No historical Jesus

[Alex.]

I do not think "Jesus" cares what he is called as long as he is called and welcomed by the heart and into the soul.

Yeah....no

To you madam, not to me.

 

[Indeependent]

I do not think "Jesus" cares what he is called as long as he is called and welcomed by the heart and into the soul.

Yeah....no

I'll be quite honest, Jews who don't learn Torah also drive me crazy.

 

[Indeependent]

Who's them?
Are you getting non-Jesus like emotional?
Like the actual TNT Jesus?
But that's so not the loving cool Jesus floating in your head.

Even Jesus got pissed when the trolls, money changers and animal sellers practiced their respective crafts in the Temple.

Yes he did.
That's TNT Jesus.

TNT?

The New Testament.

I happen to agree with skye in as much as there are many aspects to who and what Jesus is, what he means to each individual and what he was when he walked the earth. My understanding of Jesus is pure love. That is what he means to me, that is what his examples on Earth were borne from. When I meditate it is a centering meditation based on the love from Jesus. I feel him in my soul, in my being, the very essence of who I am feels that love.

That's beautiful.

 

[skye]

Jesus is not a book ok?

HE is much more than that

have some respect ,....omg

 

[Indeependent]

Jesus is not a book ok?

HE is much more than that

have some respect ,....omg

Your spirituality is a beautiful thing.
The point of this thread is a lack of Historical Evidence.

 

[Boss]

I agree, but the OP is claiming Jesus never existed. I find that harder to believe than the belief he was God in the flesh, to be honest. It's right up there with the nuts who believe we never landed on the moon or George W. Bush staged 9-11.... it's just kooky conspiracy theory and some people believe it.

I do think it is a fascinating and candid look at how people's beliefs work. Evidence is subjective, it's dependent upon whether we see it as legitimate or valid and to what degree. People will say, "I believe this because there is proof..." but the "proof" is simply evidence you accepted as proof.

See you are easilly fooled by the use of real figures to make the image seem historical, but that does not make the icon a real singular historical figure.
Repost of my example in hopes you grasp this.

Difference Between Real People & Fictional Characters

A character (or fictional character) is a person in a
narrative work (such as a novel, or passion play).
I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE COMMENT THAT:
Although Rome borrowed legends and customs of
many cultures and infused them into Christianity
that Jesus still actually historically existed or was
based on someone who did. This is not an honest
assesment since being based on many figures and
mythologies/deities does not make you based on a
singular historical figure to say you existed as that
singular figure.
Let me use an analogy:
Larry David writes a Tv Pilot for Jerry Seinfeld, now
Jerry in the TV show is loosely based on the real
Jerry but since Larry David's sense of humor is in
the comedic irony it's also Larry David making the
Jerry image in the stories /scripts.
Now one could argue Jerry exists, but he's not the
King of comedy without Larry David nor is TV Jerry
an actual person. That could he argued.
Same with Kramer being based mostly on a friend
of Larry David, but once again the TV Kramer is
not special without Larry David.
HOWEVER here's where you guys mess up your
logic; suppose you have George based on former
comedic Tv and movie fictional Figures mixed with
the quirks and stories of a few real figures like
Gregory, GEOFFRY, AND Harry. These converged
figures can't have their real names like Kramer and
Jerry have, so they get a new name, new birthdate
as well.
They have 3 jobs so the character needs his own
new job or has all 3 jobs through the seasons as he
get's fired from each one. *L* Even George owes
his image to the writer Larry David for even though
George is written to he Italian, he shows the traits
of the Jewish writer.
So now is George real, did George Castanza exist
as a singular historical person?
If you said yes then go sit on santa clauses lap-
and here's your sign that says "I RIDE THE SHORT
BUS"

Yeahhh... I'm not gunna read unformatted bullshit... formatted bullshit is bad enough.

That was the dumbest excuse you can ever make, but also trashes your faith who couldn't properly format their stories and get them straight (50 thousand errors & contradictions in the NT).
Your human ego said that, otherwise you'd have to admit children who know Santa doesn't exist are smarter and more rational then you.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop overloading us with Historical Facts, I mean, Historians making statements about something they can't prove!

I'm just presenting evidence from scholars who find the notion of Jesus not existing to be laughable. You gotta problem with it, fuck you... I'm not here to follow your orders, bud.

 

[Indeependent]

See you are easilly fooled by the use of real figures to make the image seem historical, but that does not make the icon a real singular historical figure.
Repost of my example in hopes you grasp this.

Difference Between Real People & Fictional Characters

A character (or fictional character) is a person in a
narrative work (such as a novel, or passion play).
I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE COMMENT THAT:
Although Rome borrowed legends and customs of
many cultures and infused them into Christianity
that Jesus still actually historically existed or was
based on someone who did. This is not an honest
assesment since being based on many figures and
mythologies/deities does not make you based on a
singular historical figure to say you existed as that
singular figure.
Let me use an analogy:
Larry David writes a Tv Pilot for Jerry Seinfeld, now
Jerry in the TV show is loosely based on the real
Jerry but since Larry David's sense of humor is in
the comedic irony it's also Larry David making the
Jerry image in the stories /scripts.
Now one could argue Jerry exists, but he's not the
King of comedy without Larry David nor is TV Jerry
an actual person. That could he argued.
Same with Kramer being based mostly on a friend
of Larry David, but once again the TV Kramer is
not special without Larry David.
HOWEVER here's where you guys mess up your
logic; suppose you have George based on former
comedic Tv and movie fictional Figures mixed with
the quirks and stories of a few real figures like
Gregory, GEOFFRY, AND Harry. These converged
figures can't have their real names like Kramer and
Jerry have, so they get a new name, new birthdate
as well.
They have 3 jobs so the character needs his own
new job or has all 3 jobs through the seasons as he
get's fired from each one. *L* Even George owes
his image to the writer Larry David for even though
George is written to he Italian, he shows the traits
of the Jewish writer.
So now is George real, did George Castanza exist
as a singular historical person?
If you said yes then go sit on santa clauses lap-
and here's your sign that says "I RIDE THE SHORT
BUS"

Yeahhh... I'm not gunna read unformatted bullshit... formatted bullshit is bad enough.

That was the dumbest excuse you can ever make, but also trashes your faith who couldn't properly format their stories and get them straight (50 thousand errors & contradictions in the NT).
Your human ego said that, otherwise you'd have to admit children who know Santa doesn't exist are smarter and more rational then you.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop overloading us with Historical Facts, I mean, Historians making statements about something they can't prove!

I'm just presenting evidence from scholars who find the notion of Jesus not existing to be laughable. You gotta problem with it, fuck you... I'm not here to follow your orders, bud.

You didn't present evidence, you presented people stating that they know what they're taking about.

 

[skye]

Jesus was sweet He was human and kind...loving....and ALL powerfull...

not at all like Indeependent or the likes of him....yuck

 

[Alex.]

Yeahhh... I'm not gunna read unformatted bullshit... formatted bullshit is bad enough.

That was the dumbest excuse you can ever make, but also trashes your faith who couldn't properly format their stories and get them straight (50 thousand errors & contradictions in the NT).
Your human ego said that, otherwise you'd have to admit children who know Santa doesn't exist are smarter and more rational then you.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop overloading us with Historical Facts, I mean, Historians making statements about something they can't prove!

I'm just presenting evidence from scholars who find the notion of Jesus not existing to be laughable. You gotta problem with it, fuck you... I'm not here to follow your orders, bud.

You didn't present evidence, you presented people stating that they know what they're taking about.

I have evidence, it is a depiction of what Jesus looked like.

Besides that we have textual evidence.

 

[Indeependent]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

 

[skye]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

what do you care so much about good looking and stuff....omg

what a sick world we are living in!

 

[Indeependent]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

what do you care so much about good looking and stuff....omg

what a sick world we are living in!

He had charisma and was a Jew.
I want my fellow Jews to be attractive.
We're talking 2,000 years ago; good looking counted.

 

[skye]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

what do you care so much about good looking and stuff....omg

what a sick world we are living in!

He had charisma and was a Jew.
I want my fellow Jews to be attractive.
We're talking 2,000 years ago; good looking counted.

I can't take this **** any more

YUCK!

 

[Indeependent]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

what do you care so much about good looking and stuff....omg

what a sick world we are living in!

Speaking of which, I'm sure you took care in the latest picture of yourself you posted.
Am I right or wrong?

 

[Boss]

The point of this thread is a lack of Historical Evidence.

There's a lack of historical evidence on a lot of things from that time. It doesn't mean they never happened. I presented a relatively small list of scholars who have done research and written books on the life of Jesus. And that's just from a couple of minutes on the Jesus Wiki page. They seem to all indicate it's absurd to believe Jesus didn't exist.

Do you honestly believe that a 2,000 year-old religion and following of billions are the result of a hoax? If you do, you're nutty as a fruitcake. Just basic fucking logic should tell you that there's no way this could have ever taken off and lasted all this time if Jesus never existed.

The idiotic basis for this claim is the lack of public record recounting Jesus during that time. But it is a fact known to every historian that the Emperor of Rome had all records of Christianity destroyed, his followers executed, and people fed to the lions for professing Christian beliefs. So yeah... there's not a whole lot of old Jesus memorabilia laying around from back then.

 

[Indeependent]

I will presume Yehusua was better looking than that.

what do you care so much about good looking and stuff....omg

what a sick world we are living in!

He had charisma and was a Jew.
I want my fellow Jews to be attractive.
We're talking 2,000 years ago; good looking counted.

I can't take this **** any more

YUCK!

So...Goodnight.

 

[westwall]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

Why should they? The Dead Sea Scrolls predate the birth of Christ. That's simple enough to account for.

Shhhhh, you're going to expose guano for the ignorant twat he is. What is truly funny is all of these so called enlightened people are even bigger bigots than tank and the other racist twits we are saddled with here.

 

[Indeependent]

The point of this thread is a lack of Historical Evidence.

There's a lack of historical evidence on a lot of things from that time. It doesn't mean they never happened. I presented a relatively small list of scholars who have done research and written books on the life of Jesus. And that's just from a couple of minutes on the Jesus Wiki page. They seem to all indicate it's absurd to believe Jesus didn't exist.

Do you honestly believe that a 2,000 year-old religion and following of billions are the result of a hoax? If you do, you're nutty as a fruitcake. Just basic fucking logic should tell you that there's no way this could have ever taken off and lasted all this time if Jesus never existed.

The idiotic basis for this claim is the lack of public record recounting Jesus during that time. But it is a fact known to every historian that the Emperor of Rome had all records of Christianity destroyed, his followers executed, and people fed to the lions for professing Christian beliefs. So yeah... there's not a whole lot of old Jesus memorabilia laying around from back then.

Wow, Boss, you're usually way slicker than that.
You went from, "I posted facts" to "I posted statements from guys with the inside scoop".
I'm a tad insulted by such sloppiness on your part.
I know all about Rome burning because, just like Egypt, no once great nation wants to leave behind their humiliating fall.
All of this is covered in the Talmud.
What that leads you with is...faith.
Faith can be a beautiful thing.

 

[Boss]

Yeahhh... I'm not gunna read unformatted bullshit... formatted bullshit is bad enough.

That was the dumbest excuse you can ever make, but also trashes your faith who couldn't properly format their stories and get them straight (50 thousand errors & contradictions in the NT).
Your human ego said that, otherwise you'd have to admit children who know Santa doesn't exist are smarter and more rational then you.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop overloading us with Historical Facts, I mean, Historians making statements about something they can't prove!

I'm just presenting evidence from scholars who find the notion of Jesus not existing to be laughable. You gotta problem with it, fuck you... I'm not here to follow your orders, bud.

You didn't present evidence, you presented people stating that they know what they're taking about.

Well you can click on their names and they have Wiki pages where their books and papers are referenced and you are free to go look them over any time you please.

First I'm "overloading" you, then I'm not giving you anything... you're just all over the board tonight. Sounds like, you have your mind made up and you're challenging me to change it.... and I guess you'll get to win that argument because I can't.

 

[Indeependent]

That was the dumbest excuse you can ever make, but also trashes your faith who couldn't properly format their stories and get them straight (50 thousand errors & contradictions in the NT).
Your human ego said that, otherwise you'd have to admit children who know Santa doesn't exist are smarter and more rational then you.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship,Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

[14]Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".

[15]Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[16]James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

[17]Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

[18]Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop overloading us with Historical Facts, I mean, Historians making statements about something they can't prove!

I'm just presenting evidence from scholars who find the notion of Jesus not existing to be laughable. You gotta problem with it, fuck you... I'm not here to follow your orders, bud.

You didn't present evidence, you presented people stating that they know what they're taking about.

Well you can click on their names and they have Wiki pages where their books and papers are referenced and you are free to go look them over any time you please.

First I'm "overloading" you, then I'm not giving you anything... you're just all over the board tonight. Sounds like, you have your mind made up and you're challenging me to change it.... and I guess you'll get to win that argument because I can't.

You never overloaded me with anything but a list of authors who all stated they knew something.
I will state that there's lot's in the Torah that's hard to prove and only time and archeology will bring about some light on the past.