I changed my mind on the Historicity of Jesus

[one_raven]

I have changed my view on this topic.

People who claim that an historical Jesus never existed are making an unreasonable claim, in my view.

Certainly, his life and times were exaggerated and even partially fabricated by the Roman Catholic Church who was attempting to codify a hero and build a religion, but that does not mean the man did not exist.

First, people claim a lack of extra-Biblical evidence. Well, the Bible is hardly one book, it was written by numerous people, over many years – it is a collection of books and letters. Sure, we don’t have newspaper clippings of Jesus turning over the money-changers’ table or a YouTube clip of him reciting the Beatitudes, but to discount it as “just the Bible” is an oversimplification of the facts.

Second, I think the Nag Hammadi library should not be overlooked – and it is an extra-Biblical source. It is a source that has been dated back to perhaps 80CE, it was not discovered until 1945 AND it is rejected by the Catholic Church. Why would the Church have written the Gospel of Thomas – which is really damning to the structure of the Church – and then disavow it as heresy? That makes no sense to me.

Third, and most important to me, is the fact that had the Roman Catholic wanted to create a God-man out of thin air and totally fabricate his existence, I don’t think the Bible would read as it does. Why would there be four gospels in the Bible, instead of 12 (or 13)? Why would John not align with the Synoptic Gospels? Why would Revelation read like the maniacal ravings of a lunatic mind? Why the apparent contradictions? I believe if they had just decided to make him up, they would not have had to spin so much doctrine and dogma to fill in the blanks and account for these apparent contradictions. Why did it take so many years to determine the Canon? Why so much debate over it? Why were so many books rejected?

While there is not doubt that the Roman Catholic Church did doctor, twist and pervert the story of Jesus, it seems entirely unreasonable to claim he did not exist, simply for the dearth of mention by historians. :shrug:

[Carcano]

Second, I think the Nag Hammadi library should not be overlooked – and it is an extra-Biblical source. It is a source that has been dated back to perhaps 80CE, it was not discovered until 1945 AND it is rejected by the Catholic Church. Why would the Church have written the Gospel of Thomas – which is really damning to the structure of the Church – and then disavow it as heresy? That makes no sense to me.
Good point Ive never heard before.

The history of scripture doesnt read like a grand conspiracy.

I believe the Hammadi texts are later than 80CE though.

[one_raven]

The same reasoning applies to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Why would the Church write the book, release it to the public, then later reject it as heresy and those who follow it as heathens?

Let me apply Ockham’s Razor, as many Jesus deniers are apt to do…

What makes more sense?

The Church created all these books, released them as the words of this made up person Jesus, then denied the books and claimed them as heresy and fooled the world that he actually existed. The Church fathers, who were bright enough to run the Roman Empire, found the most powerful Church in the world and fool everyone into believing this imaginary person existed were too stupid to write a consistent story that plainly spelled out what their vast conspiracy wanted to accomplish.

Or

The Church picked and chose the reported works of Jesus which support their worldview and goals, doctored them a bit and rejected the reported works of Jesus that would throw a wrench into the works of their goals.

The second makes a LOT more sense to me.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Good point Ive never heard before.

The history of scripture doesnt read like a grand conspiracy.

I believe the Hammadi texts are later than 80CE though.

Also the fact that by that time the word of Jesus had been spread enough for someone else to write about him, even without first hand knowledge of him.

[one_raven]

I believe the Hammadi texts are later than 80CE though.

You're right.
Th texts themselves date back to about 3rd century, but the Gospel of Thomas is believed to have been written about 80.

[GeoffP]

Interesting idea.

Now climb into the thumbscrews and let's keep spitballing.

[one_raven]

Now climb into the thumbscrews and let's keep spitballing.

eh? :bugeye:

[GeoffP]

Inquisition joke.

[one_raven]

ah!

[GeoffP]

If we don't laugh at horror, do we ever learn from it?

I'll just chalk this up on my "inappropriate things Geoff has done on SciForums". That list seems to have taken quite a jump in the last little while.

[one_raven]

I don't think it's inappropriate at all.
The Inquisition in History of the World Part I is one of the greatest scenes ever filmed.

[GeoffP]

Can't remember that one. I'll look it up.

[chris4355]

After googling the amazing things jesus has done...

1. He made the blind see.
2. He made the deaf hear.
3. He healed the woman who was bleeding for years.
4. He healed the paralytic.
5. He drove out a group of demons from a man.
6. He brought Lazarus back to life from the dead.
7. He walked on water.
8. He fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 pieces of fish.
9. He never yeilded to temptation, however hard the deceiver tried.
10. He never sinned all His life as a man.
11. He rose from the dead the third day.
12. And the best, He wilfully gave His life for us, while we were still sinners.

Not 1 historian has written about him while he was supposedly alive. Does not sound too logical to me.

So now you are going to claim Jesus was just a regular dude walking around and those things stated above are just made up or something.

Then answer me this...

Exactly how historically inaccurate does somebody have to be until you can consider him a mythical being?

I am sure there was a guy at that time that preached his beliefs to many people, might have made some kind of an impact and ended up getting persecuted - along with probably hundreds of others.

Jesus as described by the bible and what people perceive him to be did not exist. Nor does it make sense that the Chritian religion along with the bible emerges over a hundred years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.

It just does not add up.

[one_raven]

After googling the amazing things jesus has done...

1. He made the blind see.
2. He made the deaf hear.
3. He healed the woman who was bleeding for years.
4. He healed the paralytic.
5. He drove out a group of demons from a man.
6. He brought Lazarus back to life from the dead.
7. He walked on water.
8. He fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 pieces of fish.
9. He never yeilded to temptation, however hard the deceiver tried.
10. He never sinned all His life as a man.
11. He rose from the dead the third day.
12. And the best, He wilfully gave His life for us, while we were still sinners.

Again, I have no doubt that the Church exaggerated and fabricated parts of his life and times.
If you look at the oldest and least touched texts, they don't talk about his "miracles" at all just his philosophy - his words.
He was a teacher - the Church made him out to be a God man.

Show me one place in any of Jesus' words from any o fthe canonical or extra-canonical textx where he claims to be anything more than a man.
You won't find it.

Not 1 historian has written about him while he was supposedly alive. Does not sound too logical to me.
There were certainly many thousands of philosophers and teachers at that time - how many did the historians write about?
If you leave his "miracles" aside, why WOULD they write about him?

So now you are going to claim Jesus was just a regular dude walking around and those things stated above are just made up or something.
Exactly.
Yes.

Then answer me this...

Exactly how historically inaccurate does somebody have to be until you can consider him a mythical being?
The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.

I am sure there was a guy at that time that preached his beliefs to many people, might have made some kind of an impact and ended up getting persecuted - along with probably hundreds of others.
Hundreds of others teaching the same thing he was teaching, with the same style of speech and the same message at the same time with teh same followers?

Nor does it make sense that the Chritian religion along with the bible emerges over a hundred years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.
Of course it does.
Religions don't pop up and spread around the world overnight.
Especially in a time when the only forms of communication traveled by foot.
Do you think he sent a viral email?
People tell people tell people tell people.
The first Buddhist council was held 200 years after Siddhartha's death because it had finally started to spread to different regions and differing philosophies were being developed.

It just does not add up.
I think your math is skewed.

[one_raven]

Nor does it make sense that the Chritian religion along with the bible emerges over a hundred years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.

We have evidence of established Christian sects existing at MOST 50 years after his death.
It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the image of this philosopher, turned him into a God-man and decided to codify the "religion" that it started to become the powerhouse that it became.

[chris4355]

We have evidence of established Christian sects existing at MOST 50 years after his death.
It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the image of this philosopher, turned him into a God-man and decided to codify the "religion" that it started to become the powerhouse that it became.

So asides from Jesus of the bible, what do we know about him? What do we know historically about him?

I do not think its that difficult to accept the idea that people can believe in a religion where the "founder" of it has never existed as long as he is dead.

Just taking a look at UFO's, scientology, signs and horoscopes can just give a glimpse of just how capable humans are of taking mythical ideas and events and turning them into reality - often times backed by persuasive and seemingly logical reasoning to convince someone to believe it.

[one_raven]

So asides from Jesus of the bible, what do we know about him? What do we know historically about him?
We know of his teachings - his philosophy.
Why do the details of his life matter?

I do not think its that difficult to accept the idea that people can believe in a religion where the "founder" of it has never existed as long as he is dead.
No, it's not so hard to believe at all.
But in this case, I think the evidence supports the notion that he was a real man, who actually existed.

[chris4355]

Didnt see top post...


Again, I have no doubt that the Church exaggerated and fabricated parts of his life and times.
If you look at the oldest and least touched texts, they don't talk about his "miracles" at all just his philosophy - his words.
He was a teacher - the Church made him out to be a God man.

So based on this assumption you are willing to believe he existed despite any historical evidence? How do we know his name was even Jesus? Let alone he was a single individual?

Show me one place in any of Jesus' words from any of the canonical or extra-canonical text where he claims to be anything more than a man.
You won't find it.

And that proves he existed? What if he was someone else? A leader who left a legacy and through the course of 50-100 years became someone completely different? You still did not answer my question? How much more historically distorted does a person have to be in order to be considered a myth?

There were certainly many thousands of philosophers and teachers at that time - how many did the historians write about?
If you leave his "miracles" aside, why WOULD they write about him?


Exactly.
Yes.


The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.

Obviously, that kind of philosophy comes from a real person. Now if you don't mind could you explain to me exactly why you would think this philosophy has to come solely from one person? Why could it not evolve through a sect, passed on by words one generation to another? You are claming just one guy preached something, caused some turmoil, had lots of followers, died, and passed on his teachings generation to generation to a point where he eventually became considered a god.

Hundreds of others teaching the same thing he was teaching, with the same style of speech and the same message at the same time with teh same followers?

Followers? What followers? If jesus actually had a significant amount of followers I would expect at least a couple of people to have documented him.

Of course it does.
Religions don't pop up and spread around the world overnight.
Especially in a time when the only forms of communication traveled by foot.
Do you think he sent a viral email?
People tell people tell people tell people.
The first Buddhist council was held 200 years after Siddhartha's death because it had finally started to spread to different regions and differing philosophies were being developed.

Good points, but this again leads to something you failed to take into account. Have you ever played a game called telephone? If you do not know what it is feel free to ask, then reconsider what you mean by - his teachings were spread forms of communications traveled by foot.

I think your math is skewed.

My math is fine, no historical evidence for someone as critical as him leads me to believe he was not there.

Even if there might have been someone named Jesus who had similar teachings, his current description is so distorted and out of proportion that I have to conclude he is simply a myth.

[chris4355]

We know of his teachings - his philosophy.
Why do the details of his life matter?

Because we are discussing whether or not he was physically alive.

No, it's not so hard to believe at all.
But in this case, I think the evidence supports the notion that he was a real man, who actually existed.

I think there was a real man who wrote his teachings, and he existed. But his name did not have to be Jesus, nor did he have to be one man, nor did he have to live at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.

[chris4355]

All your points are based off assumptions, though fairly well reasoned and seemingly logical. Without any HARD evidence, they will always simply remain assumptions.

[sisyphus__]

So Raven tell me do you believe that with this threads claims of objectivity about the issue of Jesus, that it is safe to believe the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about Jesus being a mystory and not history; should fall to the dust, and my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain the same.

Would you feel the need please to correct any of my mis assumptions as I am sort of curious really....

[chris4355]

So Raven tell me do you believe that with this threads claims of objectivity about the issue of Jesus, that it is safe to believe the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about Jesus being a mystory and not history; should fall to the dust, and my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain the same.

Would you feel the need please to correct any of my mis assumptions as I am sort of curious really....

Could you please repeat this statement a little clearer?

[sisyphus__]

The obvious point chris is that it was supposed to be fun to read........

I will however take the time as you likly are not looking over my shoulder.
So Raven tell me. Do you believe that with this threads claims of objective facts about the issue of Jesus (mostly being that your idea is that he did exist as subject to possibility), it is safe to believe in the historicity of Jesus presented mostly by Medicine*Woman about "Jesus being a mythstory and not history"; that it should fall to the dust? And that my belief that Jesus was a possible historicial figure remain intact?

Saying of course that it is evident to take your first few claims seriously? ....

Would you feel the need (to correct any of the details which do not fit in accurately in my view)??

:p

[one_raven]

So based on this assumption you are willing to believe he existed despite any historical evidence?
There IS historical evidence. I outlined this in my first post.

How do we know his name was even Jesus? Let alone he was a single individual?
His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
This leads me to believe you really haven’t done much research on the subject at all.

What reason do you have to believe that he was more than one individual? :bugeye:
Again, if you apply Ockham’s Razor, I see no reason to make that assumption.

And that proves he existed?
Of course not. It suggests that these claims about his “miracles” were made later by those forming the Roman Catholic Church.

You still did not answer my question? How much more historically distorted does a person have to be in order to be considered a myth?
Because it’s a silly question – there is no formula to apply.
I did address the idea, however, when I said:
“The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.”

Obviously, that kind of philosophy comes from a real person. Now if you don't mind could you explain to me exactly why you would think this philosophy has to come solely from one person? Why could it not evolve through a sect, passed on by words one generation to another? You are claming just one guy preached something, caused some turmoil, had lots of followers, died, and passed on his teachings generation to generation to a point where he eventually became considered a god.
Why is it so hard to believe that his philosophy came from one person?
How many people wrote Nietzsche’s collected works? Kant’s?:shrug:
I see no reason to believe that one person can not be a philosopher. Why would you make that assumption?
And, no, I don’t think “he eventually became considered a god”, I think it was a concerted effort by the founders of the Church to craft that image.

Good points, but this again leads to something you failed to take into account. Have you ever played a game called telephone? If you do not know what it is feel free to ask, then reconsider what you mean by - his teachings were spread forms of communications traveled by foot.
I didn’t fail to take it into account.
There is good reason that the earliest texts differ from the later ones.
There is also good reason that I think the earlier ones are more reliable.
However, his words, across several hundred years of texts, are strikingly similar, and carry the same undertones and ideas.

I think there was a real man who wrote his teachings, and he existed.
That’s all I am saying.
Many deny that – I used to deny it.

nor did he have to live at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.
As I already pointed out, we have evidence that there were early Christian sects established less than 50 years after his death.
That’s pretty solid evidence, if you ask me.

The way you quoted me made it difficult to respond, by the way. :)

[one_raven]

Brent,

Of course I think it is valid to take my claims seriously.
Why else would I make them?

I am not 2,000 years old, however, and if I were, I would question my memory - so it is ultimately up to you to decide whether my claims should be taken seriously.
Do they make sense to you?

[one_raven]

All your points are based off assumptions, though fairly well reasoned and seemingly logical. Without any HARD evidence, they will always simply remain assumptions.

Not exactly.
It is one reasonable interpretation of the hard evidence we do have.
We have texts that offer accounts of his teachings dating back to less than 50 years of his death that are not in the Bible and are rejected by the church (so they are obviously not church biased).
That, in any other case, would be considered historical, hard evidence.

[John99]

BC - Before Christ
AD - After Death

[one_raven]

BC - Before Christ
AD - After Death

CE - Common Era
BCE - Before Common Era
What's your point?

Besides, you're wrong...
AD - Anno Domini

[one_raven]

John,
Do you realize that the Gregorian Calendar wasn't created until almost 1600 years after Jesus' death?

[John99]

What does Anno Domini mean?

[John99]

John,
Do you realize that the Gregorian Calendar wasn't created until almost 1600 years after Jesus' death?

That makes it even more probably.

[one_raven]

What does Anno Domini mean?
Year of our Lord.
Every year after his birth was to be known as a year of our lord.

Have you ever heard people use that expression in English? I have.
In the seventeen hundred and forty fifth year of our lord...

That makes it even more probably.
How so? :bugeye:

[chris4355]

Not exactly.
It is one reasonable interpretation of the hard evidence we do have.
We have texts that offer accounts of his teachings dating back to less than 50 years of his death that are not in the Bible and are rejected by the church (so they are obviously not church biased).
That, in any other case, would be considered historical, hard evidence.


Link please.


His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
This leads me to believe you really haven’t done much research on the subject at all.

I have done more than you think, there is a lot I am not revealing possibly because I don't feel like sparking a thread that will make every Christian on these forums hate me - I also do not feel like spending time debating it. My point was not depicting the accuracy of his real name, but rather how do we know its even him?

What reason do you have to believe that he was more than one individual? :bugeye:
Again, if you apply Ockham’s Razor, I see no reason to make that assumption.


Word of mouth, a group of people passing on this story can create a myth without realizing it.



“The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.”

Obviously these points come from a real person. Where else will it come from? The sky?

My point is that those points have been manipulated, distorted, changed, morphed, shortened, increased, translated, taught, yelled at, whispered... from person to person for hundreds of years which you supposedly claim came from a single source. A single source, that does not have 1, not 1 historian wrote about him for all things he has done.

Why is it so hard to believe that his philosophy came from one person?
How many people wrote Nietzsche’s collected works? Kant’s?:shrug:
I see no reason to believe that one person can not be a philosopher. Why would you make that assumption?
And, no, I don’t think “he eventually became considered a god”, I think it was a concerted effort by the founders of the Church to craft that image.


Even though thats probably not what happened , the fact that the founders of the Church made him a god means, in the eyes of Christians, still can mean that he in fact eventually became a god. [/COLOR]


I didn’t fail to take it into account.
There is good reason that the earliest texts differ from the later ones.
There is also good reason that I think the earlier ones are more reliable.
However, his words, across several hundred years of texts, are strikingly similar, and carry the same undertones and ideas.


Maybe because they just did not change that aspect of the text? The text not changing does not prove his existence..


That’s all I am saying.
Many deny that – I used to deny it.

As I already pointed out, we have evidence that there were early Christian sects established less than 50 years after his death.
That’s pretty solid evidence, if you ask me.


So? We have scientologists today who are willing to believe a brand new religion. The fact that there were Christian sects 50 years after his death does not make him alive.


The way you quoted me made it difficult to respond, by the way. :)

Sorry.


I think we are both smart enough to agree he did not perform miracles, nor did he do most of the magical things the bible claims he did.

You believe his philosophies were very unique for the time which leads you to conclude he existed and he wrote them.

I too could believe someone was out there that might have sparked the religion, but the extent as to which I am willing to believe that person was Jesus himself, born on year 0, crucified to me is way too vague, and lacks too much historical evidence.

Maybe we can just agree to disagree.

[one_raven]

Link please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas

My point was not depicting the accuracy of his real name, but rather how do we know its even him?
Then give me a reason to doubt it.

[John99]

Have you ever heard people use that expression in English? I have.
In the seventeen hundred and forty fifth year of our lord...


How so? :bugeye:

No, i have never personally heard that expression. Is there anything specific?

[John99]

His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.

After finding this thread i read that he was known as 'the Christ'. What does that mean?

[one_raven]

It's in the Constitution, for one.

But I have mostly seen it in movies depicting official business (like reading things into records at meetings or court proceedings) from long ago.

You never answered...
How does the Gregorian calendar being adopted 1600 years after Jesus make it more probable that he existed?

[sisyphus__]

Brent,

Of course I think it is valid to take my claims seriously.
Why else would I make them?

I am not 2,000 years old, however, and if I were, I would question my memory - so it is ultimately up to you to decide whether my claims should be taken seriously.
Do they make sense to you?

Passing comment, before I make my opinions on that.

Yes, absolutely.. what I (personally) feel about your claims is that it is incorrect for medicine woman to claim Jesus is a myth-story. That is what point I was making and I think it is absurd to claim that he did not exist. So with some support saying that Jesus existed and even more so; the idea that there is a more logicial explaination for some of the events written in the bible is all very good information. Very soothing but I will post more later...

[one_raven]

After finding this thread i read that he was known as 'the Christ'. What does that mean?

Annointed one.

[chris4355]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas


Then give me a reason to doubt it.

From your own source...

“ Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 CE or as late as 140 CE, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[12]"

"It (ghospel of thomas) is further unique in that the gospel is no more than a collection of Jesus' sayings and parables, and contains no narrative account of his life"

I still don't get why no one wrote about him when he was alive. And why that does not bug you to the least. Keep in mind 60 years at that time is quite some time regarding the amount of generations that pass on. Thats almost 3 generations later that someone writes about him, assuming it was written in 60CE and not any later...

[one_raven]

It was a period of political and religious upheaval and a period of discovery and trade with many distant lands (the Silk Road was open).
There were many people preaching their "truth" at that time.
I am sure more than a few of them had followings of different sizes.
I am also sure quite a few of them with different sized followings were not written about by Jospehus, Pliny or anyone else.

[chris4355]

Josephus' reference is still very disputed and unclear.

Pliny and Tacitus were born after Jesus was gone.

[one_raven]

Josephus' reference is still very disputed and unclear.

I agree.
I was saying it's not surprising that he did not write about him.

[chris4355]

I seriously thought you were being sarcastic. =D

[one_raven]

Not this time. :D

[Carcano]

It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church co-opted the image of this philosopher, turned him into a God-man and decided to codify the "religion" that it started to become the powerhouse that it became.
The earliest Christian writings are those of Paul, followed by the writer of Mark.

In Paul's writing Jesus is definitely a kind of divine being. He makes hardly any mention of his life as a man, and never met Jesus while he lived.

You would like Tom Harpur's book 'Water into Wine'.

http://events.uoftbookstore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/waterintowine-web.jpg

[one_raven]

I am surprised, and very disappointed, that more of the Jesus deniers did not post in this.

[GeoffP]

They converted.

[one_raven]

You would like Tom Harpur's book 'Water into Wine'.

http://events.uoftbookstore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/waterintowine-web.jpg

Care to give a synopsis?
If I saw it in a book store I would pass it by assuming it is squishy, touchy-feely, Christian, self-help nonsense.

[nietzschefan]

I don't care if he existed or not. It doesn't matter to me - I'll get to that later.

I think that cults that powerful do not come from nothing. Historians AFTER his time talked as if he did in fact exist, while historians FROM his time, do not make mention.

That means at his time he was very important to his (relatively) small group of followers. These followers did far more to create "christianity" than Jesus did. John in particular is the primary reason for Christianity going to Europe and thus it being able to "make it".

I stick to my opinion I stated in feb on this:

Even in the "official" canon that finally got agreed upon some 300 years after Jesus supposedly walked on water, Jesus does not expand the Hebrew's God, YHWH's "love" to the rest of us until fairly late on in his life. Even then my take is, well religion is power and why not spread it- more powerful - perhaps he even had a little hint of genius in the back of his mind that re-spinning an ancient superstition, might take on pretty good with some of the weak minded Romans. This is if he existed.

It's not like it all suddenly popped up with "Jesus", we are talking all the way back to before the Hebrews ripped off the mythology of the Babylonians, Egyptians and they in fact ripped their stuff off from Akkadian-Sumerians and nile dwellers before.

Ever play that game where you whisper a story in someone's ear and they do the same to the person next to them and it goes around in a circle until the other person next to you blurts out the final version(which grows or shrinks in each telling). It always sounds ridiculous to the original teller.

I find it amazing people believe such garbage.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1760734&postcount=29

[Carico]

I have changed my view on this topic.

People who claim that an historical Jesus never existed are making an unreasonable claim, in my view.

Certainly, his life and times were exaggerated and even partially fabricated by the Roman Catholic Church who was attempting to codify a hero and build a religion, but that does not mean the man did not exist.

First, people claim a lack of extra-Biblical evidence. Well, the Bible is hardly one book, it was written by numerous people, over many years – it is a collection of books and letters. Sure, we don’t have newspaper clippings of Jesus turning over the money-changers’ table or a YouTube clip of him reciting the Beatitudes, but to discount it as “just the Bible” is an oversimplification of the facts.

Second, I think the Nag Hammadi library should not be overlooked – and it is an extra-Biblical source. It is a source that has been dated back to perhaps 80CE, it was not discovered until 1945 AND it is rejected by the Catholic Church. Why would the Church have written the Gospel of Thomas – which is really damning to the structure of the Church – and then disavow it as heresy? That makes no sense to me.

Third, and most important to me, is the fact that had the Roman Catholic wanted to create a God-man out of thin air and totally fabricate his existence, I don’t think the Bible would read as it does. Why would there be four gospels in the Bible, instead of 12 (or 13)? Why would John not align with the Synoptic Gospels? Why would Revelation read like the maniacal ravings of a lunatic mind? Why the apparent contradictions? I believe if they had just decided to make him up, they would not have had to spin so much doctrine and dogma to fill in the blanks and account for these apparent contradictions. Why did it take so many years to determine the Canon? Why so much debate over it? Why were so many books rejected?

While there is not doubt that the Roman Catholic Church did doctor, twist and pervert the story of Jesus, it seems entirely unreasonable to claim he did not exist, simply for the dearth of mention by historians. :shrug:

Good post. One doesn't look in Madagascar for a history of the life of George Washington any more than one looks outside of Israel for the history of Christ. ;) The Catholics don't believe the bible so they're not Christians. That's why they call themselves the "Catholic religion", not the Christian religion. Their god is the pope because they believe everything he says, especially when it contradicts the bible. That's why they call the pope "Our Holy Father" when Jesus tells us we have only one Holy Father and He's in heaven.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I was trying to explain this before in a thread ages ago, I agree with Raven. People look past the gospels and say "but thats just the bible", The bible is actualy documented events of a persons life.


Jesus in my opinion had decent philosophy nd was a good person, peple do not look at it from a philosophical point of view, they just see that it's about god and superstition nd debunk it without consideration. You will find people that believe in god or are open to the idea of god will consider jesus alot more, even if they are hindu or muslim they will approach it with open mind.

People cannot separate the name of jesus from his so called miracles, they cannot view him as a regular guy with good philosopy. It is either jesus existed as was said, or it's ll complete myth with no truth. They do not take into consideration chinese whisper effect with exagerations.

peace.

[Michael]

The History Channel did an interesting 2 hour peace on all the people who may have been Jesus. There's were quite a few....