I am really sorry if this has been posted before.


If you knew me in person, you would know I love getting into discussions with people about religion. One of the questions that seems to keep coming into the discussion loop is Jesus.


So I was at a social gathering the other night at a restaurant and I dropped my silverware and out of habit I said "Jesus Christ!" And a random girl that was a friend of a friend said, "Don't use the Lords name in vain."


So obviously we got into a debate.


I brought up the point in the discussion that Jesus never existed. Well everyone looked at me like i was off the wall insane...


At that point the discussion just turned into incoherent ramblings and Grrrr... So frustrating that people base their whole life on hearsay! Simply dumbfounding!!!


Help me feel better... seriously.

Views: 442

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The important part, relevant to the evidence for a historicity of Christ, is the passage above the red rectangle.

"Judea during the period 6-66 stands out among the Roman provinces for the amount of detailed information available about it's internal conditions and the relations between government and the governed. For the Jews were unique among the subjects of Rome at the time in being articulate through the survival of Josephus contemporary account of local history, supplemented by Philo who records two episodes in the history of the province in his Legatio."

Philo never heard of Christ or Christianity and in Josephus, one well known forgery and one referring to a James the brother of Christ who is being brought before the sanhedrin who them sentenced him to be stoned. The passage "who was called Christ" there has been inserted later. So no reliable reference to any Christ in either works mentioned here.

Lots of other rebels, lots of other crucifixions. No Jesus on a cross. No Pilate sentencing Jesus. No Jesus at all, except a brother of James and even that is unclear.

"You can see more scanty records here

Bagnall, Roger S., and Bruce W. Frier. 1994. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Beloch, Julius. 1886. Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot..."

and on and on..

Yes I see, before I have read them all I should shut up.

Well alright then, if that's the game then I quit.

I don't think you could. Everything's been distributed amongst the faithful along with the nails and the pieces of shroud by honest businessmen.

But if you are suggesting I have high demands then rest assured I don't at all, just something that's actually valid will do.

That's true, depending on what you mean by "long after".  There is a disputed reference to him in the works of Josephus, which were written about 40 or so years after his death.  The earliest gospels are thought to have been written no sooner than 60 years after his death.
You would certainly think so, wouldn't you?  Trouble was, he was just one of a number of cult leaders in that part of the world at that time about whom miraculous tales were told.  One of the best lines from Jesus Christ Superstar is when Pontius Pilate says:  "You Jews have your Messiahs by the sackful."
Yes, but now you are just speculating. What evidence do you actually have, besides maybe common sense, that your revised/ naturalized history of Christ is more plausible than there being no Christ at all in the first place?

I think you are confused by my lack of clarity--I sometimes forget that posting doesn't convey vocal tone or facial expressions. 

I was actually trying to convey agreement with Linda.  If Jesus was really the son of god, then you would think he would stand out from the crowd of alleged Messiahs and cult leaders and appear in the historical record.

I have already stated that I think the existence of an actual person fits the facts that we do know better than a conspiracy made out of whole cloth.  There is no solid evidence.  We all know that.

It was written...  So it must have been truth, Sophie.  I mean, God!
I just don't know.  The dates are shaky and the only source is the bible.  It is possible that a person called Jesus was a radical Jew in that time period and had messages.  I haven't seen any anthropological, historical, or any other evidence.

Indeed doone, a person called 'Jesus' (Jesus and Judas were very popular names back then...) did exist and His disciples founded what we know as the Nazarene sect, which later evolved to be Chrstianity...


Mithranism has little to no influence on the rise of the Nazarene sect, although there are some similarities, it had a HUGE impact on Christianity; but that is another debate.


I do not understand why people want to deny that Jesus ever existed? There is enough for any serious historian to conclude that He did...

No. Just name one.

Bart Erham, James Dunn, N.T. Wright anyone, just one credible name...

I am pretty sure Jesus was not a real human. I've thought that for a long time, based primarily on the fact that Jesus is a very Hellenic figure and the godmen of his era were also not based upon a real person.


But currently, I'm reading "Jesus Neither God Nor Man," by Earl Doherty, an expanded/revised edition of The Jesus Puzzle. I'm understanding much better why Jesus' reality is unlikely. From what I've read so far, aside from a few interpolations in Paul's letters, Paul knew absolutely nothing of Jesus' life story. No birth saga, no sayings, no deeds. To him, jesus' sacrifice was in a spiritual world. Enter the Gospels a couple of decades and more later and Jesus has been fleshed out. This nearly 800-page book goes into detail about such things as Platonism and how it differs from earlier ancient origin stories.


Sorry I'm so late to the thread.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service