Was Jesus real?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
Hedshaker
New member
If only those scholars would get together and take a vote on it we might know for sure
Hedshaker
New member
Neither Tacitus, Lucian, Plini, Celsus nor Josephus were contemporaneous of the time in question, not to mention good evidence that Josephus' contribution is considered fraudulent. That video is nothing more than the usual apologetics that have been doing the rounds for centuries and do not clear up the doubt, as much as the video's author wishes it to be so.
jzeidler
New member
On this thread my desire is for people to think intellectually through this topic. Please take on the evidence he proposes and bring forth your counter argument. Please do not just ignore the argument, interact with it.
keypurr
Well-known member
jzeidler
New member
Quite likely that there was. But that has no bearing on the truth of Christianity or the historicity of the stories in the New Testament. Considering the times, there were likely dozens of teachers in Judea who were crucified.
Show us any history 2000 ago you can consider to be legitimate.
By the atheists' standard, it's none.
Mind you that paper was not yet invented 2000 years ago. Show us the scrolls at least for us to verify how accurate it's translated. :chuckle:
It remains the atheists' stupid game to fabricate a standard (under which no history can be deemed qualified) to deny Jesus.
As a Chinese, we have more than 5000 years of history. However, early books can hardly be verifiable. We give credit to these few books simply because they are the only books available which mention about events happened at that time. If we discredit the few books, we have none for us to access that part of history.
This is the nature of what history is. Set up a standard to qualify history is no more than lying to yourself with a self-deception. Just like any other human witnessing, history exists because an event and a figure is famous enough for certain human(s) to write about it. It always rely on later humans' faith to believe it or not. Humans don't even bother to keep the original scrolls after the invention of paper.
By the atheists' standard, it's none.
Mind you that paper was not yet invented 2000 years ago. Show us the scrolls at least for us to verify how accurate it's translated. :chuckle:
It remains the atheists' stupid game to fabricate a standard (under which no history can be deemed qualified) to deny Jesus.
As a Chinese, we have more than 5000 years of history. However, early books can hardly be verifiable. We give credit to these few books simply because they are the only books available which mention about events happened at that time. If we discredit the few books, we have none for us to access that part of history.
This is the nature of what history is. Set up a standard to qualify history is no more than lying to yourself with a self-deception. Just like any other human witnessing, history exists because an event and a figure is famous enough for certain human(s) to write about it. It always rely on later humans' faith to believe it or not. Humans don't even bother to keep the original scrolls after the invention of paper.
There is no difficulty in your believing that Jesus existed, or that he is the Messiah, or God, or whatever you want to believe. Go ahead, be my guest.
The problem arises when you try to convince others of your ideas. They may expect you to present evidence that you simply don't have. Evidence that doesn't exist.
I may be biased because I've always believed in Jesus but not so much Christianity, but one thing that occurs to me is that if the stories are frauds they aren't very good frauds. All things considered, the gospels are just as imperfect and human as one would expect from the age given all the circumstances.
jzeidler
New member
Agreed, I'm just trying to lay a foundation for us all to have a respectful conversation upon and grow ideas from this starting point.
Ben Masada
New member
Now that we have come to a conclusion that there was a historical Jesus let me post another question.
Was that Jesus like the Jesus that we find in the bible?
Go
No, he was not. I believe that the Historical Jesus was real but what the NT says about him was not. Not to be completely negative though, I agree with 20% of the NT about Jesus and from him but, 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to promote the Pauline gospel of Replacement Theology.
Hedshaker
New member
There is no argument really. The evidence supports both an HJ and MJ equally. I have no dog in that race. Even if there really was an historical figure on whom the stories were based it would make no difference to whether there is any truth to miracle claims.
It's is only the die-hard believers that have a burden of proof.
No one asked you to find it compelling.
There is no burden of proof in historical study. You have invented this to bolster your own lack of belief.
jzeidler
New member
I understand, but please either have a dialogue with the evidence that was brought forth and bring in your own evidence. Only please don't say that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus yet fail to bring in any evidence for there not being one when evidence is brought forth that there is one. I do not desire hear say and straight denial without dialogue with an argument on my thread. I desire a structured intellectual and respectful discussion. Doesn't mean that we all have to agree, but we all have the responsibility to dialogue with any evidence brought up and not skirt past the issue. Thank you.
Thanks for your less antagonistic reaction to the historical claims of Christianity. However, Paul did not teach replacement theology.
jzeidler
New member
Was Jesus real?
On my thread please do not attack the PEOPLE, have a respectful dialogue with their argument. If you do not like my rules you may leave my thread. Thank you. Maybe instead of attacking their lack of belief show them the evidence for the historical Jesus I.e 1st and 2nd century historians. Thanks for being on my thread.
On my thread please do not attack the PEOPLE, have a respectful dialogue with their argument. If you do not like my rules you may leave my thread. Thank you. Maybe instead of attacking their lack of belief show them the evidence for the historical Jesus I.e 1st and 2nd century historians. Thanks for being on my thread.
PureX
Well-known member
To be honest, that question doesn't really matter much to me, as I don't base my faith in Christ on 'believing the stories' so much as on practicing faith in the ideals that the story of Jesus' life and death (and resurrection) embody. As I act on that faith, I find that the ideals and promises embodied by the story are true. And so I just go with what works.
But since you asked, I suspect that there probably was some extraordinary person at the heart of this phenomenal new theological revelation that eventually became what we know as religious Christianity. And I even suspect that some of the quotes attributed to him in the gospels are fairly accurate, just because they are the kinds of things only an extraordinary person would have said. But I also think much of Jesus' story and many of the quotes attributed to him are mythic exaggerations, and are the product of biased religious dogmas, inserted after the fact for the purposes of establishing and maintaining religious adherence, cohesion, and authority.