Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Cyb

Jesus' Existence

Recommended Posts

I was reading an article about that Mel Gibson movie (he's directing it, and I think he produced it too) 'The Passion of Christ' and how lots of Jewish scholars and high-ups are protesting it because it depicts the Jews as 'evil' and puts the blame on them for the crucifixion of Christ. I found that to be pretty funny since that's the 'truth' as stated in the bible and it seems pretty funny that someone would protest something that's told exactly as documented. Honestly I can't say I blame them because to me Jesus is the same as (for instance) L. Ron Hubbard, and I can't say I'd object too much to his crucifixion (even though I think he's dead...), but I'm getting off on a tangent here.

Anyways, I was discussing this with some people on IRC and I maintained that the bible was probably pretty inaccurate in its depiction of well, everything (the main focus of the new testament is the life of Christ, or at least the last three or so years of it), and then arioch pointed out to me that there's little conclusive evidence that Jesus actually did exist at all, which honestly had never crossed my mind before (unlike my beliefs, or lack there of, about god). So I did a bit of Googleing and found this (lengthy) article: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

It's a really long read, but I found a lot of it to be pretty fascinating, and apparently there are absolutly no first hand records of the life of Christ, with the only recordings of such things being in the bible which were written down 70 or more years after his (now alleged) death. There are no records of him written by any historian or scholar of the time, no artifacts left by him, nothing written by him, no record of his execution in Roman records (though there are records of the execution of other 'would-be messiahs'), not a single trace oh his life except what's written in the bible.

The article also has a great comparison of Jesus to Hercules, which may sound ludicrous to you, but it's actually got quite a lot of insight to it. Anyways, I recommend you at least skim parts of it (anything that catches your eye), though if you're really set in your beliefs or don't want your entire faith/religion to be shattered you might want to just ignore it or something. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post

It's been kind of the opposite for me, when I renounced Christianity 10 years ago or whatever, I was working off the assumption that that meant there was never a JC at all. I was actually a bit surprised when I heard there was evidence there WAS one :P And at this point I'm pretty confident there was, most historians seem to think so, and I believe (although don't quote me on this) the Romans documented their execution of him. Although of course that's not to say he's exactly like what the Bible wants you to think he was :P

edit: oh, there was no roman record of it? interesting..

Bloodshedder said:

Isn't there a sheet of cloth with an impression of his face on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Although you of all people should know that's hardly proof of his existence, it's just what some people claim it to be.

Share this post


Link to post

[sarcasm]

THE BIBLE is proof of his existence....DUH...You guys are just searching too far and wide it seems....heh

[/sarcasm]

it's sad, the tags are necessary

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, and what a surprise. The Shroud only dates back to the 14th century :P I don't care what other factors people claim may have affected it, I seriously doubt radiocarbon dating coming from three sources would have said something that is around 2000 years old is less than 700 years old.

Share this post


Link to post

At those readings, I think that goes beyond being scientifically debated anymore. It's just a religion/faith vs. science/logic debate.

Share this post


Link to post

You obviously haven't been to http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ if you think it's such a book of love. It's easily the most evil book I've ever seen.

one example:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

There's many other examples of "God" hating people, Moses murdering people and burying them in the sand, and just all around death death death. I can't imagine a book of Satan being much worse.

Share this post


Link to post

I love the smell of one-sided conversations in the morning. Or night. Or whenever.

Anyone can take a bunch of quotes out of context, rabbit. It's about the overall feel.

There's no hardcore proof that Jesus existed, but there's a lot of, uh . . . non-harcore. :P There's multiple extra-Biblical sources from around 100 that mention followers of Christ; Josephus Flavius comes to mind immediately, and I believe Tacitus as well. All in all, there's about 20, maybe 30 extra Biblical sources. Combined with the fact that the reward Christians got was death (all eleven of the Twelve were killed), I have no doubt that at the very least, Jesus was a man. Also given that all the Twelve, whom were average joes that ran away when he was arrested, no less, went to their graves saying he resurrected, I have no doubt he resurrected. But that's moot. Also, the general timeline as I understand it is Mark-50-60ish, Luke and Matt 60-70ish, John 80-100.

The other side of the arguement. Given all the other factors, I must conclude that the Shroud of Turin is genuine. And my team won that debate. :)

Share this post


Link to post

that link is absurd

The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532.


That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. To add on over 1500 years to the carbon dating would require enough carbon to double the weight of the cloth, and the fibers were thoroughly cleaned before they were dated.

Also in reference to your gospel dates, the oldest known writings of christianity are the epistles of Paul which are thought to be written some time around 60 CE (or 60 AD) and nowhere in them is there any mention of a meeting or conversation or even a sighting of Jesus. The entire point is that all written records of him were written down much, much later and none of them are first hand.

Share this post


Link to post

Did you read the whole thing?

So some guy just made up Jesus huh? Yeah, makes sense, with all the prestige Christians back then. Mark, Matthew, and John are all first-hand accounts, and only John was written SIGNIFICANTLY later.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not a war, though it takes a lot of will on my part to keep from being that way. Just like every other thread in this place . . .

Share this post


Link to post
BBG said:

It's amazering that we went from the Bible to the Internet in such a short time...


Ya...but I'm undecided over which one is is worse.
* flips a coin

Share this post


Link to post

Mark is the oldest gospel which was written around 70CE, so if he had been 20 when Christ died in 30 CE that would have made him 50 when he wrote it down. People rarely lived past 30 in those times since there was no medicine or sanitation of any kind. And if he did live that long why did he wait 40 years to write it down?

And why is it so hard to believe he was made up? Do you believe that the ancient Roman and Greek gods actually existed? Certainly you believe they were all made up by the ancient Romans and Greeks, so how does this differ? (personal attachment of course, and first hand experience)

Share this post


Link to post

the new testament doesn't portray god at all, at least not in the sense of the old testamant. it's mainly about the life of christ (or his death and rebirth as it were) but christ does preach about a much different, more forgiving god than is in the ot

Share this post


Link to post

Eh...to me, the Bible is to Christianity as Edith Hamilton's Mythology is to the Greek religions. It tells you what all their ancestral stories are and about all the principle characters, but doesnt really give you any of the facts behind it.

I'm half-asleep so I may be rambling.

Share this post


Link to post

the new testament is still insanely evil, although a bit less so, for example this tidbit about what jesus would do to an adulterous woman:

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Revelation 2:23

Share this post


Link to post

"I will kill her children with death"

Hahaha. Just when I thought I knew all the funny passages in the Bible. That sounds like something out of Hyena's comic.

Share this post


Link to post

Another religious debate thread. Where's all the atheists and agnostics, waiting to pop out and share their universal dislike of any dominant montheistic or polytheistic religions?

Share this post


Link to post

The best part is, is that the religious folk go and say "carbon dating isn't accurate/is total BS" when they are referring to fossils. Yet, they try and "prove" the shroud with carbon dating. Yeah

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone knows Darwain invented carbon dating to make us think the Earth is round instead of flat.

Share this post


Link to post

Warning: if you are offended by the notion that the bible is anything but %100 truth, then I suggest you skip the next paragraph:

Few can really debate that Jesus existed, but there are a couple of things historians doubt about the bibles story:

  • He probably wasn't born in Bethlehem
  • There is no proof that he preformed miracles (but that's a bit hard to disprove)
  • Quite a few doubts about the 'virgin' Mary. 'Miracle' births where common in those day ("don't be silly, there aren’t any men around, well except that holy man, but he'd never that advantage of a women like that. so it was obversely a miracle!" why do you think they switch to boys?) Remember, this is a time when adultery was punishable buy death.


Still, there are worst biblical role models then Jesus (even if people do twist his words to suit their own bigoted ends).

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to double post, but I have a transcript from CNNNN, that I think has some relevance here:

Now, CNNNN is a satire show that often ambush people with their thoughts on issues. This even was over the controversy about appoint gay bishops, now Peter Jensen is a very strong opponent, arguing that the bible says homosexuality is very wrong, so CNNNN decided approach him on the street:

CNNNN Reporter: Hello Dr Jensen.

Peter Jensen: How nice to see you.

Reporter: I just wanted to congratulate you on returning the church to the bible, and the text of the bible.

Peter Jensen: That’s very kind of you.

Reporter: I was just wondering, Dr Jensen, do you agree with Exodus 35, that we should put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

Peter Jensen: Thank you. I always believe that the bible is the truth and the word of God -

Reporter: So we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath?

Peter Jensen: Well, no, because you have to read the whole bible, and when you read the whole bible, you see that that’s not true.

Reporter: Where’s the part in the bible that it says Exodus is not right?

Peter Jensen: Can I say as well that you’ve obviously cleaned your teeth. You don’t have -

Reporter: You’re not ignoring the question here, are you Dr Jensen?

Peter Jensen: What question?

Reporter: About putting people to death for not working on the Sabbath. Where in the Bible does it say -

Peter Jensen: We don’t do that any more.

Reporter: You’re wearing glasses, Dr Jensen. Doesn’t it say in Leviticus 21: 20 that those who have defective sight cannot take the communion of God?

Peter Jensen: Now, you know -

Reporter: - nor dwarfs, nor hunchbacks I think.

Peter Jensen: You’ve got the advantage of me. Shall we look it up?

Reporter: Shall we look it up? More than welcome to look it up, yes. Here it is: Leviticus.

Peter Jensen: You’re so good-looking.

Reporter: You don’t want to say that, because a man shouldn’t lie with a man like he would a woman, otherwise he’s an abomination – that’s Leviticus 18, isn’t it.

Peter Jensen: I don’t know. You’re obviously well-educated.

Reporter: I’m seeking more education, Dr Jensen, as to why is it that Leviticus 18 is still relevant whereas Leviticus 21 and 22 and all these others aren’t relevant? Can you put out a new bible with the true bits highlighted? It’s very confusing, sir, I’m just so confused.

Peter Jensen: I’m very impressed.

Reporter: Which bits do we follow?

Peter Jensen: I do congratulate you.

Reporter: He tried to pick you up, I think, Craig.

Reporter: Yes, lucky I had Leviticus to protect me.

Look them up for yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×