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.
True. I can't prove something didn't happen based solely on the written word. But I can ask questions concerning the event.
If Homer tells me there was a real man named Jason who sailed the Mediterranean, I don't have any reason to disbelieve that. If he tells me that a race of one eyed Cyclops existed, I might ask to see a fossil with a big hole where the eye should be.
If someone tells me that Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples, but one disciple was missing, so he visited that disciple a week later, I can ask what Jesus did for the week in between. Who was he seen by? Why aren't the bible writers telling me all about it? Is Jesus evangelizing? healing people? teaching the disciples? This is a dead man walking. The people should be dancing in the streets (or maybe kneeling in prayer). They should be shouting it from the rooftops.
Actually... a vast amount of evidence concludes that Jesus of Nazareth (as I prefer to call him) DID exist. The problem is that the evidence historically has clearly been tampered with. The amount of evidence, however, indicates it was a result of someone named "Jesus" being there.
When I "fell from grace", as all the myths and concepts of Christianity melted away, Jesus (now just a man without the supernatural template) was still holding water as a reliable person to listen to. I did some research on him and realized that he was a teacher and generally decent guy with great ideas on how to be a decent person yourself.
The church really messed up what could have been a perfect poster boy for their beliefs... unfortunately their agenda of making money and having power would be corrupted if they didn't "God" him up a little.
Recently a friend (Heather) gave me a documentary to watch. It makes a lot of sense that Jesus was JUST a buddhist philosopher and the church rewrote or twisted history to join him to their faith. I invite you to watch this same documentary:
as far as I am aware of, Jesus's birth was recorded in Roman census records: the midwife, Mary, and one of Jesus's sisters were witness to his birth. :D (wish I still had source material for it)
He was just a man. A good man in my opinion. The church did what it's good at doing and obscured the facts by templating him with Mithra's mystical qualities to make him a 'hot property' and crush another faith by outdoing it. Its is the way of God. Just in this case, they found someone that was already impressive in real life and stole him.
I agree. Many of the teachings of Jesus are profound. The world would be a better place if people took his teachings to heart.
But did Jesus rise from the dead? Based upon the story told and the time they took to write it (30 years), no way!
I agree completely. The gospel writers tell all about what Jesus said, places he went to, how he acted and reacted, and it's all very plausible (minus the miracles).
However, the tone changes completely when they write of the resurrection. Almost no details. Jesus only spoke to disciples, never to crowds, and most of the 40 days of the resurrection are unaccounted for. This is the very time that Jesus should have been followed by thousands.