Jesus Christ. Man or myth?

[All Else Failed]

How about 99%?

Would you give that?

nope.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

nope.

Would you consider 75%? Ok....make it 65%?

Fair offer. :nod:

 

[pladecalvo]

I wouldn't even give you 1%.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm a little late to this conversation, but I feel pretty confident that Jesus existed. When you read history, how do you prove anyone existed, other than by the writings of man and historical documentation? I'd say the historical documentation supports his existence.

However was he the son of God?... that's a matter of faith.

 

[pladecalvo]

I'm a little late to this conversation, but I feel pretty confident that Jesus existed. When you read history, how do you prove anyone existed, other than by the writings of man and historical documentation?

...but outside of religion there is no "historical documentation."

I'd say the historical documentation supports his existence.

What documentation would that be?

 

[Minor Axis]

...What documentation would that be?

The Bible is a compilation of documents written over a range of time (hundreds of years) and Christianity is based on Jesus so I have no problem with accepting he existed. I don't know if he was the son of God any more than any of us. How do we know he existed any more than Moses, or Ramses, or any of them but on what we read. And as you should know, the winners write history so can you trust any of it?

 

[Josef]

I'm sorry I haven't read this whole topic, but it is 9 pages!

I'm working my way through a 900 page abridged version of Gibbon's Decline and Fall

I'm just getting through the chapters on Christianity and Gibbons seems quite clear that Jesus was a real historical figure. Gibbon's is no raving Christian either, he is very critical of the early church and many of the myths of martyrdom and persecution. In fact many critics of his over the centuries have claimed he is anti-Christian, yet he never calls into question the existence of Christ.

From this I would probably argue Christ did exist. Was he the son of God? don't be daft. Just a Jewish trouble maker who managed to get up the noses of the Romans and the established Jewish rulers.

 

[Minor Axis]

I have no idea what happened to Pladecalvo. The author of this tread and local Anti-Christ vigilante has been absent for several weeks now I think.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I have no idea what happened to Pladecalvo. The author of this tread and local Anti-Christ vigilante has been absent for several weeks now I think.

Probably he got someone angry. :unsure:

 

[Hans]

Stop making so many damn threads. Jesus Christ is a myth. It's a fact. There is no evidence that states his existance.

I havent read anymore but I can already prove youre ignorant.

Jesus Christ himsel IS a factual figure that is almost *IMPOSSIBLE* to prove he did not exist. He was put on trial by Ponchus Pilot, and he was killed. Read up on Roman history. The thing that you CAN question is Jesus' teachings, such as his miracles or religious teachings.

 

[Butler]

I don't think Jesus was a miracle working son of God, but I think he existed and became the head of Christianity. I also think he was a pretty good guy to be around who believed in his religion, rather than just spreading lies to trick people. Why would he do that? Honestly...

 

[Mystic]

I don't think Jesus was a miracle working son of God, but I think he existed and became the head of Christianity. I also think he was a pretty good guy to be around who believed in his religion, rather than just spreading lies to trick people. Why would he do that? Honestly...

:nod: Yes I have to agree with that.... I think he was JUST a man like the many Popes and Priests we have today.... but as for the miracles and what have yous... card tricks to make him seem more than a man. Reminds me of a Family Guy episode where Jesus does hand tricks.

 

[valley]

...but outside of religion there is no "historical documentation."



What documentation would that be?

I cant believe no one has listed the historical accounts of Jesus Christ. :eek (edit..sorry, I see that Grace did earlier in the thread )

Secular historians from the time confirm NT history. There arent many of course since many did not believe in Who He claimed to be..if historians thought He was a crackpot, then why write about Him? Luckily, there are documents in which He is referred to, since He caused such a political and religious uproar during His 3 year ministry.

Tacitus (1st century roman historian). This guy is trusted as one of the most reliable Roman historians of the time! Here is what he said:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

Josephus (Jewish Historian of the time) told of Christ and how Pilate put him to death in his book of Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3:3.

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed wonderful works, and a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist, for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."

Josephus also makes references to James, the brother of Jesus (calling him the brother of Jesus, which verifies the Bible account) He also confirmed the existence of John the Baptist and how he was beheaded. He also talked about how John was baptizing people.

Suetonius, referred to the cause of the explusion of the Jews from Rome as, "constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus" Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ.

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61 or 62 - c. 113) wrote in a letter written to Emperor Trajan:

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed. . . . I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished. . . . They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, . . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths. Letters 10.96 as quoted in Jesus Under Fire p.217"

and

"...Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

Jesus Christ was real and He was crucified. It is absurd to try and spin it any other way. :nod:

 

[sharpies]

I don't think Jesus was a miracle working son of God, but I think he existed and became the head of Christianity. I also think he was a pretty good guy to be around who believed in his religion, rather than just spreading lies to trick people. Why would he do that? Honestly...

Oh sorry, I guess that you are right, then. After all there has never been any people throughout history who have done everything they can to make people believe that they are carrying Gods message. Geez, I wonder why someone would do that?

JC did everything he could to convince people that he was the Messiah & frankly it was probably a very easy thing to do. The Jews had been waiting for a king for ages, they were even told how he would arrive. Do you think it was a coincidence that he rode a donkey into Jerusalem? He was a Jew, he knew all the stories about the Messiah & he made sure that he was the one the uneducated, superstitious rabble was waiting for.

The real question is why are the educated people of today still waiting for him?

Allan

 

[valley]

JC did everything he could to convince people that he was the Messiah & frankly it was probably a very easy thing to do.

yeah..its pretty easy to cure blindness, paralysis, leprosy, deafness and to raise people up from the dead (after they've been dead for 3 days). Just about anyone can do it!

 

[sharpies]

People are doing this in the Phillipines today. Haven't you seen the videos about Faith Healers that perform operations withouy cutting open the patient. They cure & heal in the same way! Oooh it's a miracle!

Allan

 

[valley]

People are doing this in the Phillipines today. Haven't you seen the videos about Faith Healers that perform operations withouy cutting open the patient. They cure & heal in the same way! Oooh it's a miracle!

Allan

show me a faith healer who has cured a person from deafness or blindness since birth. Better yet, give me a link to a video that shows a faith healer who can bring a dead person back to life days after they are dead. Modern day faith healers do not inspire a lot of confidence in people because they are usually proven to be frauds. They will come and go throughout time and no one will be inspired to remember them, certainly not 2,000 after the fact. No, I think Jesus Christ did a wee bit more than perform an operation or two without cutting a person open.

 

[Andre]

yeah..its pretty easy to cure blindness, paralysis, leprosy, deafness and to raise people up from the dead (after they've been dead for 3 days). Just about anyone can do it!

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." - John 14:12-13 (NIV)

"I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete." - John 16:23-24 (NIV)

show me a faith healer who has cured a person from deafness or blindness since birth. Better yet, give me a link to a video that shows a faith healer who can bring a dead person back to life days after they are dead.

I assume you are implying it is not common? Why is this? (when according to the purported words of Jesus in the gospel of John such acts should be "easy").

 

[pladecalvo]

I have no idea what happened to Pladecalvo. The author of this tread and local Anti-Christ vigilante has been absent for several weeks now I think.

BOO! I'm back!

Secular historians from the time confirm NT history. There arent many of course since many did not believe in Who He claimed to be..if historians thought He was a crackpot, then why write about Him?

If the claim that he raised people from the dead, walked on water etc are true......why wouldn't they write about him?

Luckily, there are documents in which He is referred to, since He caused such a political and religious uproar during His 3 year ministry.

Tacitus (1st century roman historian). This guy is trusted as one of the most reliable Roman historians of the time! Here is what he said:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This passage has several problems and is likely yet another early Christian forgery to support the man-god. Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. Tacitus was a Roman historian and would never have given Pilate the wrong official title. It would be akin to a modern day historian referring to Bush as Secretary of State....just wouldn't happen!
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.) The passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work. This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. It's not evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about the man-gods.

Josephus (Jewish Historian of the time) told of Christ and how Pilate put him to death in his book of Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3:3.

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed wonderful works, and a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist, for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."

Sorry valley but the passage in Antiquities has been proven a fake by so many scholars, theological and secular alike, that it really isn't worth spending too much time on it. The passage you quoted is called the Testimonium Flavianus (T.F) It is known to be forgery for many reasons, but mainly because it uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus who wouldn't have called anyone "messiah". The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages. The T.F was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus....and most damning of all .....it didn't appear in copies of Antiquities until 300 years after Josephus had died......around about the time that the celebrated Christian forger, Eusebius got his grubby little hands on them. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Suetonius, referred to the cause of the explusion of the Jews from Rome as, "constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus" Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ.

Ding! Wrong again!! Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but "Chrestus" does not mean 'Christ'. It's a greek word meaning "useful" and also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos" This "Chrestus" that Seutonius mentioned was apparently active in Rome, which your Jesus never was. The passage you have given is not evidence for your Jesus, it's actually nothing to do with Jesus.......but it is evidence for the way that Christianity will clutch at any straw to manufacture evidence of their man-god.

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61 or 62 - c. 113) wrote in a letter written to Emperor Trajan:

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed. . . . I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished. . . . They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, . . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths. Letters 10.96 as quoted in Jesus Under Fire p.217"

and

"...Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

Pliney wrote this in about 110 CE and it refers to nothing more than Christians who believed in someone they called Christ. It's not evidence for Jesus..... just evidence of the existence of a group of people in the 2nd century that called themselves Christians and followed someone whom they called Christ.


What you have provided friend are a collection of forgeries, wishful thinking and second-hand accounts written up to a hundred years after the events. Nothing contemporaneous with the life of the alleged Jesus Christ. Now, if you'd like, I could give you a list of about 40 historians who WERE contemporaries of the alleged man-god, some of whom even lived and wrote in the areas where Jesus was alleged to have lived, preached and performed miracles the like of which would have astonished anyone in the area, but guess what....not one of them mentions anything about a man who could walk on water or raise people from the dead or cure blindness. Don't know if you've ever heard of a Jewish historian called Justus of Tiberias, a Jew and a contemporary of Jesus, who lived near Capernaum where Jesus was said to have lived? Anyway, he wrote a history of the Jews beginning with Moses and extending into his own times, but never mentioned Jesus. Strange eh.....that he should have overlooked such an important person as Jesus Christ?? :nod:

Jesus Christ was real and He was crucified. It is absurd to try and spin it any other way.

You'll have a hard job showing evidence for it mate!

yeah..its pretty easy to cure blindness, paralysis, leprosy, deafness and to raise people up from the dead (after they've been dead for 3 days). Just about anyone can do it!

.....but first you have to show evidence that he DID. Sorry no! You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true.

 

[valley]

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." - John 14:12-13 (NIV)

"I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete." - John 16:23-24 (NIV)

Are you trying to imply that should one of my loved ones ever die, that all I have to do is pray in Jesus' name and they will come back to life again? Do you truly believe that thats possible?

I assume you are implying it is not common?

Uncommon? It is impossible for any human being to bring someone back to life after they have been dead for 3 days. The only time that this was possible was when the apostles did it after the Transfiguration, when they were spreading the gospel. Incredible miracles, done at their will, on a regular basis, proved that they were of God.

Why is this? (when according to the purported words of Jesus in the gospel of John such acts should be "easy").

Since "faith healers" cannot bring the dead back to life...I would have to say that Jesus's words were referring to the great harvesting of souls that would be done in His name after He went to be with the Father and sent the Holy Spirit back to dwell in those who believe in Him. During Christ's ministry, thousands of souls were saved. After He ascended, millions of souls have been saved. That certainly would be a greater spiritual thing than what had already been accomplished up until then, dont you think?

Now let me ask you..do you personally believe in faith healers or are you just yanking my chain and trying to get me to jump through hoops? If you dont believe, then its pointless to try and convince you not to believe in them...for obvious reasons, duh. But if you honestly do then that would be different.

Also, will you tell me what it is that you believe about God? Are you a Christian? I only ask because I have been led around my the nose a few times by Atheists, who pretend to be friendly...asking supposedly "honest" question after question, only to find out later that their interest was little more than a veneer and behind that veneer, was a person who held a strong dislike for Christianity. I am happy to have these kinds of discussions with anyone as long as I know where you stand in your beliefs about Jesus Christ.