Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christine Vyrnon on January 28, 2011 at 4:28pm

I would argue that his followers (certain ones) were more likely to be the con artists who took advantage of people in very deep mourning after the death/disappearance of a charismatic, wise man.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Sprague on January 28, 2011 at 1:58pm

In his book 'Godless' which I highly recommend btw, Dan Barker writes that there is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories. The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history, yet not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century. Whether myth or legend, the life of Jesus is not corroborated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Sprague on January 28, 2011 at 2:20pm

So I guess your point is that despite the lack of any evidence to support the belief that Jesus was a real person, you believe that he was. Maybe you should reiterate it 100 more times.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Jason Cherry on January 28, 2011 at 4:53pm

The dates of pretty much every gospel I'm aware of are several decades or centuries after the purported death of Jesus.

 

the epistles about the Christ do not ever speak of his existence as a human, rather as a divine entity.

 

But, feel free to stick to your confirmation bias.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christine Vyrnon on January 28, 2011 at 6:37pm

May I suggest (and remember - I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus -but in the possibility that there may have been a man who inspired the collection of new mythologies) that - sects and cults and political outcasts did not have the tools to write down historical occurrences the way they do now.  We are possibly dealing with a sect that started out as an oral tradition.  My understanding is that both gospels in the canon and the apocrypha point to the possibility of older sources, written or oral, that no longer exist.  Revisions likely made Jesus (or whatever his name was) into a more impressive figure than was likely found in the original oral traditions.  The Gospel of Thomas (one of the more respected apocryphal texts - historically speaking) has a much more human approach to the presentation of "Jesus" - and there is a lot less revision than what one finds in the canonical gospels.  The Canon is more geared to an immortal god, while Thomas (doubting Thomas) presents a more finite wise man/philosophy. 

 

The fact that the Gospels in the Canon were written decades after his purported death/disappearance does not prove that some form of spiritual/political leader did not exist or inspire the writing down of the oral traditions of a sect. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julie harm on January 28, 2011 at 2:44pm

I think that the 'Jesus' character is an amalgum of stories about other people who lived both before and after the time when 'Jesus' was supposed to be around. I forget where I read this as it was some time ago, but the evidence presented impressed me enough to remember the concept. So, no, I don't think 'Jesus' existed either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on January 28, 2011 at 2:50pm

They may have attributed stuff from other religions/cultures and from people related to them, but that doesn't really proves that the whole Jesus story hasn't started from an actual man, probably named Jesus.

Someone can decide to attribute a lot of great stuff (the stuff attributed to Jesus is debatable whether or not is great) inspired from other people's lives to George W. Bush. That wouldn't mean he never actually existed (even if that would have been better).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moria Jackson on January 28, 2011 at 4:18pm

I do not think there was an actual Jesus of the bible.  He is a fictional character based on other religions.  There is nothing about his story that is unique or verifiable.  There is (as far as I know) nothing actually written by or about him from people who should have known him.  What is NOT there speaks much louder than what IS there, in this case, for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Sprague on January 28, 2011 at 5:59pm

Exactly!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan B on January 28, 2011 at 5:53pm

A Jesus probably did exist in the area at the time as it was a very common name but the jesus of the bible is unlikely and the story told of him in the bible even less so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Isaac on January 28, 2011 at 6:52pm

I really don't give a shit whether or not there was a historical Jesus. If there was, fine, but it doesn't give Christianity any credibility. Muhammed may have existed, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard, and Claude Vorilhon definitely existed, but we all know that Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and Raelism are a bunch of horseshit even though the founders of those religions existed. Just because the founder of a religion existed doesn't mean that the religion is true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Isaac on January 28, 2011 at 9:26pm

"We are not suggesting that because a person named Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed was an actual living person that there is a Creator God or that religion is true."

 

I never thought that you were suggesting that. In fact, your closing sentence "God does not exist - it does not matter if Jesus was alive or not. " is perfectly consistent to mine, "Just because the founder of a religion existed doesn't mean that the religion is true." We are in agreement here, but you somehow managed to create a strawman of what I said.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page