Did Jesus exist?

[Joakim]

I was browsing the newspaper (internet) today and came across an article by roger viklund, a swedish writer. Along with the article there was a poll:
Do you believe that Jesus existed?

The article states that "his existance rests on a few assumptions, that would not pass critical review"

Im sure this question would seem very strange to people, since even though everyone may not believe in christianity and that Jesus was the son of god people seldom dispute the existance of Jesus as a person.

I found this rather interesting considering the poll came out 54,7% yes and 45,3% no and I would like to see what people on this site has to say about it.

/ J

[starrwriter]

I don't think there's any question the historical man existed. Whether he was the son of God is open to debate.

My question is: does the Christian church have anything to do with his teachings? Or was the memory of this pacifist victim of the Roman Empire used by the church to establish an earthly kingdom and play power politics?

[dark_182_88]

This is silly, come on. I mean, not taking into context what is written in the Bible, you can just look at the number of witnesses mentioned in the Bible, as well as the many gospels that have written about Jesus (the earliest as early as less than 2decades after Jesus' death)...and if you don't want to rely on the Bible, there are about 3 or 4 other sources from the 1st century which mention and talk about Jesus (historians and such)

Starrwriter, your question doesn't necesarily apply now. However, the christian (catholic as I assume your talking about) church had nothing to do with Jesus's teachings in the past (I'm talking about their actions such as the Crusades and so on...)

[Matilda]

I don't pretend to be an expert on this matter, but I've also read the article Joakim mentions. What it said is that ther's really no certain proof that Jesus existed,and he has a range of arguments for this.
For example: Paulus never met Jesus, and he never talks about Jesus as a person, everything he says about jesus can be traced to the old testament.

Jesus isn't mentioned by non-christian historicans.

There's no proof that the gospels was written just a couple of decades after his death.

[Stanislaw]

Jesus isn't mentioned by non-christian historicans.


err, yes he be.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There should be a "Don't know" option.

I personally think that, while there may well have been an individual of that name (or it's aramaic equivalent, whatever it was), most of the miracles, parables and dialogues attributed to him were found in far earlier stories - this is usually the way with oral history.

[Joakim]

The poll was a copy of the poll I looked at earlier, the idea of it all was to compare the results with this poll and the one made in sweden and for that I feel that I want to present the same options that was presented in the article.

If you add a "dont know" option it would be pointless to compare, I dont know if I have the option to change it back. Unable to press the poll option button.

There is a former priest named Luigi Cascioli that is draging the church to court, this article was in english.

Luigi states:
"Atheism against christianity, christ, catholic church, exorcism and satan. Irrefutable demonstration that Jesus never existed. After the recent discovery of Essene documents at Kimberth Qumran (Palestine) it has been possible to prove that Jesus was only the result of an artificial construction operated by falsifiers in the second century."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

[Stanislaw]

How does Christ, exorcism satan and the catholic church prove that Jesus did not exist?


The poll was a copy of the poll I looked at earlier, the idea of it all was to compare the results with this poll and the one made in sweden and for that I feel that I want to present the same options that was presented in the article.

If you add a "dont know" option it would be pointless to compare, I dont know if I have the option to change it back. Unable to press the poll option button.

There is a former priest named Luigi Cascioli that is draging the church to court, this article was in english.

Luigi states:
"Atheism against christianity, christ, catholic church, exorcism and satan. Irrefutable demonstration that Jesus never existed. After the recent discovery of Essene documents at Kimberth Qumran (Palestine) it has been possible to prove that Jesus was only the result of an artificial construction operated by falsifiers in the second century."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

[Joakim]

I think the first sentence means that he does not believe in any of the things that is named between the word atheism and the end of the sentence.

He may mean that he is trying to prove his case by the recent discovery of Essene documents at Kimberth Qumran.

But the text is a quotation and you can analyze it any way you like.

[Stanislaw]

I think the first sentence means that he does not believe in any of the things that is named between the word atheism and the end of the sentence.

He may mean that he is trying to prove his case by the recent discovery of Essene documents at Kimberth Qumran.

But the text is a quotation and you can analyze it any way you like.

His quote does not appear in the linked article.

[Joakim]

That quote is from another page, I think its more of a summary than the actual statement.

[water lily]

Whether or not the world chooses to beleive Jesus was divine, I thought that his existence, at least, was universally accepted. I haven't read the article that is in question, but would be interested to, to see his reasoning. For those of you undecided, here is some evidence that supports his existence:
(1) - Eyewitnesses: Matthew, Peter, John, James, and others. These disciples would have absolutley no motivation to lie about Jesus. They were persecuted and many put to death for their beleifs. It is one thing to have martrys in this day and age who die for their beliefs, but these men knew for certain that Jesus existence, they weren't willing to die for their beliefs, but for what they KNEW to be true.
(2) - Early Accounts: The book of Acts has been dated at around 60AD (about 30 years after Jesus' cruxifiction). Acts was the second-part, the sequal if you will, of the book Luke first wrote, the Gospel of Luke. So Luke must predate 60AD. Furthermore, Luke's references Mark's gospel in his, so Mark's must have been written even before this. Finally the letter to the Corinthians which includes lists of eyewitnesses of Jesus, was written only about two years after Jesus died.
(3) - Marks of Authenticity: Many details the gospels descirbe have been prooven by archaeology to be correct. Also there is more embarrassing material about the disciples and about Jesus (for example the disciples misunderstanding or not believing in Jesus, and Jesus' respect for women, which in that culture was strange behaviour), that proove that they were being honest, because they wouldn't have included it otherwise.

This is just a very pitiful summary if you are interested in the subject, I suggest you read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stobel or "The Historical Reliablility of the Gosepl" by Craig blomberg or "The New Testamsent Documents: Are they Reliable?" by F.F. Bruce.
Hope this has been helpful!
-M

[Stanislaw]

There are also roman texts, accounts ie. court documents mentioning a man...christus. There are many proofs that he did exist. Besides there is no diffinitive way to prove or disprove this concept...

I could decide tommorow that I wan't to sue the queen of england because I don't think shakespeare was real.

[emily655321]

For me, this is sort of like asking "Did King Arthur exist?" Or "Did Robin Hood exist?" As with any legendary figure, I believe there was a person or persons that inspired the stories, but, especially in a time when word spread mostly by word of mouth, and most of even the early followers only knew Jesus by rumor, I think the stories themselves quickly became largely convoluted. In that time, there were many travelling preachers who spoke before large crowds and performed healings, and during that time people began to talk about one in particular as especially impressive. Many of the writings we have about Jesus are either 1) hearsay, written down by people who merely heard about this man from their friends, and/or 2) propoganda, written by those who wished to further the newly burgeoning religion, and often attributing to Jesus tales which first appeared in pagan mythology hundreds of years before (two of these are the virgin birth and walking on water).

I mean no disrespect to those whose faith is based on the assertion that Jesus was one man, and that the deeds depicted in the Bible are all factual and attributable to him. I'm merely explaining why I can't answer this question. I believe the figure of Jesus was based on a real faith-healer, or multiple faith-healers, of the time. But I don't believe in the man exactly as portrayed in the Bible.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

It seems we are of one opinion Emily. But it looks like the 'don't know' option has vanished again! - which is the one that best fits this view to my mind.

[Pendragon]

I'll probably regret this. I note that on the Evolution/Creationism Thread some worthy swain stated that someone once proved by logic that there was a hippo in the room, although niether he nor his comrade could see it. Using this type of logic, it then becomes impossible to disprove the existence of anything. So you could not prove that Jesus did not exist. From a strict sense of proof, neither can you prove that He did. You either believe it or not.http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/val.gif

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I'll probably regret this. I note that on the Evolution/Creationism Thread some worthy swain stated that someone once proved by logic that there was a hippo in the room, although niether he nor his comrade could see it. Using this type of logic, it then becomes impossible to disprove the existence of anything. So you could not prove that Jesus did not exist. From a strict sense of proof, neither can you prove that He did. You either believe it or not.http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/val.gif


Hmmmmmm... Is that a yes or a no then? :confused:



;)

[Pendragon]

Hmmmmmm... Is that a yes or a no then? :confused:



;)You may rest assured that I believe. I was the second yes vote. ;) In the interest of fairness, I merely point out that it probably cannot be proven to the satisfaction of those who wish it to be beyond any doubt. You believe or you do not believe, or as Emily said, you accept that the man probably existed, but have trouble with the Biblical accounts. I believe the Bible. ;) :nod:

[Psycheinaboat]

I believe there was such a man as Jesus, but I admit that I choose to believe it.

I think it was Vonnegut who said something to the affect that if what Jesus taught was good and wise, the details of whether he existed or whether he is the Son of God do not matter.

[smilingtearz]

I believe in the existence of Jesus, and I believe in the Bible :nod: ... I don't know what else to say... maybe if you had my share of experiences, you would be a strong believer too...

[Stanislaw]

I heard the term "logic" mentioned...someone who is wise in the ways of logic, can very eisily snare an unwary forumer in a logical trap...

such as the hippo...was the chap granted an inconsistancy...tis an old trap.

[Matilda]

I absolutely agree with you Emily. I also think that the stories about Jesus probably were inspired by real events ( for example a jewish preacher being crucified) but that most of them probably aren't true, just as the case is with Robin Hood.

[emily655321]

I absolutely agree with you Emily. I also think that the stories about Jesus probably were inspired by real events ( for example a jewish preacher being crucified) but that most of them probably aren't true, just as the case is with Robin Hood.Perhaps the Bible should post the disclaimer, "Based on a True Story." :)

No offense intended to believers. (Do you think I should just post that as my signature? :p)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I believe there was such a man as Jesus, but I admit that I choose to believe it.

I think it was Vonnegut who said something to the affect that if what Jesus taught was good and wise, the details of whether he existed or whether he is the Son of God do not matter.

Good point Psyche.

As an atheist, many of you may be surprised to hear that I agree with most of christian doctrine in principle. "Love thy neighbour", "Do unto others", "Let he who is without sin". These are all valid in my opinion. What I can't accept is that these are anything more than a philosophy of life. The dogma, ritual and 'by rote' learning associated with religion is the real turn off to me.

[Stanislaw]

I absolutely agree with you Emily. I also think that the stories about Jesus probably were inspired by real events ( for example a jewish preacher being crucified) but that most of them probably aren't true, just as the case is with Robin Hood.

Well, tis the idea of faith, most believers have faith that their belief is true, and that jesus was whom he is said to be...tis the idea behind faith.

Personally, I do not care what others believe, so long as they don't try to force their opinion on me or my practices. :)

[subterranean]

Well, tis the idea of faith, most believers have faith that their belief is true, and that jesus was whom he is said to be...tis the idea behind faith.

Personally, I do not care what others believe, so long as they don't try to force their opinion on me or my practices. :)

Hear hear!

[Pendragon]

Perhaps the Bible should post the disclaimer, "Based on a True Story." :)

No offense intended to believers. (Do you think I should just post that as my signature? :p)Emily, you are the least likely person to offend someone (on purpose, anyway) that I have ever met. No need to put it in your signature, my friend. Your words always say it. Disagree or not, you've got the right approach to voicing your points, and I stand amazed sometimes. Hat's off to you! Pen. ;)

[blp]

Perhaps the Bible should post the disclaimer, "Based on a True Story." :)

No offense intended to believers. (Do you think I should just post that as my signature? :p)

The numerous authors accept no responsibility for any war, murder or other persecution that may be perpetrated in the name of this text. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely transcendental.

[TIMECUBE]

The Bible was written by Super-Intelligent Dinosaurs to disprove their own existence so they can remain in the Fog of War.

[emily655321]

The numerous authors accept no responsibility for any war, murder or other persecution that may be perpetrated in the name of this text. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely transcendental.:lol: :lol:

[Matilda]

I've heard that there was some kind of meeting in rome, in the fourth century, where they voted about wether jesus was divine or not, and wich gospels to take into the bible. is that true?

maybe it's off topic though.

totally agree ,blp, that would have been cool :)

[emily655321]

Not in Rome, but in Nicea (the capital of the Roman empire at that time was Constantinople). It's true, the first Council of Nicea convened in A.D.325. Emperor Constantine called for a meeting of church leaders throughout the empire when religious/political issues (the same thing in those days) got too serious for him to ignore—namely, on the occasion of the Heresy of Arius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius). There were several sects of Christianity with radically differing views who all claimed to be the one true version. The Arian sect was the one that questioned Christ's divinity. At Nicea, the council members decided what would be the official doctrine of the Christian church. They compiled what they considered to be the most important beliefs into a list, the Nicene Creed. It's recited once during every Catholic Mass to this day. It was also at this time that Constantine chose the man whose responsibility it would be to decide on which books should be included in the New Testament. The Council met sporadically for many years afterward, whenever a serious issue arose that they felt should be addressed.

[dark_182_88]

seems like you've been reading Dan Brown's books Matilda eh? lol.

as for your question, well yeh, same as emily said.

[Chava]

I like the Monty Python explanation, in Life of Brian. It was all a misunderstanding...

[emily655321]

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!

Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.

Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!

Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!

Brian: Now, ---- off!

[silence]

Arthur: How shall we ---- off, O Lord?:D

s10cr......

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Emily,

I feel I should play cheesemaker here and insist that you apologise for any unintended offence to believers. ;)

[emily655321]

:lol: Well, as a maker of dairy products, I know you are blessed, so I will follow your advice.

To all believers in Brian, I humbly beg forgiveness for any indiscretion. ;)

[Chava]

I love brian... sigh, and the peoples front of Judiah, and the Judian's people front, and even the Popular peoples front.

[Stanislaw]

I still like the ol witch-bit in the Holy grail. :D

[prasanthja]

There is no logic in discussing the existence of Jesus and what science, reasoning, logic and understanding has to say about it. “After all, it is The Lord who created science and gave men the power of reasoning. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” [Hebrew 11:1] (as per NKJV version). Therefore one must be able to believe that Jesus lived and still lives. This should be blind faith and logic and reasoning should cease to play a part. One must believe this without any compulsion. We should not rely on scientific proofs and facts. As Jesus said, “Lucky are those who believe without seeing.”

[Stanislaw]

There is no logic in discussing the existence of Jesus and what science, reasoning, logic and understanding has to say about it. “After all, it is The Lord who created science and gave men the power of reasoning. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” [Hebrew 11:1] (as per NKJV version). Therefore one must be able to believe that Jesus lived and still lives. This should be blind faith and logic and reasoning should cease to play a part. One must believe this without any compulsion. We should not rely on scientific proofs and facts. As Jesus said, “Lucky are those who believe without seeing.”

You are preac hing to the converted, I beleive the same...blind faith without proof. I am glad to see atleast someone has interpreted this as I have.:)

[Chava]

Which witch bit in Holy grail?

[Whifflingpin]

Originally Posted by prasanthja
"There is no logic in discussing the existence of Jesus and what science, reasoning, logic and understanding has to say about it. “After all, it is The Lord who created science and gave men the power of reasoning.""

If God gave us the power to reason, then knowledge of Him might be beyond reason, but should not be contradictory to reason. That is we might not be able to gain an understanding of God through reason, but if our understanding of God conflicts with our reason then we have probably a wrong understanding.

Although there may be no purpose in trying to show the existence of God through logical reasoning, Christians argue that God entered into His creation as an historical character. The actual historical existence and humanity of Jesus is fundamental to Christian belief. The existence of this historical person is something that should be backed up by such evidence, direct or inferred, as would be required for other characters of the same time or place.

"Therefore one must be able to believe that Jesus lived and still lives."
That Jesus lived should be backed up by evidence. That he still lives is a matter of faith.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There is no logic in discussing the existence of Jesus and what science, reasoning, logic and understanding has to say about it. “After all, it is The Lord who created science and gave men the power of reasoning. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” [Hebrew 11:1] (as per NKJV version). Therefore one must be able to believe that Jesus lived and still lives. This should be blind faith and logic and reasoning should cease to play a part. One must believe this without any compulsion. We should not rely on scientific proofs and facts. As Jesus said, “Lucky are those who believe without seeing.”

I'm afraid that I am unable to "turn off" my logical thinking and accept anything on faith alone. Reasoning plays a part in all my thinking. Should I really suffer the pains of hell for this? Is salvation perhaps a genetic trait? Or, as Jesus said above, do I need to be lucky?

This is not meant to be sarcatic, but a serious question. Do you really believe what you wrote above? Do you never doubt? Does anyone truly never doubt? I know that I doubt my own disbelief from time to time. But that's a part of my questioning nature. I can't deny it - certainly not to the degree needed for blind faith (in either god or science).

I hope this doesn't appear disrespectful, it's not meant to be, I'm just full of heavy concepts tonight and feel the need to question. Ignore me if you will.

[falling*moon]

that Question is against all the holy books, no...that man is crazy!!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

that Question is against all the holy books, no...that man is crazy!!

Which question?

Which man? Me?

Please clarify.

[falling*moon]

Xamonas Chegwe honey.. notYOU.. but the man in the article and i don't care about his name..

as for when you said : 'Does anyone truly never doubt? I know that I doubt my own disbelief from time to time. But that's a part of my questioning nature.'

am like you in that... we should Question things..either the Bible or the Quran or what ever.,,



see ya

[falling*moon]

Dear Matilda, I disagreed with u when u said :

“ Jesus isn't mentioned by non-Christian historian”

As a matter of fact , he is mentioned in the Quran as prophet .. and lots of history books is written about him in different lamguages… just give me the chance to fetch more and I will bring it up right here .

As for the gospels I’m doubting them right now coz they seem ridiculous sometimes and am sorry to say so..

I agree with Emily when she said : “ mean no disrespect to those whose faith is based on the assertion that Jesus was one man, and that the deeds depicted in the Bible are all factual and attributable to him.. I believe the figure of Jesus was based on a real faith-healer, or multiple faith-healers, of the time. But I don't believe in the man exactly as portrayed in the Bible.”

But as I said before,.. please people, search before you give an opinion. Thank u

[Bostbrother]

I can not help but think of the opening of Fellowship of the Ring when Galadriel, speaking of the one ring, say "History became legend, legend became myth, and for two and a half thousand years, the Ring passed out of all knowledge. Until, when chance came, it ensnared a new bearer."

What I am certain to say, something of cosmic proportions happened some 2,000 years ago in a tiny remote wasteland of the Roman Empire. Those who doubt Jesus of Nazareth was a real man that entered time and space would be hard pressed to prove their own existance.

It is true that what we know about the life and teachings of Jesus is found in the four gospels of the New Testament. I also know for certain the a 1st century Jewish historian Flavious Josephus wrote about Jesus.

I think the question of "Did Jesus exist" barely scratches the surface of the heart of the matter. I think the real question that should be debated is "Does Jesus exist?"

[emily655321]

Those who doubt Jesus of Nazareth was a real man that entered time and space would be hard pressed to prove their own existance.My passport, driving permit, birth certificate, library card, and college transcripts beg to differ. I also get nice letters from the bank and the electric company every month, and I don't think they'd keep sending them if they weren't under the impression that I exist.

[Bostbrother]

Hi Emily, Of course I would agree that items such as passports, driving permits, birth certificates, library cards, college transcripts, once shown to be real (and not fabricated) would be admissible as evidence in a court of law and would provide ample proof of a person's existence. It is precisely the point, that documents are evidential (proof) and available for review. The volume of New Testament manuscripts (complete / partial / fragments) is overwhelming evidence that deserves serious consideration.

BTW, you mentioned that you also received letters . . . . where you aware that is what the word 'epistle' means? ;-)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

BTW, you mentioned that you also received letters . . . . where you aware that is what the word 'epistle' means? ;-)

But St Paul's epistles were written about Jesus. They were not to him or from him. Even Christians agree that St Paul never met Jesus, from what I understand. So these letters hardly stand as evidence in the same way as the ones from Emily's bank.

The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith unearthed golden plates with the Book of Mormon engraved upon them in 1830. Witnesses signed a document to the effect that these plates were real and that they had seen them. This has never been proven to my satisfaction, all we have are the words of other Mormons that this is true. It also can't be disproved easily. As long as one person claims to have seen them, there will be those that believe in them. It could be proved though, if they were put on public display and made available for scientific study. But somehow I doubt that will happen.

How much harder is it to prove or disprove the existence of a man that died (allegedly) nearly 2000 years ago? Let alone that the accounts written 100 or so years after his death are any kind of an accurate portrayal of his actual life or not?

It comes down to whether you believe. There is never going to be 100% proof either way.

[Whifflingpin]

I agree that it is not proof, but within about thirty years of Jesus death there were people willing to suffer death in Rome for believing that he existed - according to Tacitus, a non-Christian who was about 10 years old at the time of that particular persecution.

It would be frivolous really to deny the historical existence of a teacher called Jesus, whose immediate followers believed that he was the Messiah. Whether you agree with those followers, or any of the other beliefs that accumulated is a totally different matter.

[emily655321]

BTW, you mentioned that you also received letters . . . . where you aware that is what the word 'epistle' means? ;-)Well, I've read a lot of "epistles" to Santa Claus, but that doesn't make me more convinced of his existence. :)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Did Jesus exist? Yes. Was he God? No. Why is this? Well, there's no doubt that Jesus DID exist. There's been more than enough archaeological evidence (corrolated with the Bible) along with non-Christian allusions to such a man existing. However, all he did was make waves. He went against the Jews as soon as he found out he didn't like their teachings, and modified them. Jesus was a Jew himself, so by his barmitzvah he would have known what he did and didn't like about Judaism. So what about his healings, resurrections (himself and Lazarus) and other "miracles"? Most can be explained by either fabrication or the lack of scientific knowledge during the time of Jesus. Take, for example. the multiplication of the loaves and fish. That was obviously fabricated, since you can't make more out of less. The raising of Lazarus could be easily explained by the lack of medical expertise during the time. What if Lazarus had been knocked unconscious and the people thought he died? He was in the tomb long enough to survive without food or water, and if he heard Jesus screaming commands to him that would have probably woken him up.

Those are just two examples of stories that could have very well been augmented in order to suit the audience of the time. The author of each Gospel had one thing in common: they were all writing to audiences that needed to be convinced. What better way to do it then by exaggerating a few stories? The audiences didn't know any better, because they had nothing to compare the evangelist's stories to.

So, yes, I believe Jesus was real but he is not God. He was made into a god of sorts by the people of the time, and two thousand years later Catholics and Christians have followed in their footsteps.

[Bostbrother]

Yikes! OH such pressures! Let me see if I understand my predicament. . I need to defend the reliability of the New Testament scriptures (we have not even touched on lower / higher textual criticisms let alone getting into inerrancy and infallibility to establish Scriptural authority . . . this of course is essential or all other debates break down rather quickly into he says / she says speculation; According to Luke, the 1st century Greek physician that wrote the gospel that bears his name and the historical narrative about the establishment of the church (the Book of Acts) Saul of Tarsus did meet Jesus on the way to Damascus (which is detailed in chapter 9) . Anyway, I had my own Damascus road experience in the early 90’s soon after I got out of the Navy. I started reading the Bible and Jesus became very real to me. Scared the hell out of me (no pun intended).. I would be content to live a quiet monastic life in prayer and personal study of the Bible if that were an option to me. But Jude, Jesus half brother (ok, I really ticked off my Catholic friends) wrote that I am to contend for the faith that what entrusted to me (v3 of the epistle that bears his name if you are interested) which is what I felt compelled to do when I saw this thread. I really just came to this web site to get some information on Bill Yeats . . . . did anybody see that movie “Must Love Dogs”? ok, I am tired and calling it a day

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Whifflingpin,

People have suffered death for many ridiculous reasons: religions, countries, ideologies, philosophies. This doesn't make them all right. How this proves the historical existance of Jesus, I fail to see. Most of these martyrs only had hearsay evidence upon which to base their faith. And followers of many other religions were cast to the lions, not just christians. Does this mean that their faiths are equally valid? (Actually, I would answer yes to that question, and add, also equally invalid.)

Bostbrother,

Paul had a vision on the road to Damascus of a voice speaking to him from a blinding light which claimed to be Jesus. The light was so bright that he was blinded, so it is safe to assume that he never got a good look at the speaker. Also, none of his companions could hear or understand the voice. Strangely, even though they did see the light, they weren't blinded either. We also have only Paul's own word that any of this occurred at all, as he was the author of "Acts of the Apostles" - see my comments about Joseph Smith above. So I still contend that Paul & Jesus never met.

I have my own views on why people make claims such as Paul's and Smith's but I accept your right to believe what you will. Personally, the 2,000 year old verbal evidence of one man is not enough to convince me.

[Whifflingpin]

"I agree that it is not proof, but ..."
"How this proves the historical existance of Jesus, I fail to see."

Many people face death for a mistaken belief (at least one side in every war, I guess) but not many people would accept an avoidable death to maintain a lie that they had invented themselves.

The persecutions of Nero were well within a generation of Jesus' death, and, according to Christian tradition, among the martyrs were some like Peter who had been Jesus' close followers. If Jesus had not lived and taught, then those martyrs would have accepted death for something they themselves knew to be a lie, which makes little sense.

The same argument applies to Paul, since he too was martyred. He may, of course, have been wrong in his belief about Jesus, but it is not reasonable to suppose that he was deliberately lying.

If you don't accept that Jesus existed, then you have to work out why a bunch of fishermen from Galilee, and a tentmaker from Tarsus, should get together and invent him, and suffer death rather than admit they were lying.

And, having said all that - I repeat even if you accept that they considered Jesus to be the Messiah, you do not have to agree with them. The question of whether Jesus lived is trivial, but as BostBrother said "the real question that should be debated is "Does Jesus exist?""

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I am not necessarily claiming that the people that died as martyrs in the early days of christianity lied, or were delusional. I am proposing that they might have been, or that they may just as easily have fallen victim to the lies, or delusional beliefs of others. I am also not ruling out the possiblity that they were following the teachings of a genuine historical figure.

My contention is that we cannot be sure about any of this.

Ultimately, we have no clearer idea of the fate of Peter & Paul than we do about the historical existence of Jesus. I am sure that records of those thrown to the lions in Roman amphitheatres do not go into such detail as to irrefutably identify the victims as those described in the bible. We only have the word of other christians to base this on.

What it all comes down to is the simple fact that you either believe in the claims of the bible, or you don't. I personally don't - at least not on all counts (the important counts mainly - the existence of god, that kind of thing!). I think that there may have been an historical Jesus, but I doubt that the bible gives any thing like an accurate depiction of him. This is my belief. There are others. I don't claim any particular intellectual highground for my opinions. But they suit me. And I will defend my right to them against anyone, as I will defend the rights of anyone to have contradictory views.

I do not wish to be disrespectful of those of religious belief. I quite understand that these beliefs are deeply held and very important to believers. But I have no respect for those who believe that their religious views should be free from challenge if they wish to express them in public. As in all subjects, debate is healthy, except to those who fear the foundations of their arguments are unsound.

And as to the question of whether "Jesus exists". I think you can guess my opinion on the subject. I only know that I feel that I exist and therefore conclude that (for practical purposes) I probably do. All else is speculation. I am prepared to accept pragmatically that the other people that I meet in the world are real enough, even the denzens of internet forums, (until better evidence to the contrary presents) but I can't stretch that pragmatism to accept the existence of Jesus.

Respect to all.

XC

[Whifflingpin]

Xamonas Chegwe - why get so angry? I am not expressing any religious view - in fact I have long since ceased to call myself a Christian, so it is not for religious reasons that I think Jesus existed. All I am saying is that there is non-Christian evidence to show that Christians were behaving in a way that would be very difficult to explain if Jesus had not existed.

I think you'd do well to read some of Paul's letters again. Whoever he was, or whatever happened to him, the letters are an amazing mixture, from the immediate and practical to the sublime, with a dollop of prejudices thrown in. Like the letter to Philemon, for instance - you could not invent it - Paul sends greeting to Philemon by the hand of Philemon's runaway slave - just a note from Paul, in prison, to his friend outside, hoping everyone is well and hoping to see them all soon. Or his letter to the Corinthian Christians, interspersing theology with criticism of the Corinthians wrangling and fornication, and instructions on collecting money, and giving news of friends. OK none of it proves anything, but if you are as pragmatic as you claim to be, you'd have to accept that Paul is a heck of a lot more real than some of the people you encounter on the internet.

.

[Bostbrother]

"But I have no respect for those who believe that their religious views should be free from challenge if they wish to express them in public. As in all subjects, debate is healthy, except to those who fear the foundations of their arguments are unsound."

XC - I thank my God for people like you because you are right; debate is healthy as long as it is honest and open, and necessary; since I lay claim to absolute truth I much appreciate you holding people accountable, including myself.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Xamonas Chegwe - why get so angry? I am not expressing any religious view - in fact I have long since ceased to call myself a Christian, so it is not for religious reasons that I think Jesus existed. All I am saying is that there is non-Christian evidence to show that Christians were behaving in a way that would be very difficult to explain if Jesus had not existed.

I think you'd do well to read some of Paul's letters again. Whoever he was, or whatever happened to him, the letters are an amazing mixture, from the immediate and practical to the sublime, with a dollop of prejudices thrown in. Like the letter to Philemon, for instance - you could not invent it - Paul sends greeting to Philemon by the hand of Philemon's runaway slave - just a note from Paul, in prison, to his friend outside, hoping everyone is well and hoping to see them all soon. Or his letter to the Corinthian Christians, interspersing theology with criticism of the Corinthians wrangling and fornication, and instructions on collecting money, and giving news of friends. OK none of it proves anything, but if you are as pragmatic as you claim to be, you'd have to accept that Paul is a heck of a lot more real than some of the people you encounter on the internet.

.

I wasn't angry. Please reread my post, imagining a calm, reasonable tone of voice. :nod:

My point was that people's willingness to die for their beliefs is not conditional on those beliefs being well-founded, nothing more.

And I've read the whole bible once, and parts of it many times. I was brought up a christian. Paul's letters do contain beautiful writing and are very moving. But I am in a lot of doubt as to how much of his doctrines were those of Jesus and how much were his own. The church's historical obsession with stamping out sexual immorality stems purely from Paul's letters.

Personally, I am far more inclined to accept the historical existence of Paul of Tarsus than I am that of Jesus. But we'll never really know for sure.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

XC - I thank my God for people like you because you are right; debate is healthy as long as it is honest and open, and necessary; since I lay claim to absolute truth I much appreciate you holding people accountable, including myself.

I'm glad to hear you say that Bostbrother; glad that you didn't abandon reason when you converted to christianity. There are a lot of Sarumans in the religious community. Beware of them.

It's not, as many claim, religion that is at fault for so many of the world's ills, but the dogmatic stance of many of it's advocates. Once someone abandons their objectivity and abrogates their own responsibility for their actions, whether to a god, a country or 'the party', they are capable of anything. Open discussion keeps one grounded.

[meddle_some]

Xamonas,

Are you sure the church's historical obsession with stamping out sexual immorality stems purely from Paul's letters? The Jewish people have a long history with their pagan neighbors and how they wanted to do away with sexual immorality. Also, how could you be confused on what Paul wrote and what Jesus taught, if you don't believe Jesus existed? Wouldn't that mean you attribute it all to Paul? As far as "never really knowing", well Faith is one of, if not the most important tenent of Christianity, though history shows it has led to some blind, unhealthy doses.

However, this seems to have nothing to do with whether Jesus exists or not. In regards to this question, I believe one has to not only look for evidence of a carnal man existing. There must be some basis to the creation of the Christian churches in and around Jerusalem, beginning in Antioch according to Acts. It makes sense that the people whom formed these churches did so in regards to a movement that truly occured around the physical man of Jesus, unless someone has a better theory? However, this doesn't explain how the church could have survived in the midst of the Sadduccees that ran the Temple and the Romans that owned Judea. To get this answer, one must open the eye of the Mind to the spiritual realm. Here it is obvious that Jesus exists within eternal abstractions such as Love and Peace and has substance within the minds of multitudes. In this same manner, Ulysses will always have existence within the spirit of courage, whether he truly made it back home from Troy to take back his home or not.

[Christian]

The historicity of Jesus is about as well established as for any single person in the ancient world. No serious scholar would ever entertain the claim that the existence of Jesus is a myth. In fact, you may assume that anyone who does claim that Jesus is a myth does not know what they are talking about at all! Jesus Christ is mentioned by both Josephus and Thallus two historians which are well known to those who examine the evidence regarding Jesus, however if I may presume on a reply from some there are a few people that refer to Josephus and Thallus as being controversial. Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived from about AD 35 to AD 100. He actually wrote for the emperors in Rome at the time. It is not at all controversial that Josephus mentions Jesus in his work, The Jewish Wars. He refers to Jesus and the Christians in a few places. He also mentions specifics about the execution of the apostle James. There is one passage in Josephus which is controversial. In this passage, some scholars speculate that the sayings of Josephus were amplified by Christian copiers during the second or third century BC.

To summarize on Josephus, it is not controversial whether he mentioned Jesus. What is controversial is the specific wording of one of the passages in his writings whose authenticity some scholars question. As far as Thallus goes, he is a Roman historian who mentions specifics about the resurrection of Jesus. The problem here is that his writings are known only by his being quoted by others. We do not have the originals in the case of Thallus. I suppose one could claim that there is some possible doubt about the references of Thallus to Jesus because we do not have the original, but I believe in general scholars accept that he did in fact refer to Jesus in his original writings.

You ask whether others in the first century mention Jesus. The answer is definitely yes. For example, both Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, well-known Roman historians of the first and second century AD mention Jesus. Tacitus mentions his resurrection. Besides, a number of Jewish rabbis mention the life of Jesus during the first three centuries. These writings can be found in the Jewish Talmud. These Jewish writers mention the miracles of Jesus, but of course do not acknowledge that he was the Messiah. They claim that the miracles of Jesus were the work of Satan, which is reminiscent of the sayings of Jesus' accusers during his lifetime.

You may be extremely well assured that Jesus was a real person who lived in Palestine, who performed many public signs, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and about whom it was claimed that he was resurrected from the dead. These things are a matter of public record. You cannot prove all the sayings and acts of Jesus from sources outside the New Testament, but the facts mentioned above are without doubt true.

[Hazel-Ra]

Please excuse me if I am repeating others in this thread. I haven't read previous posts. I don't believe there is any doubt over whether or not Jesus actually existed. I believe he has been completely misunderstood and misquoted. It seems pretty obvious to me that when he said he was the child of God, what he actually meant/said is that we are all children of God. And of course a man of his faith would feel this way.

[Christian]

Jesus Christ was the son of God as we also can be should we choose to accept him as our saviour, mediator and liberator from sin due to his willing and pure sacrifice, thus doing we are adopted into the same and become as he was and is forevermore.

There is plenty of evidence which substantiates the Biblical claims of God for the ardent seeker of truth and if one were to initiate a study of these truths in their lives with an objective outlook on the evidence given, they with considerable ease would become a true believer in God

A man's free will is free by doing his will

It is an illusion that becoming a follower of Christ necessitates a restraint on that which we desire to do. This is a grievious misconception to Christianity as a whole.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour only wants what we personally want for ourselves we just don't know it yet for we are enslaved to a form of life of which we perceive to be our will and desire, but in fact it is not, for when we move away from it we find it to be loathsome and detestable and are greatly overjoyed without it(this is my experience and the experience of others also). Every discipline, every principle, precept and instruction laid down within God's word is truly in our interests!

[Theshizznigg]

To XGM
The church does try and stomp out sexual morality from its followers, and this is not a new concept, but was around when the ten commandments, the book of leviticus, and numbers were made.
It merely stood to stop the people from corrupting themselves, by doing things like marrying their daughters, having their sons marry daughters, sleeping with thy brothers wife, do not sleep with animals, etc, etc.
Many of these rules were created because they stopped acts of sexual immorality which led to other more wicked acts of immorality, look at King Solomon for example.
Its also one of the easiest groups of sin to fall into.
So, naturally a church wanting to keep a pure sinless flock, (Impossible) would want to discourage all acts of sexual immorality with extreme action against those who pursued those goals.
Personally, Peter's scriptures might have given lots of reasons and points on immorality, but the churches need to quell perversion in its ranks didn't wholly stem from that one scripture alone. Good point though.

As for my thoughts on Big J, it is hardly believable that a fictional character could have caused such an uproar in human society and literally change the way humanity thought of itself.
No, Jesus was real, and enough evidence exist to prove that fact.
Was he the son of God?
Truly in my mind I believe that he was not only the son of God, but also showed his great character in the fact that he accepted from the time of his childhood that he would be destined to suffer a horrific death for the mistakes of everyone that had gone before him and all those who would go after him, that the human race could be free from the shackles of death and sin.

Thus I believe his words are truth, that he is my saviour, not only through my faith, but the words of wisdom that he spoke, and that his words contain the answers to all of life's questions if one can understand them.

God, thus through Jesus did one essentially important thing, he our creator humbled himself in front of humankind in order that he might forge a connection with man that was no longer creator and created, but merely the same loving spirit of that God, exemplified in the spirit of a man.

For Christ said "Forget all the commandments, except to love thine neighbors as thine would love thy self."

I agree with Christian, Christianity is not about restriction, God knows that man will fail in his sins, and is thus willing to forgive those who ask.
Christianity throws off the shackles of sin, and allows us to no longer fear God but open ourselves up to him.
Christianity opens us up, it is freedom from the thinking pattern of the old world, it enables us to love unconditionally our bretheren, and to find great satisfaction in life.

"Deus Protector Meus" Latin family motto
Yours Truly.
Shizz

[Xamonas Chegwe]

To XGM
The church does try and stomp out sexual morality from its followers, and this is not a new concept, but was around when the ten commandments, the book of leviticus, and numbers were made.

I think that this may very well be the exact opposite of what you meant to say. But I hope it's not. I'd join any church that promised to stamp out sexual morality!

And I think you'll find that Big J's (isn't that a rather disrespectful term for a christian to use?) opinion on the sexual morals and harsh penalties spelt out in Leviticus, went along the lines of, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." There are a lot of strange things prohibited in Leviticus (eating prawns for example) and a lot of draconian penalties as well. I think the race has moved on from that kind of morality.

[Theshizznigg]

I think that this may very well be the exact opposite of what you meant to say. But I hope it's not. I'd join any church that promised to stamp out sexual morality!

And I think you'll find that Big J's (isn't that a rather disrespectful term for a christian to use?) opinion on the sexual morals and harsh penalties spelt out in Leviticus, went along the lines of, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." There are a lot of strange things prohibited in Leviticus (eating prawns for example) and a lot of draconian penalties as well. I think the race has moved on from that kind of morality.

I don't mind you calling him Big J, Crazy J, JC, or anything else. I'm not a bible beater, and it won't get up my nose.

Also the book of Leviticus when you look at many of the laws for eating, bathing, etc. All have to do with life in a desert, and the precepts for keeping clean, healthy, and having laws amongst the assembly.
The idea's of sexual immorality were stated, and the punishment for those act, because God is stated in Leviticus, as not wanting his chosen peoples to allow the spread of sexual immorality because it, like a wound without covering would fester and spread.
Thus the answer for stomping out sexual immorality was to kill those who caused it, by stoning or other methods.

Those were the old laws, and when JC came he destroyed the old bonds of the world, and the old bonds of religion.
"Let he is without sin cast the first stone" was a way of saying to people when you can honestly show us that you don't fall to the temptations of sin, then by all means do it.
It also opened up the world to the redeeming factor of Christ. Christ said himself, "I am a redeemer, a father, and a teacher."
Hence, those who followed the new Christian way of life, instead of stoning the individual would instead show them the ways of Christs love and hopefully convert them.

Thanks for reading, hope you get as much enjoyment out of my posts, as I do yours.
Shizz.

"Two cannibals eating a Christian Missionary, Witch Doctor turns to the Chief, 'What you having?' Chief says 'I'm having a ball!' The Witch Doctor sighs and says 'Then you eating to fast."
Oddity Express # 4

[Diadem]

I believe he existed in some manner, but the Bible does not portray him accurately at all.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I was browsing the newspaper (internet) today and came across an article by roger viklund, a swedish writer. Along with the article there was a poll:
Do you believe that Jesus existed?

The article states that "his existance rests on a few assumptions, that would not pass critical review"

Im sure this question would seem very strange to people, since even though everyone may not believe in christianity and that Jesus was the son of god people seldom dispute the existance of Jesus as a person.

I found this rather interesting considering the poll came out 54,7% yes and 45,3% no and I would like to see what people on this site has to say about it.

/ J
Most people I have ever read anything by think HE lived - especially well-schooled people.

[Matilda]

Dear Matilda, I disagreed with u when u said :

“ Jesus isn't mentioned by non-Christian historian”

As a matter of fact , he is mentioned in the Quran as prophet .. and lots of history books is written about him in different lamguages… just give me the chance to fetch more and I will bring it up right here .



Just to clarify, it wasn't me that said Jesus wasn't mentioned. I was simply referring to the contents of the article we were discussing. So it was the articles opinions, not mine. ;)

[Mililalil XXIV]

It is well to note, while on this topic, that many anti-ecclesiastical, agnostic researchers are convinced that the miracle reports about JESUS are real attempts at reporting what many eyewitnesses really think they witnessed. How do these writers try to explain away the phenomena, without admitting of their supernatural quality? By saying JESUS learned hypnotism while a child in Egypt, and then applying this "adept's skill" to those HE preached to later. The question is, why were there no masters of this in Egypt? If hypnotism could do what JESUS did, why can hypnotists today not heal any flesh wounds, etc., under the utmost of controlled environments, where willing minds are concerned? Today, many Christians go to hypnotist performances and cannot be hypnotised. One has to be accepting of coming under mind control - and no hypnotist can restore sight, heal a withered hand, end years' of menstrual hemoraging, etc. That such a powerful hypnosis should be presumed takes a lot of unscientific "faith".

[emily655321]

I'd be interested if you could find an html source that expounds on this theory, Mililalil. I'd like to read it.

[rufioag]

As this has been mentioned and no i have not read every post but the proof behind the legitimacy of Jesus Christ is unparalleled. And my reasons are as followed.

The locations that are spoke of in the Bible are extremly accurate and withstand the test of critics. Many people thought that Nazareth never existed because it was not mentioned by prominant historians of the time even though many other cities and towns in that area were. But recent archiology digs have uncovered the city of Nazareth. This is at least one example.

Second, the historical books of which are written about Jesus were written in close proximaty to his death. John, which is considered one of the last of the 4 Gospels written was discovered to be written on a piece of Egyptian paper (not sure of the name at the moment) and dated to between 100-125AD, this means that it took time to travel to egypt and then be translated. This results in an earlier time than many people believe behind the written dates of the Gospels. Also, Paul sent his followers to ask Jesus if he was the Messaih and Jesus answered Yes. Now how is this interpration altered by time. Many people claim that Jesus is the result of Mythology but Paul wrote his testiments as early as 2 years after the death of Jesus! Compared to other historical texts that describe rulers and the likes, this is amazingly fast! These peopel had nothing to gain from writting these messages except persecution and death(many of them died horrific deaths as a result of their faith).

Then others claim that Jesus is a result of other religions. This is false as well. There was a man named Apollonus who supposedly did many of the things that Jesus did but the difference was this mans legacy was based and described nearly 200 years after the death of Jesus and it is presumed that HIS deeds were drawn on by those people not the other way around. Also, the man who wrote about him was prompted by financial gain by the empresses who was paying him to write about the "god" she believed in.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I have visited the city of Nazareth - it is a large, thriving metropolis - you'd have to be pretty stupid to miss it! When I was there, the only 'digs' going on were excavations for new office buildings. :lol:

I find your other proofs of a similar level of accuracy - I especially like the Egyptian paper that you don't know the name of - I think it was called A4. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Green Lady]

I briefly saw part of a documentary called Gospel of Judas, which is apparently another account of Jesus. Did anyone else see that?

[XXdarkclarityXX]

The Gospel of Judas is a very fierce debate right now because of its recent deciphering. The Catholic Church will deem it not part of the Canon and that will be the end of it. It's pretty easy to be right when you define what truth is. The Church has that luxury.

[Mililalil XXIV]

The Gospel of Judas is a very fierce debate right now because of its recent deciphering. The Catholic Church will deem it not part of the Canon and that will be the end of it. It's pretty easy to be right when you define what truth is. The Church has that luxury.
What you call the luxury of defining needs defining:
to define is to make an express clarification, not to invent.

Thus, it is mostly a responsibilty. We have a Tradition that is not just written. The Teaching preceded all record of it, and goes a long way toward definitions.

Some have claimed the work is a gospel of Judas Iscariot. He could not have written it after death, and if he had written something while JESUS discipled him, it wouldn't show any traces of anything unorthodox, unless he was purposely distorting the Tradition, in which case, why read it as telling what CHRIST taught?

One would have to ask, though, what would drive that Judas to write such a work? If it was not really written by Judas, but was written to pretend writing as from his viewpoint, what value could placing it in the Bible hold for a serious Christian?

Is it known beyond a doubt which Judas was supposed to have written it?

If there is any merit to it, some Catholics will see it and vie for it - and what doesn't happen today is no promise against a surprising judgement tomorrow.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

If there is any merit to it, some Catholics will see it and vie for it - and what doesn't happen today is no promise against a surprising judgement tomorrow.

Since when does the Church make surprising judgements? They're about as conservative as it gets. Take the canon of the Bible, for instance. The books that were added to the Bible were added, and the rest (such as the Gospel of Thomas) were thrown out. Why is this? The Church decided what was biblical truth or not by censoring the Scriptures this way. I think Catholics should have all written texts at their spiritual disposal, not just the ones deemed correct by the Church. The Church can be no more correct than the individual...except that the Church's decision is deemed the truth, because of the whole "papal infallability" deal. Honestly, he's human too and it's extremely foolish to say that one is completely incapable from making any sort of mistakes. Notice how that concept only came to light after popes stopped having illegitimate kids and abusing their power? The Church does what it needs to do to suit itself in the times it is in, and that's my biggest problem with it. Things are what they are, not what the Church wants them to be every hundred years. Any comments, please reply.

[rufioag]

Actually, the Gospel of Judas wasnt written by Judas himself but by and religous sect dated to have written it in 150 to 250 AD. The reason the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Thomas, and others are not included in the Bible is that the message that is reportedly written directly contradicts the message that Jesus taught and since they were both written long after the fact, they can be concieved as false. One can come back with the arguement about the gospels but these in fact were written much closer to the life of Christ and were either written by the disciples or others who directly related themselves to the disciples. The sect that wrote the Gospel of Judas, first of all, was using the name Judas in order to gain fame. Secondly, they are known for portraying characters of the Bible who may be written off as bad people in a light that shows them otherwise. So while many will argue that the 4 gospels, which all have similar messages about the teachings of Jesus, are fake, even though the 4 do not contradict each other(you can argue with me and hopefully I can show you that the arguements are ill concieved and are a result of translation and literary representtation of events)people will claim that this single book written under the assumed name of Judas is completly accurate in its events just as the Da Vinci code is completly accurate in its hypothesis.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

First of all, start citing some sources. Your opinions regarding the Gospel don't fly. Secondly, how do you know that the four accepted gospels weren't incorrect and what we are recieving now is true? How do you know that Judas actually betrayed Jesus? Seeing as we rely so much on literary facts, we should leave the door open for error. Assumptions can be errors.

[rufioag]

Your arguement about considering that the 4 Gospels are incorrect while the the Gospel of Judas is correct (or may be correct) is a poor explanation that it may be right. Consider this situation, you have 5 people, at least 2 of the 5 witnessed the event, 2 others were direct friends of those who witnessed an event, and 1 who didnt witness the event at all. Now consider this event, the 2 who saw the event and the 2 who were friends of someone who saw the event claim that something happened while the person who didnt see the event and didnt have anyone who was directly related with the events relate the story of what occurred to them. Your arguement would state that we should believe the 1 person over the other 4. If you have a murder case, will I believe the eye witness testimony of 4 people or the testimony of the person who read about portions of the case in a newspaper?

Now, in all honestly, I can understand your overall point and this explanation is an attempt to understand your reasoning and my attempt to refute it. Im not claiming to be all knowing so Im as open as anyone else is to mistakes and I am just trying to state a point. If i need extra info, say so and Ill atempt to legitimize my claims.

[Green Lady]

Okay, my mention of the Gospel of Judas was not intended to get anyone off subject, let's rewind so this thread doesn't get closed.

[rufioag]

Yes I do believe Christ Exist and this goes back to my belief in the legitmacy of the Gospels, the entire new testiment and the prophesies related in the old testiment. Also, Lee Strobel's A Case for Christ, as has been mentioned before, is a great novel reflecting the legitmacy that Christ lived, and not only did he live, but that he Died and rose from the dead.

[Green Lady]

thank you.

I also believe that Christ exists. He is a historical figure just like all the others mentioned in our history books. Whether or not he is the perfect being/Son of God that most believe he is, is all up to you I think.

[ShoutGrace]

Yes I do believe Christ Exist and this goes back to my belief in the legitmacy of the Gospels, the entire new testiment and the prophesies related in the old testiment. Also, Lee Strobel's A Case for Christ, as has been mentioned before, is a great novel reflecting the legitmacy that Christ lived, and not only did he live, but that he Died and rose from the dead.

rufioag, I admire your honesty. It should be so simple to relate to others why we believe and why our reasons are legitimate. I would caution, however, that the book "The Case for Christ" is probably more useful for Christians who believe and want to know (why) more. In the book Strobel interviews mostly Christian apologists and believers, and lobs them softballs for them to blast out of the park. Don't get me wrong. I read the book and enjoyed it thoroughly, most likely in much the same manner you did. But for a skeptic or atheist I think that something of a different flavor should be recommended. I myself regularly read William Lane Craig's (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html) debates. He is perhaps the greatest and most prolific Christian apologist ever, and his arguments for both the historocity of the resurrection and the reliability of the canonical New Testament documents are top notch. (Note - WLC is also in the book . . . What I'm trying to say here is that maybe people need something more, objective? But then again there is no such thing when it comes to these matters . . . Anyway, just my two cents. No offense intended!)


Since when does the Church make surprising judgements? They're about as conservative as it gets.

I would like to avoid putting words in your mouth here, if at all possible. I would however like to mention the fact that the word "conservative" is not an evil or bad one. Conciously choosing to remain steadfast to God's ideals and strict moral standards is, in my eyes, as honorable a desire as could be. Systematically moving away from that, becoming more "liberal" and "enlightened" is socially and culturally hazardous. Infanticide, teenage pregnancies (safe sex, right? Why not have it if there isn't a penalty?) etc. The Catholic Church, which I myself have had many disagreements with in the past, at least defends what is true and right. And they get blasted for it.


Take the canon of the Bible, for instance. The books that were added to the Bible were added, and the rest (such as the Gospel of Thomas) were thrown out. Why is this? The Church decided what was biblical truth or not by censoring the Scriptures this way.

Lets clarify this for a moment. These gospels were never "thrown out". They were never even considered. Is this some vast right wing conspiracy? Or were there scholarly reasons? The unused gospels differ radically from the canonical gospels. Consider this: There are 10 biographies of George Washington available. 4 of them all reflect each other and remain textually true to all surviving oral tradition, social knowledge, and early church writings (yes, including those of Saint Paul). The other 6 not only differ fundamentally from the first 4, but also clash drastically with each other. Which would you most likely use in a Bible?

Please keep in mind that I believe that here we are neglecting the most important aspect of the canonical Bible - the work of God and his Holy Spirit in the processes. This is something that a non - believer cannot account for and makes it harder to specify things.

Some of the excluded gospels are simply ridiculous. One relates the knowledge that Jesus didn't ever have to poop because he had a divine intestinal tract which absorbed everything he ate. Some things any person can see are not legitimate works of history or literature, let alone God-inspired revelation.


Okay, my mention of the Gospel of Judas was not intended to get anyone off subject, let's rewind so this thread doesn't get closed.
See what you started! Ha ha. I'm kidding, please.


I also believe that Christ exists. He is a historical figure just like all the others mentioned in our history books. Whether or not he is the perfect being/Son of God that most believe he is, is all up to you I think.

This following my ending in my "Jesus' claims to Divinity" post. It think it works in this vein.


Jesus summarily equated himself with God. He said he came for his lost sheep (John chp. 10), and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mat. 20:28).

We can either agree or disagree with him. But I think it can be and has been (in other places by smarter and more proficient people than I) shown that Jesus himself knew himself to be the Son of God, equal to God, and the answer and hope for every person. What we do with his assertion is a separate issue.

Disbelieving that Jesus even existed takes us to the brink of credulity. What is so amazing is that we can't really prove he did exist. How can we prove that Casear Augustus existed? Or Alexander the Great? Or Joan of Arc? Unless we have their DNA samples, pictures, fingerprints, and have them on video, it can't be proven. But I respectfully contend that it can be logically and rationaly believed.

One quote I've read (from a believer, no doubt) mentioned something to the effect of "History is incomprehensible without Jesus and his resurrection."

[holdencaulfield]

i do not know for sure whether he was born,existed or died.i only know that it makes a lot of difference in peoples' lives to think that he is True.
when we think of Jesus we do not think of an actual person.we think of the essence of Him.Jesus is platonic in this sense.

[ShoutGrace]

i do not know for sure whether he was born,existed or died.i only know that it makes a lot of difference in peoples' lives to think that he is True.
when we think of Jesus we do not think of an actual person.we think of the essence of Him.Jesus is platonic in this sense.

Depending on who "we" is, I'm afraid I will have to strongly disagree here. Every Christian believes in the 100 percent human Jesus, who literally walked the earth and talked to real people. They also believe in his bodily resurrection.

Christians (and, I think, most anybody who believes anything about Jesus) believe that Jesus was a real person who lived and died in Judea, 1st century A.D. (Anto Domini, the Year of Our Lord, incidentally).

For me, and every other person who has faith in the risen Christ, Jesus isn't in any way platonic. He is a very real entity who I trust and put my faith in every day.

[Green Lady]

Disbelieving that Jesus even existed takes us to the brink of credulity. What is so amazing is that we can't really prove he did exist. How can we prove that Casear Augustus existed? Or Alexander the Great? Or Joan of Arc? Unless we have their DNA samples, pictures, fingerprints, and have them on video, it can't be proven. But I respectfully contend that it can be logically and rationaly believed.



Those who write history, write the future...

I think that can refer to even things that have been recently documented. Some things are hard to believe unless we witnessed it ourselves, and even then it is sometimes questioned. Historians can lie, politicians can lie, scientists can lie, everyone can lie and if they are believable enough their lies become truth.