't make God do anything, that's a ridiculous idea.