Do you believe Jesus existed?

[Len Cnut]

Pagan? What have they gotta do with it?

[Dazey]

But today you don't get stoned to death for being a slag so I reckon Mary was just hedging her bets cuz people were stupider back then.

Saudi-Arabia.

Sorry, I meant real countries.

[Lithium]

Pagan? What have they gotta do with it?

Please don't get him started.

[DieselDaisy]

Seeing as the Christian historical tradition is considered suspicious because of alleged biases one has to look to pagan evidence since pagans had no vested interest in establishing the existence of a Jesus Christ.

[Dazey]

I'm beginning to suspect Dies' is a closet god botherer.

[Facekicker]

It is not even a question of belief. He did exist. There is too much pagan corroborating evidence.

Yep, The Romans were pretty obsessive in their record keeping. The baptism and crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazereth are recorded.

Scholars of antiquity agree on this being genuine historical evidence.

[Forsaken]

Yes, fact.

[TeeJay410]

There's absolutely no evidence Jesus of the bible existed. There is evidence however of a political rabble rouser whom it was likely the biblical character of Jesus was derived from about the time who was executed by crucifixion, which by Roman standards is a rather benign death for a political dissident.

Edited March 1, 2015 by TeeJay410

[classicrawker]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

[Dazey]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

Pretty sure all that Red Sea cobblers was Moses.

[Angelica]

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

But there is a way. By comparing the New Testament with other, none Christian, sources, Jesus Christ emerges as a real historic figure. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all cite Jesus/Christ. We also have archaeological evidence of Pilate's prefecture of Judaea.

[estrangedtwat]

If that's what you need to tell yourself to be able to sleep at night without shitting yourself in fear, then go on and keep believing that.

[Estranged Reality]

There's absolutely no evidence Jesus of the bible existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Go home TeeJay, you're drunk.

[DieselDaisy]

As my mother would say, it is like talking to a bucket of shite.

[classicrawker]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

Pretty sure all that Red Sea cobblers was Moses.

Doh! shows you what a devout catholic I am!

[classicrawker]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

But there is a way. By comparing the New Testament with other, none Christian, sources, Jesus Christ emerges as a real historic figure. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all cite Jesus/Christ. We also have archaeological evidence of Pilate's prefecture of Judaea.

Anecdotal writings as all the individuals you mentioned were supposedly born after Jesus's death.

Also lets be honest the writings of the ancients are not original as their stories were written and rewritten by others throughout history. Who knows what changes and distortions were introduced as they were handed down over 2000 years of history. Do you really believe the Catholic church has not changed or modified the scriptures over the millennia to fit their own agenda?

I am not saying that the historical Jesus never existed I just dispute the notion that it is a proven fact.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

But there is a way. By comparing the New Testament with other, none Christian, sources, Jesus Christ emerges as a real historic figure. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all cite Jesus/Christ. We also have archaeological evidence of Pilate's prefecture of Judaea.

Anecdotal writings as all the individuals you mentioned were supposedly born after Jesus's death.

Also lets be honest the writings of the ancients are not original as their stories were written and rewritten by others throughout history. Who knows what changes and distortions were introduced as they were handed down over 2000 years of history. Do you really believe the Catholic church has not changed or modified the scriptures over the millennia to fit their own agenda?

I am not saying that the historical Jesus never existed I just dispute the notion that it is a proven fact.

Those three individuals were all writing long before Christianity became an accepted state religion. Also, how else can we explain the Pilate stone?

[classicrawker]

Yes, fact.

And the bible claims all sorts of unbelievable things attributed to Jesus from parting of Red Sea to the plagues of locust, the river turning to blood, etc.

It is a book of folklore with some historical facts woven in so unless you were there it is not a fact and there is no way to prove it was true or false.

But there is a way. By comparing the New Testament with other, none Christian, sources, Jesus Christ emerges as a real historic figure. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all cite Jesus/Christ. We also have archaeological evidence of Pilate's prefecture of Judaea.

Anecdotal writings as all the individuals you mentioned were supposedly born after Jesus's death.

Also lets be honest the writings of the ancients are not original as their stories were written and rewritten by others throughout history. Who knows what changes and distortions were introduced as they were handed down over 2000 years of history. Do you really believe the Catholic church has not changed or modified the scriptures over the millennia to fit their own agenda?

I am not saying that the historical Jesus never existed I just dispute the notion that it is a proven fact.

Those three individuals were all writing long before Christianity became an accepted state religion. Also, how else can we explain the Pilate stone?

They still were not alive during Jesus's supposed lifetime so anything they wrote would be anecdotal based on what others told them and we have no way to verify the information they were given.

The Pilate stone does not mention Jesus only Pilate's name and again it is anecdotal as you are trying to prove Jesus existed based on the proof that Pilate likely existed which by the way there is no way to prove the exact date of the Pilate stone or if it is even authentic. it is believed authentic based on where it was found nothing more.

Again I am not saying historical Jesus did not exist. That is not my argument. I am arguing that it is not a "fact" as you and others are claiming but rather a supposition based on available historical evidence. We do not have conclusive proof that he existed so it cannot be considered a "fact".

[Facekicker]

If you question the accepted historical evidence that a Jesus of Nazereth existed then there are whole swathes of accepted human history that you must also similarly dismiss.

Acknowledging that Jesus existed does not in any way validate the bible by the by.

It's ok, go on, just say it - Jesus existed by all acceptable evidence,

I say this as an out and out atheist who thinks the bible is the greatest book of fiction ever written.

[classicrawker]

If you question the accepted historical evidence that a Jesus of Nazereth existed then there are whole swathes of accepted human history that you must also similarly dismiss.

Acknowledging that Jesus existed does not in any way validate the bible by the by.

It's ok, go on, just say it - Jesus existed by all acceptable evidence,

And wh

I say this as an out and out atheist who thinks the bible is the greatest book of fiction ever written.

I have no doubt that our concepts of ancient history are not what actually happened in many cases as we are relying on written accounts that are either thousands of years old or have been rewritten numerous times so who knows what distortions have been carried forward. So IMHO it is not out of the question that Jesus could be a myth. As Winston Churchill astutely observed "history is written by the victors" and is not always what actually happened.

Again I am not arguing he did not exist only that it is not an established fact as there is not enough conclusive evidence to claim this IMHO. Does it seem likely based on ancient writings that he was a real person? yes, but is it a proven fact? I say no.

Edited March 2, 2015 by classicrawker

[Facekicker]

I don't see any particular reason as to why the Romans would magic up the birth & crucifixion of some bloke from Nazereth. Who by their records was nobody of any particular importance (in the Biblical sense)

Lets put it this way. Would we be having the same conversation if it was Brian of Nazereth? (deliberate Monty Python reference )

No, we'd just be saying - "Born in XYZ, crucified in XYZ, right next record."

I'm secure enough in my own position to acknowledge he existed and that this in no way infers divinity.

Denying his existence seems to me to be no different than grasping at straws because you aren't sure of your own position.

[classicrawker]

I don't see any particular reason as to why the Romans would magic up the birth & crucifixion of some bloke from Nazereth. Who by their records was nobody of any particular importance (in the Biblical sense)

Lets put it this way. Would we be having the same conversation if it was Brian of Nazereth? (deliberate Monty Python reference )

No, we'd just be saying - "Born in XYZ, crucified in XYZ, right next record."

I'm secure enough in my own position to acknowledge he existed and that this in no way infers divinity.

Denying his existence seems to me to be no different than grasping at straws because you aren't sure of your own position.

I agree FK and again there is evidence he did exist but not enough to say it is a "fact" IMHO.

[TeeJay410]

There's absolutely no evidence Jesus of the bible existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Go home TeeJay, you're drunk.

I was speaking of the character of Jesus from the bible, the water walking leper curing Jesus,

[Dr. Who]

Is it ok to believe in God? Or is that politically incorrect at this point too?