The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?

[kronick]

It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.

Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.

wow....and i thought i knew some arrogant people...but u take the cake.

you cannot say anything someone writes down is "completely factual and verifiable" cause humans are exaggerating bastards...if you believed what you had read that made you think god and jesus didnt exist...whats stopping you from believing in the bible? because you choose not to...and you choose to believe what you want...but DO NOT say what you think is fact...cause the fact is you cannot prove it...SO DONT TRY!

wait...no go ahead and try to prove your point...cause u havent proven it to me yet...i wanna see where this is going...by all means...talk away...

[F L E S H]

I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.

However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.

What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.

[F L E S H]

On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.

That's definitely one view that some scholars support. There's one guy, I think I mentioned him before, who was a bishop of Lyons, France, around A.D. 100. Now, if the story of Jesus were true, he would surely know of it, right? What he says is actually pretty funny: he said that the real Jesus lived to be an old man, and that he never died on a cross. In fact, to him the concept of Jesus dyiing on a cross was almost funny, since he could never believe that the incarnation of God would die like a regular criminal... And this wasn't some pagan writer, he was a bishop, Irenaeus by name.

[kronick]

I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.

However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.

What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.

you had me at hello


i understand what ur saying and what im trying to say is that ur trying to disprove something that is not even proven...with no facts none the less...but with VERY VERY good assumptions. which probably are true,but dont tell people they are tru unless you know for sure...and can prove it....or people wont believe you. im agnostic....and empathetic...i kno how people think...i try not to takes sides...ill fight both sides of the story...untill the real truth comes out. arrogance does not win arguments.

[F L E S H]

Did you even read my first post? I put enough proof in there, from scholars who actually read these ancient authors.... What more do you want? Of course there's a certain interpretation that comes along with the evidence, but that's how you construct an argument. I putt all the necessary proof in my first post, read it again.

[kronick]

ive read it more than once....

"Proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it". "

"Fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts". "



you have given neither....all you have stated is a theory


"Theory - hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices". "


like i said...it maybe a correct theory....but there is no proof reliable enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[naturalmystic]

I personally don't like Dan Brown's writing. I started demons and angles or something and i just couldn't get into it. He was mixing some fact with some fiction and i could never really get a good internest in it. Some say his book 'the davinici code' is also ficitional in some aspects of the book,.

[F L E S H]

Hey kronick, I'm getting a little annoyed, what do you want proof of? Yeah, I have a dictionary too, I know what those words mean.

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...

[juggalo420]

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...

this is from josephus, hes a 1st century jewish historian- 'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day' (Antiquities 18:63-64).

well some say thats independant proof jesus exsists, but others contend it was added to his book by monks in the 3rd or 4th century to give additional credibility to christianity, i agree with the latter, but i guess its still up in the air whether its legit or not.

i definetlty 100 percently believe jesus isnt the son of god and theres no god, but he may have existed i just think the gospels exagerate the hell out of him.

[kronick]

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...

when the dead sea scrolls were found...they were apparently found with another set of scrolls. jesuses scrolls. so...why should i believe what you say...over what ive heard for a more reliable source?

saying there is not proof of someones existance does not mean the person MUST have never existed. the odds are he did exist....but he probably wasnt the son of god.


right when you say "except"(there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament) that totaly contradicts what you had said in the first part of the sentance....seeing as how he lived only to 30....there probably wasnt much writen about him except in the new testament (and most of the origional gospils were taken out) so there is more proof against what you had to say.