Non-Believer Discussion: Jesus, the historical figure
Options
Comments
-
shootemwon wrote: »Disclaimer: If you believe that Jesus Christ is divine or the savior, you probably want nothing to do with this thread, though you can certainly join in if you're willing to put your faith aside and offer historical information (this does not include scripture).
As an atheist, I'm of the belief that Jesus did exist, though much of what Christians believe about him is not true. I'm even inclined to believe that he was in fact a leader of a religious movement and died on the cross for going against the religious establishment. I'm willing to believe this because in his time, going against the religious establishment could indeed result in very serious punishment, and crucifixion was not uncommon during that era.
I'm looking for more information about Jesus from a HISTORICAL standpoint, including from those who believe he did not exist at all. If you have any good sources, please share them.
He made the Roman Empire at least pretend to believe.
And SHOOTEMWON, 2000 years later, you're asking about Him. -
John Prewett wrote: »And SHOOTEMWON, 2000 years later, you're asking about Him.
No ? , that's why I'm asking. Because his name still ring out thousands of years later. -
shootemwon wrote: »........................... his name still ring out thousands of years later.
Yep, sure does. Point is, the NT account is the only rational/plausible explanation for the subsequent "history." Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men. AntiChrist have tried and failed to come up plausible/rational alternative explanation. -
John Prewett wrote: »Yep, sure does. Point is, the NT account is the only rational/plausible explanation for the subsequent "history." Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men. AntiChrist have tried and failed to come up plausible/rational alternative explanation.
ah ah ah... don't for get how the European leaders conquered and forced their beliefs on their conquered and then made sure that generation after generation of children were forcefully raised into their religion as a means to help keep so called Jesus name alive.....
For real though, the reason we're talking about this Jesus character today is because so many people are delusional and continue to believe in fairy tales, and unfortunately, these people contribute to our world based upon their belief system. If that weren't the case, You'd be right about Jesus being forgotten.... -
John Prewett wrote: »Yep, sure does. Point is, the NT account is the only rational/plausible explanation for the subsequent "history." Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men. AntiChrist have tried and failed to come up plausible/rational alternative explanation.
Ok, shut the ? up and get out of my thread. So far all the usual suspects of bible humpers have acknowledged the disclaimer from the first post and stayed out of this conversation. I knew some idiot would ruin the streak we had going. -
The 'raising from the dead' thing was in argument for centuries. Many other Gospels that aren't in the Nicean created bible do not have that story.
Muslims do not believed he was killed on the cross, nor did the peoples they inherited their religious beginnings from. -
The 'raising from the dead' thing was in argument for centuries. Many other Gospels that aren't in the Nicean created bible do not have that story.
Muslims do not believed he was killed on the cross, nor did the peoples they inherited their religious beginnings from.
True, but the entire point of this thread is to discuss Jesus as a historic figure while completely disregarding religious accounts of his life. -
The practice of Christianity is what kept Jesus alive. There are many figures that have impacted history that are still spoken of today. Most of these figures have records because their deeds were recorded by their followers. The problem with the story of Jesus is that his followers did not exist until 100 years later. I give props to Paul for creating such an elaborate tale even though he needed help to get started. A bit of Old Testament. Some Mithra, A bit of Osiris and we have Jesus.
-
shootemwon wrote: »True, but the entire point of this thread is to discuss Jesus as a historic figure while completely disregarding religious accounts of his life.
Did the first two and a half pages get your hopes up?
You should have known bro -
FuriousOne wrote: »The practice of Christianity is what kept Jesus alive. There are many figures that have impacted history that are still spoken of today. Most of these figures have records because their deeds were recorded by their followers. The problem with the story of Jesus is that his followers did not exist until 100 years later. I give props to Paul for creating such an elaborate tale even though he needed help to get started. A bit of Old Testament. Some Mithra, A bit of Osiris and we have Jesus.
But did was Jesus a real person? Even if virtually every aspect of the Christian story of Jesus is borrowed/fabricated, they could still be referencing a real person, and if so, I'd like to know his real story. -
shootemwon wrote: »But did was Jesus a real person? Even if virtually every aspect of the Christian story of Jesus is borrowed/fabricated, they could still be referencing a real person, and if so, I'd like to know his real story.
Ok i give you that but the only direct evidence of his existence was from Josephus. And that's been proven to be embellished if not entirely fabricated by others after Josephus. Josephus got his info by way of James who claimed to be the brother (kin or Spiritual) of Jesus. Never did he meet nor have any other direct credible information referring to Jesus. Josephus just wrote down what he heard. Paul claimed to become a Christian only after killing followers of Jesus and then having an awakening. I don't think either account is credible because both figures had a lot to gain which they did.
In terms of the lost tomb. Those names and the name Jesus son of Joseph were common in those days as were the other names. It is still up for debate but then creates even more doubt being that his followers even if they did not believe him to be divine would make sure that his body would not be found along with his family or at least they would be honored.. (kinda ruins the myth) -
I think everyone should watch the davinci code again
-
I think everyone should watch the davinci code again
And believe in another fairy tale? -
Hence why I said "at most". Various non-Christian sources from 1st century A.D. mention a man that the Christians followed. Were these accounts accurate and/or was this man "Yeshua ibn Yosef"? Don't know.Chillin&Postin wrote: »i used to roll with the thought that Yesuah Bin Yusef takes the place but folks cant even pinpoint him in history..but he is supposed to be Historical Jesus
so if you cant pinpoint biblical jesus or historical jesus...........
all that "he may have lived between these ages and walks around these places and may have studied here" dont mean ?
its either it was or it wasnt -
fiat_money wrote: »Hence why I said "at most". Various non-Christian sources from 1st century A.D. mention a man that the Christians followed. Were these accounts accurate and/or was this man "Yeshua ibn Yosef"? Don't know.
They all mention him in passing as if they heard about him from another person. Dude is the ultimate meme. That's like me saying i heard this dude was running ? over there with the Christians and his name was fiat_money. I would introduce you but they killed him and he rose to heaven. Fiat_money was walking on water and doing crazy stunts that got all the ladies. Of course i have no pictures or even a signed autograph but he was the man cuz this here document that i wrote about him proves it. -
Word, this is why the usage of phrases such as "at most" and statements such as "Don't know." are so important.FuriousOne wrote: »They all mention him in passing as if they heard about him from another person. Dude is the ultimate meme. That's like me saying i heard this dude was running ? over there with the Christians and his name was fiat_money. I would introduce you but they killed him and he rose to heaven. Fiat_money was walking on water and doing crazy stunts that got all the ladies. Of course i have no pictures or even a signed autograph but he was the man cuz this here document that i wrote about him proves it.
It's not like they had cameras, phones, or the internet twenty centuries ago; word of mouth and written accounts were the only alternatives to witnessing something personally. And considering the amount of time it took to travel back then, not everyone could drop everything to track down and pursue some guy proclaimed to be a "messiah". -
JP: Yep, sure does. Point is, the NT account is the only rational/plausible explanation for the subsequent "history."
Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men.
AntiChrist have tried and failed to come up plausible/rational alternative explanation.ah ah ah... don't for get how the European leaders conquered and forced their beliefs on their conquered ........................."
Of course when Jesus rose from the dead, there wern't any Europeans in the vicinity.
The original believers in Jeus [Thomas being prime example] were "forced" to believe only cause Jesus was in their face.
The "conventional wisdom" was that ? favored the wealthy. Epitomized by Roman Emporers being worshipped as "? ."
The account of the Son of ? walking as a common man among common people and partaking in suffering was and is revolutionary and highly attractive to people at the bottom of the world's totem pole.
Jesus's "sheep" NEVER used temporal force to make anyone believe. Didn't and don't use temporal force for any reason.
Course "wolves in sheep clothing" are another breed altogether. -
John Prewett, if you ever post in this thread again, you automatically admit that you're a satan worshipper and if Jesus came back to earth, you would anally ? him.
-
John Prewett wrote: »Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men.
this is a very popular meme among preachers these days
its almost like you guys all get your sermon material from the same website
oh wait, you DO do that -
fiat_money wrote: »Word, this is why the usage of phrases such as "at most" and statements such as "Don't know." are so important.
It's not like they had cameras, phones, or the internet twenty centuries ago; word of mouth and written accounts were the only alternatives to witnessing something personally. And considering the amount of time it took to travel back then, not everyone could drop everything to track down and pursue some guy proclaimed to be a "messiah".
He had an entire crew following him around. Not one follower wrote about him until 20-30 years later? That follower not even being one of his homies?. Philosophers got props in those days even if they went against the status status quo. Everything written about him was written after his death and can be attributed to the church of Thessaloniki. They surely collected enough written material for the bible. I guess the Egyptians were smart enough to carve a stone. Telling me that they didn't have time to record is disingenuous. Word of mouth didn't spread until after the fact. Romans were expert record keepers in those days btw. I attribute their social society of inclusion to the true reason why the word of some guy named Jesus who may or may not have existed spread like wildfire. -
John Prewett wrote: »JP: Yep, sure does. Point is, the NT account is the only rational/plausible explanation for the subsequent "history."
Had Jesus NOT rised from the dead, He would have been as forgotten as other men.
AntiChrist have tried and failed to come up plausible/rational alternative explanation.
Of course when Jesus rose from the dead, there wern't any Europeans in the vicinity.
The original believers in Jeus [Thomas being prime example] were "forced" to believe only cause Jesus was in their face.
The "conventional wisdom" was that ? favored the wealthy. Epitomized by Roman Emporers being worshipped as "? ."
The account of the Son of ? walking as a common man among common people and partaking in suffering was and is revolutionary and highly attractive to people at the bottom of the world's totem pole.
Jesus's "sheep" NEVER used temporal force to make anyone believe. Didn't and don't use temporal force for any reason.
Course "wolves in sheep clothing" are another breed altogether.
Do yo old ass even listen to hip hop. How you find this forum? The great Julius Ceaser and His adopted son Ceaser Octavian Agustus will be remembered for their deeds for centuries to come. They didn't require Resurrection. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Do yo old ass even listen to hip hop.
Listen to ? I thought "hip hop" was the way rabbits get around !FuriousOne wrote: »How you find this forum?
SlummingFuriousOne wrote: »The great Julius Ceaser and His adopted son Ceaser Octavian Agustus
will be remembered for their deeds for centuries to come.
They didn't require Resurrection.
They didn't get crucified for being the Son of ? either.
Temporal rulers are commonly remembered.
Peasants killed by their own cultures are not.
Peasant killed by his own culture and then having TIME divided in to "before and after" [BC - AD] is UNIQUE.
Humanist/atheist don't like it,... but the AD - BC time division relates back to birth/death of peasant/commoner Jesus Christ.
Jesus didn't need an army to change the world and be remembered. -
SMH @ yo life. How are those thai boys working for you. I guess ? and religion go hand and hand. or hand on boy.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »SMH @ yo life. How are those thai boys working for you. I guess ? and religion go hand and hand. or hand on boy.
Or no hands at all. -
Word, this is why the usage of phrases such as "non-Christian sources" are so important.FuriousOne wrote: »He had an entire crew following him around. Not one follower wrote about him until 20-30 years later? That follower not even being one of his homies?. Philosophers got props in those days even if they went against the status status quo. Everything written about him was written after his death and can be attributed to the church of Thessaloniki. They surely collected enough written material for the bible. I guess the Egyptians were smart enough to carve a stone. Telling me that they didn't have time to record is disingenuous. Word of mouth didn't spread until after the fact. Romans were expert record keepers in those days btw. I attribute their social society of inclusion to the true reason why the word of some guy named Jesus who may or may not have existed spread like wildfire.
Since Christianity formed after the supposed death of its "messiah", it's plausible that some non-Christians would hear about it after enough time for a substantial following to build had passed. And considering that many of the people were illiterate back then and that many written documents don't last for twenty centuries, not everyone could write an account which could be discovered and read today.
