The historical Jesus

[Hairless Kitten II]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

[No Names Left Damn It]

Probably there was some Jewish bloke, nice guy and etc, got blown out of proportion for religious and political reasons or someshit.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Probably there was some Jewish bloke, nice guy and etc, got blown out of proportion for religious and political reasons or someshit.

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Probably there was some Jewish bloke, nice guy and etc, got blown out of proportion for religious and political reasons or someshit.

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul ... jesus-real

[Hugohk]

The real historical person Jesus was about one and a half meters long, and was missing several teeth (as most people did back then)
Yeah, I think he was a nice guy and shit and

got blown out of proportion for religious and political reasons or someshit.

[Khadgar]

I don't think there's been any actual evidence that such a figure ever existed in the times and places listed in the Bible. The character may have been based on someone, but I expect that someone might have been Mithra.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Probably there was some Jewish bloke, nice guy and etc, got blown out of proportion for religious and political reasons or someshit.

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul ... jesus-real

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

[Colonic Immigration]

Not real.

[Buffett and Colbert]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

You asked for evidence, I supplied you with it. If you don't like it, I couldn't care less as I don't give a shit as to whether he was real or noot anyway.

[Tunizcha]

I myself am an atheist. So bleh. But I doubt that Paul could have made all that stuff up. There probably was a man (or woman), who may or may not have been named Jesus. Obviously he didn't do any of the things mentioned in the bible. I think that he was made to be a figure of holiness. Who more were the people (who were entirely Catholic, Jewish, or Christian) to believe in? Distorted facts and a little bit of trickery would have brought enormous wealth an power to him and his colleagues. To continue this quest for power, Paul went to write the bible, in which he liberally distorts and destroys facts, blowing them up to impossible proportions. This does not stop him from leaving humongous holes in logic, plot, and common sense.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

No, Tacitus, whatsisface of Arimathea and the like. I don't believe Jesus was divine, but there was probably someone, who may or may not have been called Jesus running around preaching things at the time.

[Hairless Kitten II]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

You asked for evidence, I supplied you with it. If you don't like it, I couldn't care less as I don't give a shit as to whether he was real or noot anyway.

20 pieces written 100 years later, no, I don't call that evidence. It wasn't uncommon in that times that stories were told from generation to generation. But I'm pretty sure that after 4 or 5 generations the original story was completely different as the last one.

Even the name could be wrong.

[Buffett and Colbert]

20 pieces written 100 years later, no, I don't call that evidence. It wasn't uncommon in that times that stories were told from generation to generation. But I'm pretty sure that after 4 or 5 generations the original story was completely different as the last one.

Even the name could be wrong.

While I put virtually no stock in the Bible, the one thing it suggests to us is that a Jew named Jesus probably existed. Just like NNLD said. I doubt the all of the dozens of contributers to the Bible were lying.

[Khadgar]

I myself am an atheist. So bleh. But I doubt that Paul could have made all that stuff up. There probably was a man (or woman), who may or may not have been named Jesus. Obviously he didn't do any of the things mentioned in the bible. I think that he was made to be a figure of holiness. Who more were the people (who were entirely Catholic, Jewish, or Christian) to believe in? Distorted facts and a little bit of trickery would have brought enormous wealth an power to him and his colleagues. To continue this quest for power, Paul went to write the bible, in which he liberally distorts and destroys facts, blowing them up to impossible proportions. This does not stop him from leaving humongous holes in logic, plot, and common sense.

He didn't make it up, he copied it. Though most of the story was edited in the, I think, fourth century at the great conclave wherein they decided what was canon and what wasn't.

[Calviltor]

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

Tacticus and Pliny the Younger.

Besides, the Bible is a valid historical source. It's subjective, but so are all sources. There is as much evidence for Jesus (as a historical figure, the miracles etc. are a matter of faith and therefore not the remit of historians) as you have for a figure like Boudica. Ancient historical scholarship (which is very different from modern historical scholarship) is, by its very nature, reliant on a fair bit of speculation.

The whole 'Jesus Myth Hypothesis' is an ideologically driven movement, where the facts have been used to fit an already decided objective. That's not serious scholarship. Which is why it's rejected by near consensus among ancient historical scholars.

The mythical Jesus is to serious history what creationism is to genunine science.

EDIT: The Holy Word needs to learn not to post using his puppets.

[Treznor]

I currently favor the theory that Jesus wasn't a single individual but an amalgamation of self-proclaimed Christ messiahs from the period, combined with contemporary mythological properties (ie virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc). Most of the writings about him were written by people with particular agendas, most of which conflicted. In the end, the Council of Nicea was forced to choose the writings that conflicted the least and called them "canon."

[Barringtonia]

Sure, but what's your source for that? The bible?

Tacticus and Pliny the Younger.

Besides, the Bible is a valid historical source. It's subjective, but so are all sources. There is as much evidence for Jesus (as a historical figure, the miracles etc. are a matter of faith and therefore not the remit of historians) as you have for a figure like Boudica. Ancient historical scholarship (which is very different from modern historical scholarship) is, by its very nature, reliant on a fair bit of speculation.

The whole 'Jesus Myth Hypothesis' is an ideologically driven movement, where the facts have been used to fit an already decided objective. That's not serious scholarship. Which is why it's rejected by near consensus among ancient historical scholars.

The mythical Jesus is to serious history what creationism is to genunine science.

Yes, just like Robin Hood... King Arthur...

[Hydesland]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

There is 'no good evidence' for the vast, vast, vast majority of people who lived two thousand years ago, that doesn't support a conclusion about them not existing. And how can you simultaneously deny a 'Jesus figure', whilst accepting that there were several? When you're analysing merely the 'historical Jesus', the fact that he was one of several who claimed to be the messiah does not negate his existence.

[Surpsainia]

I currently favor the theory that Jesus wasn't a single individual but an amalgamation of self-proclaimed Christ messiahs from the period, combined with contemporary mythological properties (ie virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc). Most of the writings about him were written by people with particular agendas, most of which conflicted. In the end, the Council of Nicea was forced to choose the writings that conflicted the least and called them "canon."

In times of danger. They could combine to form the mega Christ

[Der Teutoniker]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

You asked for evidence, I supplied you with it. If you don't like it, I couldn't care less as I don't give a shit as to whether he was real or noot anyway.

20 pieces written 100 years later, no, I don't call that evidence.

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed. My faith alone is not very good evidence, of course, but it is indeed evidence, however tenuous.

20 pieces of information written within 70 years (remember, He was crucified ca. 33 AD?) is certainly evidence, and not terrible evidence. Not good enough for you? That's ok, it doesn't need to be, it's not proof, it's no gaurantee of Jesus' existence, but it is evidence.

Maybe next time you ask for evidence to support or refute a claim, you should get a dictionary, and first know what you are asking for.

[The Holy Word]

Yes, just like Robin Hood... King Arthur...

Neither of which have any support from primary sources outside folk legends. Try some of the early Egyptian emperors for a nearer parallel.

[Khadgar]

I currently favor the theory that Jesus wasn't a single individual but an amalgamation of self-proclaimed Christ messiahs from the period, combined with contemporary mythological properties (ie virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc). Most of the writings about him were written by people with particular agendas, most of which conflicted. In the end, the Council of Nicea was forced to choose the writings that conflicted the least and called them "canon."

In times of danger. They could combine to form the mega Christ :p

Man, the two who formed the arms were fucked.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed. My faith alone is not very good evidence, of course, but it is indeed evidence, however tenuous.

No it isn't. I have faith that the moon is made of cheese. Does this make it so?

20 pieces of information written within 70 years (remember, He was crucified ca. 33 AD?) is certainly evidence, and not terrible evidence. Not good enough for you? That's ok, it doesn't need to be, it's not proof, it's no gaurantee of Jesus' existence, but it is evidence.

Well you've partially redeemed yourself now.

Maybe next time you ask for evidence to support or refute a claim, you should get a dictionary, and first know what you are asking for.

Some people are wired not to accept evidence for anything. A permanent default position you could say.

[Grays Harbor]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

I think you are trolling for argument #946 between those who believe in jesus and those who don't for no other purpose than to stir things up for no good reason and to give atheists another opportunity to act smug and superior and christians to act self-riteous and superior.

Thats what I think.

[Der Teutoniker]

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed. My faith alone is not very good evidence, of course, but it is indeed evidence, however tenuous.

No it isn't. I have faith that the moon is made of cheese. Does this make it so?

You misunderstood. You're belief certainly is evidence for the moon being cheesy, though it is not a very convincing evidence, just as my faith should not be very convincing on it's own, but it is, however slight, some evidence.