Was Jesus a real person?

[3RA1N1AC]

if aliens wanted to kill a few thousand peeps, they prolly wouldnt have to explode a mountain to do it, they would just infect our frontal lobes with quark klagg moss and wait for us to eat ourselves

 

[Denny Crane]

if aliens wanted to kill a few thousand peeps, they prolly wouldnt have to explode a mountain to do it, they would just infect our frontal lobes with quark klagg moss and wait for us to eat ourselves

Maris wears a tin foil hat. He wouldn't be affected.

Actually, a good way to wipe out huge parts of a planet from space is to send something moderately heavy at high speed at their desired target. Something at 20,000 mph hitting the ocean would cause huge tsunamis.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

or a death star

 

[TripTango]

if aliens wanted to kill a few thousand peeps, they prolly wouldnt have to explode a mountain to do it, they would just infect our frontal lobes with quark klagg moss and wait for us to eat ourselves

You're assuming that these aliens prioritize efficiency. In fact, they happen to place a lot of weight on dramatic effect. And splosions.

 

[Fogojam]

If I write a story about the destruction of Pompeii in which I describe Mt. Vesuvius as an alien weapon of mass destruction, would you take it as fact? After all, we have evidence that thousands and thousands were killed there -- is this sufficient proof for alien warfare?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

You're assuming that these aliens prioritize efficiency. In fact, they happen to place a lot of weight on dramatic effect. And splosions.

i heard they really love to snarffle the garflak

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

The answer is no, Jesus was not a real person. Jesus is only a mythical person. Perhaps a person claimed to be the real life Jesus, and a lot of people believed him, but this person would have been a liar or insane.

 

[ABM]

The answer is no, Jesus was not a real person. Jesus is only a mythical person. Perhaps a person claimed to be the real life Jesus, and a lot of people believed him, but this person would have been a liar or insane.

And your proof is based upon.........?

 

[magnifier661]

The answer is no, Jesus was not a real person. Jesus is only a mythical person. Perhaps a person claimed to be the real life Jesus, and a lot of people believed him, but this person would have been a liar or insane.

Wrong!!! It maybe argued he is the son of God, but historically he did exist and he was crucified.

 

[crowTrobot]

Wrong!!! It maybe argued he is the son of God, but historically he did exist and he was crucified.

Based on what we know about anthropology odds are NT stories are based in some way on a real historical figure, but it can certainly be intellectually argued that they aren't. There is nothing remotely close to proof either way. you could make an intellectual argument socrates didn't exist for the same reason, and many historians do.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The answer is no, Jesus was not a real person. Jesus is only a mythical person. Perhaps a person claimed to be the real life Jesus, and a lot of people believed him, but this person would have been a liar or insane.

Three questions: Who made Him up? Why did they do it? How did they convince so many people He lived, let alone is the Son of God?

There are more books written about Jesus than anyone in the history of the world. The Western world changed the way we count years because of Him (BC-AD). Countless lives have been changed because of Him (including my own). Over 3/4 of the world today believes He was God or a prophet of God.

No credible historian today in the world denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth...

[video=youtube;9KCEMyApdDg]

 

[ABM]

Based on what we know about anthropology odds are NT stories are based in some way on a real historical figure, but it can certainly be intellectually argued that they aren't. There is nothing remotely close to proof either way. you could make an intellectual argument socrates didn't exist for the same reason, and many historians do.

That's where faith comes in.

 

[Sinobas]

To me, it boils down to whether or not you believe in the God of the Holy Bible. If you do, then the Bible has all the answers you need to know about Jesus: His foretelling; His birth; His life on Earth; His plan of Salvation; His death; His resurrection; His ascension into Heaven; and His plan of return and ultimate glory.

Yes, that's true, because we don't really have any historical evidence of Jesus. History is silent on all the big events that supposedly happened in his life.

Dozens of books were written on him many years after his supposed death. The "gospels" were not canonized till hundreds of years after the fact.

 

[Sinobas]

Three questions: Who made Him up? Why did they do it? How did they convince so many people He lived, let alone is the Son of God?

Over a billion people believe Muhammad ascended into heaven, do you? Why do so many people believe it? Why would Muhammad have made up the Quran?

No credible historian today in the world denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth...

I see this line pandered about often. But it's not true, many historians have pointed out the lack of evidence for Jesus. It's true that some are hesitant to say he didn't exist, but I'd venture to say they are ones who haven't really analyzed the evidence throughly, or have cultural bias.

 

[magnifier661]

Over a billion people believe Muhammad ascended into heaven, do you? Why do so many people believe it? Why would Muhammad have made up the Quran?



I see this line pandered about often. But it's not true, many historians have pointed out the lack of evidence for Jesus. It's true that some are hesitant to say he didn't exist, but I'd venture to say they are ones who haven't really analyzed the evidence throughly, or have cultural bias.

Do you know that Mohammad was supposed to be a prophet? Did you also know that the Muslims believe in Jesus Christ (They think he is a prophet like Mohammad) and our Hebrew God? We share the same belief of the same God. The gray area in between is just different.

Also, the Muslims were a faith that was established after the Christian Faith. So it's much easier to convince thousands or even millions of people, when an already established religion is in place.

Just sayin'

 

[magnifier661]

Here is some historical and Archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ

The scarcity of archaeological artifacts can be contrasted, however, with the wealth of historical evidence for Christ. Soon the apostles had written letters detailing Christ's life and teachings, to be followed by the writings of Paul all widely copied and circulated, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name.

The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."

Just an FYI... I can understand the ones that don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but there are documentation by Roman's that explain his crucifixion and some physical evidence that there was a Jesus.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Over a billion people believe Muhammad ascended into heaven, do you? Why do so many people believe it? Why would Muhammad have made up the Quran?

Wrong, Muhammad was said to have died as a man then was escorted to heaven by the angel Gabriel in spirit after his death, an event unseen. It was Jesus who was said to have bodily ascended into heaven before His crucifixion because He begged Allah not to die on the cross, where a "look-alike" took His place and fooled people into thinking it was Jesus (which ironically opens another huge can of questions). Which no one saw but the Qur'an claims to have happened. I own two Qur'ans. I have no doubt the Qur'an is an inspired text, who or what it was inspired by is a different story. The Qur'an contradicts the Bible in numerous places and has major differences in doctrine. Reading the Qur'an it seems obvious it was meant to skew the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I see this line pandered about often. But it's not true, many historians have pointed out the lack of evidence for Jesus. It's true that some are hesitant to say he didn't exist, but I'd venture to say they are ones who haven't really analyzed the evidence throughly, or have cultural bias.

Can you name them or provide any evidence of this? I provided a link where even non-believers said it's "ignorance" to claim that Jesus never existed.

The "gospels" were not canonized till hundreds of years after the fact.

This is not true. All the Gospels were completed by around AD 90, roughly 60 yeas after Jesus' death. There is a possibility it might even be earlier than that. There are more than 6,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the New Testament that have been discovered, by far the most of any document in ancient history. (The next closest I believe is about a dozen)

 

[crowTrobot]

Here is some historical and Archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ

josephus made only 2 references to a jesus, not several, and i assume you are aware of the controversy surrounding them. if not you should research it.

also there is now a consensus among experts that the ossuary enscription is a forgery and the owner is on trail for fraud involving charges relating to this and many other supposed biblical relics that are now known to be faked. the ossuary doesn't really help your case : )

Just an FYI... I can understand the ones that don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but there are documentation by Roman's that explain his crucifixion and some physical evidence that there was a Jesus.

there is documentation by romans that there were christians. there is no roman documentation for jesus.

there is no physical evidence for jesus.

i can understand if you want to make some kind of cultural/anthropological argument that it's more likely than not that the man jesus existed, but nothing anyone objective would call proof exists.

 

[crowTrobot]

This is not true. All the Gospels were completed by around AD 90

he said cannonized, not written. they were not singled out from among all the other similar writings for inclusion in the bible until hundreds of years later.

 

[magnifier661]

josephus made only 2 references to a jesus, not several, and i assume you are aware of the controversy surrounding them. if not you should research it.

also there is now a consensus among experts that the ossuary enscription is a forgery and the owner is on trail for fraud involving charges relating to this and many other supposed biblical relics that are now known to be faked. the ossuary doesn't really help your case : )



there is documentation by romans that there were christians. there is no roman documentation for jesus.

there is no physical evidence for jesus.

i can understand if you want to make some kind of cultural/anthropological argument that it's more likely than not that the man jesus existed, but nothing anyone objective would call proof exists.

Actually no...

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

There was "Roman documentation" of a historical "Christ" that was ordered by Pilate to be executed.

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Another historian concluding there was a crucifixion of Christ.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Another person of the time with documentation

And just so you know,

It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

As you see, you ask us to have an open mind, yet you won't have one yourself. Like I've said before. The argument that Jesus is not the Son of God can be argued. There should be no argument Jesus did not exist.

 

[crowTrobot]

Actually no...



There was "Roman documentation" of a historical "Christ" that was ordered by Pilate to be executed.

Another historian concluding there was a crucifixion of Christ.


Another person of the time with documentation

And just so you know,



As you see, you ask us to have an open mind, yet you won't have one yourself. Like I've said before. The argument that Jesus is not the Son of God can be argued. There should be no argument Jesus did not exist.

none of that qualifies as historical documention of jesus. at best, when there's even a chance of being legitimate, it only documents followers of jesus.

nice if overly brief summary -
http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id13.html

 

[magnifier661]

he said cannonized, not written. they were not singled out from among all the other similar writings for inclusion in the bible until hundreds of years later.

According to carbon dating and textual analysis, the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD. The Nash Papyrus from Egypt, containing a copy of the Ten Commandments, is the only other Hebrew document of comparable antiquity. Similar written materials have been recovered from nearby sites, including the fortress of Masada.

The fragments span at least 800 texts, that represent many diverse viewpoints ranging from the beliefs of the Essenes to those of other sects. About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except Book of Esther. About 25% are traditional Jewish religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of Enoch and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts related to the beliefs, regulations, and membership requirements of some Jewish sect, which is believed to have lived in the Qumran area. The rest (about 15%) of the fragments are yet unidentified. Most of them are written in Hebrew, but also some written in Aramaic, and a few in Greek.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/dead_sea_scrolls.htm

This was actual "carbon dating" of the "dead Sea Scrolls"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Important texts include the Isaiah (discovered in 1947), a Commentary on the Habakkuk (1947), the so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold and weapons, and the earliest version of the Damascus Document.

Carbon-14 relates to Christianity and Judaism in four ways. First, we have New Testament manuscripts dated from <70 A.D. (Cave 7 of the Dead See Scrolls), 117-138 A.D. (John Ryland’s Papyrii), 100-150 A.D. (the three Chester Beatty Papyrii), and 125-175 A.D. (the three Bodmer II Papyrii), to authenticate the reliable transmission of the New Testament. For the Old Testament we have 200 different Dead Sea Bible manuscripts) (Exodus 250 B.C, Isaiah 100 B.C.), all others before 70 A.D., as one means to show the reliable transmission of the Old Testament from the time of Christ to the present. On the Dead Sea scrolls, it should be mentioned that even without carbon-14 dating, it is certain that all scrolls were written before the site was abandoned 70 A.D., when the Romans reconquered Palestine. More information on Dead Sea scroll dating can be found in the journal Radiocarbon vol.3 1993.

So if the "New Testament"; which explains "Jesus"; wouldn't this also be considered "documentation"?!?!

 

[magnifier661]

none of that qualifies as historical documention of jesus. at best, when there's even a chance of being legitimate, it only documents followers of jesus.

nice if overly brief summary -
http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id13.html

Thanks for the link... Here is something straight from it.

4th century.
Suetonius wrote:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome". Life of Claudius (XXv.4)

Who was Chrestus, since the term was not Latin for Christians? First, Suetonius spelt "Christians" correctly later in his book. 'Chrestus' is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name. Perhaps Chrestus was a Jewish fanatic whose instigations got them expelled from Rome at about 49CE.

And here is what I found:

qroqqa Chrestus and Christus are unrelated but were confused in Roman times as a name of Jesus. Chrêstus = "useful, worthy, good"; Christus = "anointed" = Meshiah. Dec 18, 2008

elisheba early latin version of Christus. this was also one of the names of the Egyptian god Serapis, and can also be translated as 'Messiah' Dec 18, 2008

 

[crowTrobot]

So if the "New Testament"; which explains "Jesus"; wouldn't this also be considered "documentation"?!?!

it documents that some of the NT was written in the 1st century, which nobody is disputing.

 

[crowTrobot]

Thanks for the link... Here is something straight from it.



And here is what I found:

even if accurate it just documents that there were christians in the first century, again which nobody is disputing.

 

[ABM]

even if accurate it just documents that there were christians in the first century, again which nobody is disputing.

As an aside, I have a question for you: Was your Dad, like, a hardcore fundamentalist who totally burned you out on Jesus?

Just curious.

 

[magnifier661]

it documents that some of the NT was written in the 1st century, which nobody is disputing.

I think what you might not take into consideration is the wild fire spread of "Christianity" that existed during the Roman times. The times before the Romans actually embraced "Christianity". And being the power they were; what would you think that juggernaut empire would do?

Wouldn't you think they would try and do everything in their power to destroy all Christian documentation, relics, writings of Christ ever existing? And do you honestly believe that this "wide spread" phenomenon would have thousands of people willing to die for their beliefs; if they didn't think this was true?

The Roman empire had an epidemic. The people of Rome were converting to a "Faith" that was against all the beliefs of Rome. It was poison that they had to get rid of. Why do you think they invaded Jerusalem and killed everyone it it, and burned everything to the ground? They wanted to be rid of Christianity once and for all.

 

[magnifier661]

And I find it amazing that "Christianity" survived without a King, Emperor or United Nation to back up the Faith. Wouldn't you think that there was some supernatural force, allowing for this "Faith" to survive the constant hunting, destroying of nations, assassinations, murders, and fear?

And don't bring up the Muslim faith. They had kings, countries and became one of the most powerful nations backing up their religion. Christianity had no one, but "The People whom believed" and had to worship "underground" for many centuries before it became an adopted Religion.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I think some posters are having trouble handling the concept of faith. As I posted earlier, at times I wish I had it, but my mind and belief system is unable to accept things based on faith alone. I certainly don't disparage those of you who have faith, though. It's not my duty to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe in, and I don't judge people who have faith. I tend to view atheists a bit more harshly, simply because they don't realize that they are exercising a faith of their own, and seem very quick to demean and belittle those who practice religious faith.

Don't ever go to reddit's /r/atheism then. You want to talk about a circlejerk of theist hate.

 

[BrianFromWA]

for those not of the Christian faith....what would it mean to you if there was "acceptable, non-controvertible" evidence that a man known as Jesus existed at the time the Bible says he did, saying the things he said? Something like a census report or letters or whatever? You'd still not believe he was the Divine Son of God Sent For Salvation of the World, right?

I mean, if you believe the books of Moses, God walked with them during the Exodus as a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of smoke during the day, and rained down food from Heaven for them, but most of them didn't believe that He was God and didn't believe He would do what He said he would. I'm always curious about people who want "proof" for faith--I understand the intention behind it, but I wonder if it really would change anything.