People don't "know" that. They perhaps make the supposition, but that isn't knowing. As I said there has yet to be evidence found that actually supports the existence of the creature.
Who is Jesus?
- Thread starter ahmadabdalrhman
- Start date
True...I am making some assumptions that in absence of imperical evidence to support a historical Jesus, that no such person existed...
But given the gravity of the achievements attributed to this 'man', and the knowledge that there were contemporary historians in Jerusalem at the time he was to have lived and been crucified, but did not write a single word to support the claim that Jesus existed, I think my assumption is a fairly safe one.
Read about Philo Judaeus and what he had to say about Jesus:
Witness to Jesus - Philo of Alexandria
What a wonderful find! I found the works of Philo for download (google books PDF) If you visit google books you can get an easier to read (but poorly formated) text version but it's not downloadable.
My only criticism is that the Jesus myth IMO was propagated for political purposes not by mistake or good intent gone wrong. The emperors were a terrible menace to the people of Rome. At the supposed time of Jesus Tiberius and then his grandson Gaius were horrific people by any measure and had to be deposed. A primary aspect of their claim to power was that Tiberius's great grandmother had sex with a god and bore children by him. Latter this would be what Gaius used to force his claim that he was descended from a god on the senate. It was by his nearness to a god that he claimed authority. This is a very old idea that dates back to Sumer where the gods could walk among people.
It is just too obvious and convenient that at this very moment of crises a religion should appear complete with history that would directly oppose the emperor! The founder was even conveniently in heaven sitting by his fathers side already out of harms way. The Jesus myth itself so heavily borrowed from pagan myth and now we see clearly also from Philo and the Cynics, Stoics and Plato that it would fail any scrutiny of its claim as being original.
I realized Christianity was a political movement once I had finished reading The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius and The Histories by Herodotus. This new evidence is the death nail in the Jesus myth for me. The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no doubt left in me that Jesus never existed, not even as a regular fellow blown out of proportion (which I considered) but he is a full blown man made protagonist in a drama made to undermine brutal and savage dictators.
Lone Wolf, did he really? I don’t remember reading that in the Bible. Do you have the chapter and verse where Jesus himself says that?
There are many legends about the origin of Jesus. The story of Horus is one. Jesus can also be traced back to Hindu Gods (Hinduism is probably the oldest religion in the world, older even than Judaism). Jesus can be traced all the way back to Hindu God Vishnu. Since Jesus is the second member of Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and Vishnu is the second member of Hindu Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh), there may be something in that.
However, this argument is separate from whether Jesus was a real man. He could have been a real man and also deified by his followers based upon Horus, Vishnu or whatever.
I disagree. It becomes about probability.
The fact that there are other fables that Christianity heavily borrowed from, that we have no first hand accounts of Jesus, that Jesus taught nothing new, that there is no evidence of his existence whatsoever except stories told 40 years (or more) after his supposed death - stories absolutely rife with contradictions! That no one at the time of Jesus seemed to think any of his "miracles" were worth writing down. All this indicates to me that he is an imaginary figure.
But lets take it a step further and assume your right - Jesus did really exist. Then we would have to concede that Horus and Osiris also existed. You would have to, in the very least, say they could have. By your logic you would have to say a man born of a virgin, that healed the sick, was from god, was crucified then raised from the dead three days later by god and had a giant bird head existed.
No, you are wrong. No one named Jesus ever existed just like no one with a giant bird head ever walked on water.
In light of these non-christian references, the theory that Jesus never existed is clearly unreasonable.
alleywayzalwayz, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus was real or not. For all I know, there may have lived a man called Jesus in a town called Nazareth.
The point is, was he the Son of God, as you seem to imply? There I disagree with you; there is no evidence of that.
alleywayzalwayz, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus was real or not. For all I know, there may have lived a man called Jesus in a town called Nazareth.
The point is, was he the Son of God, as you seem to imply? There I disagree with you; there is no evidence of that.
By your logic you would have to say a man born of a virgin, that healed the sick, was from god, was crucified then raised from the dead three days later by god and had a giant bird head existed.
Scot Free, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that Jesus the man could very well have existed; I did not ascribe any supernatural powers to him. But a carpenter called Jesus could very well have existed, he would be just a mortal man like you or I. What is improbable about that?
I can readily concede that there may have lived a man called Jesus, but that in no way implies that he was Son of God or nay such nonsense.
Scot Free, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that Jesus the man could very well have existed; I did not ascribe any supernatural powers to him. But a carpenter called Jesus could very well have existed, he would be just a mortal man like you or I. What is improbable about that?
I can readily concede that there may have lived a man called Jesus, but that in no way implies that he was Son of God or nay such nonsense.
That is a fallacy called begging the question: you are saying non Christian sources are not valid because you are assuming Christian ones are.
The problem there, is that the new testament scribblings are positively rife with contradictions and errors. It is a very poorly written and conceived book. It is far from correct to suppose the book is anything comparable to the Egyptian book of the dead (for example) which does not suffer such errors.
Uh-oh you'll have to dust off your thinking cap.
I just posted that. Go over what I wrote carefully. Don't assume you know what I wrote and don't breath meaning into it. I write what I mean and I mean what I write.
Perhaps you'll need to invest in a book about rational thought? An introduction to logic?
I agree there may have been just like there may have been a bird headed man that walked the earth too. You cannot accept one and deny the other. I say both are too improbable that they could have happened.
Exactly, scratch, I quite agree with you. I don’t believe all that nonsense about the Messiah or the Son of God. But what is implausible, improbable about there having lived a man called Jesus 2000 years ago? He would be just a mortal man, like you or I, when he died, he met the same fate as everybody else (he went six feet under). The concept of Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the Son of God may well have been based upon a normal, mortal man.
Same with Mohammed. Nobody doubts that there lived a man named Mohammed. But was he a Prophet of God? Give me a break. He was as much a Prophet of God as I am.
Perhaps you have reached your limit?
Until you figure out what I am saying you're in no position to say I am wrong.
Until you figure out what I am saying you're in no position to say I am wrong.
Let me put it this way then: what evidence do you have that Jesus really existed and why is it better evidence than the evidence for Horus or any other mythological figure? What is it that should persuade me Jesus walked the earth but a bird headed man did not (or any other such deity)?
I already wrote a post in this thread, citing non-christian sources for the existence of Jesus. I seem to remember in one of your other posts, you stated that there is no eyewitness testimony. Actually, there are two sources of writings that provide excellent eyewitness evidence that can be reasonably believed. I'll start with Luke.
While Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the resurrection itself, he certainly was an eyewitness to many new testament events. In the second half of acts, for example, Luke displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.
Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town’s politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town’s roads and geography, its unusual topography, local houses of worship, area hotels, town statutes and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year.
Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that year, or said he had gotten good information from people who had been there, would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That’s the type of testimony we have throughout much of the new testament. Luke includes the most eyewitness details. Scholars and historians have chronicled Luke’s accuracy in the book of acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, they have identified 84 facts in the last sixteen chapters of acts that have been con-firmed by historical and archaeological research. Here's a small sample of them. As you read the following list, keep in mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts13:4-5)
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
6. two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes(14:12)
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use(14:25)
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1)
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable eyewitness testimony?
What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?
And that's just the details of the environment around him. He also talks about Jesus, what he said, his alleged miracles, where he traveled, and the events surrounding the early church.
Because a man with a bird head is absurd. We can all rule out leprechauns, fairies, and bird headed men. And the myth of Jesus is pretty close to be conquered as well. You guys are winning.
I could go on and talk about John. More eyewitness evidence.
Seems to me that at least the existence of Jesus is very plausible. Was he really the son of god? Or was he liar?
If he was a liar, then dying for his fantastic claims wouldn't seem likely.
This would mean that if he wasn't who he said he was, he was probably a charismatic lunatic.
Last edited:
Luke was hearsay and written much later than Jesus existed.
A bird headed man is no more absurd then a fellow that can walk on water.
John was again written at least 40 years maybe longer after Jesus supposedly died.
If your accounts are so good how do you explain the inconsistencies? For example two entirely different genealogies?
I love this argument! But a man that walks on water, heals the sick, his father is god, dies and is resurrected is more believable!!!!!
Seriously funny stuff.
Many believe that King Arthur and Robin Hood were historic figures as well, yet there is no archaeological or documentary evidence to support this claim...
People tend to be sucked into the romanticism of the story and forget that it is just that...a story...
Based on archaeological and extra-biblical documentary evidence, one must conclude that the bible is a fiction, with some historic background as its setting, but there is no evidence for any of the central characters in it...