BF2S Forums Jesus, Real Man or Myth?

In terms of historical analysis, one would have to experience a bit of delusion to deny that Jesus existed in history.

I think the debate about whether or not Jesus is deity is much more the issue.

sergeriver wrote:

So, did he exist?  What was Jesus?  What do you think about him?

I dont know, but what i do know, is if he did exist, he was an ordinary man, who had no powers, because magical powers dont exist in the real world.

Ryan wrote:

Why do you guys care so much about Jesus?

Because he is among a handful of figures whose message has shaped so much of history and today's world.

What I want to know (if Jesus did exist) is why 'God' sent him down 2000 years ago when, to be honest, not much was going on.

Now though there is a load of shit going on in the world (and 50 years ago with the holocaust) and where's Jesus?

ATG wrote:

Conjecture.

The trouble with religious debates is that they cannot be anything other than opinion.

There is no proof, hence there may be no point.

QFT, until there is no proof everything will remain as a mere speculation.

OrangeHound wrote:

ATG wrote:

Conjecture.

The trouble with religious debates is that they cannot be anything other than opinion.

There is no proof, hence there may be no point.

There is substantial historical proof for Jesus.

Historical proof is not there.  Only stories written after his (supposed) life and death.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-07-10 10:59:28)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

ATG wrote:

Conjecture.

The trouble with religious debates is that they cannot be anything other than opinion.

There is no proof, hence there may be no point.

There is substantial historical proof for Jesus.

Historical proof is not there.  Only stories written after his (supposed) life and death.

I'm not talking about the Bible ... I'm talking about secular works.  Do you want me to list some?

Edit -- actually, I've already answered you before in another post on this same subject:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p1316864

I don't know why you continue to promote your view when there are ample historical sources.  I'm debating upon fact and not prejudice or opinion.

OrangeHound wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

There is substantial historical proof for Jesus.

Historical proof is not there.  Only stories written after his (supposed) life and death.

I'm not talking about the Bible ... I'm talking about secular works.  Do you want me to list some?

Yes, please, coz I don't know much about historical evidence, beyond what I learned from Discovery Channel and that stuff.

He might have been a real guy, the rest is mumbo jumbo though.

Jesus..I like him very much.  But he no help me hit curveball.

OrangeHound wrote:

... one would have to experience a bit of delusion to deny that Jesus existed in history.

I guess I am deluded. You are so much more knowledgeable than I.

Hey gee me too!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1317493

Bertster7 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Quoting from FF Bruce:  "Some may toy with the fancy of a Christ-myth, but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence.  The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Ceaser.  It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth' theories."

Most of the eye-witnesses became Christians, and their writings are part of the Bible or apocryphal works.  However, let's set aside the Christians for a moment ... there are first century Jewish & Roman (non-Christian) historians of the time who describe Jesus of Nazareth, including:

• Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian
• Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian
• The Jewish Talmuds (see page 53)
• Phlegon, historian
• Thallus, Samaritan historian

Of course, there will always be many with either ignorance or agendas who will continue to propagate the idea that a historical Jesus never existed, just as there are those who propagate the lie that the Jewish Holocaust didn't happen.

Of those historians the only one I am familiar with is Tacitus. Who was born after Jesus died. He therefore did not see him, touch him, or hear his voice.

That does little to convince me that your other sources are people who had actually had contact with Jesus.
(although I do think he did exist)

LOL - the entire list is evidence that no-one ever actually saw anyone...

1.) Hearasy after the fact... does not describe anyone; it only suggest 2nd hand knowledge of the existence of a cult; and is a potential forgery.
2.) Hearsay, after the fact, 2nd hand account, definite forgery (IMO).
3.) FALSE claim - the Talmud refers to a Jewish Name, not any specific Christ character.
4.) FASLE claim - Phlegon descirbes nothing, but a an astrological-event important to all Greek cults; an eclipse; no Jesus here.
5.) Same thing as 4 more or less.

(I have no reason or fact whatsoever to think Jesus ever existed).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 11:11:33)

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

... one would have to experience a bit of delusion to deny that Jesus existed in history.

I guess I am deluded. You are so much more knowledgeable than I.

Hey gee me too!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1317493

Bertster7 wrote:

Of those historians the only one I am familiar with is Tacitus. Who was born after Jesus died. He therefore did not see him, touch him, or hear his voice.

That does little to convince me that your other sources are people who had actually had contact with Jesus.
(although I do think he did exist)

LOL - the entire list is evidence that no-one ever actually saw anyone...

1.) Hearasy after the fact... does not describe anyone; it only suggest 2nd hand knowledge of the existence of a cult; and is a potential forgery.
2.) Hearsay, after the fact, 2nd hand account, definite forgery (IMO).
3.) FALSE claim - the Talmud refers to a Jewish Name, not any specific Christ character.
4.) FASLE claim - Phlegon descirbes nothing, but a an astrological-event important to all Greek cults; an eclipse; no Jesus here.
5.) Same thing as 4 more or less.

(I have no reason or fact whatsoever to think Jesus ever existed).

I acknowledge that there is antagonism toward this subject, but it is not based upon rational evaluation applied by historians.  If one wishes to discount all historians of that period just because historians of that period disagree with one's contemporary opinion about a particular person then what grounds of debate exist?   What basis of historical evaluation are we left with?

Dismissing every record because one believes it to be "hearsay", "false claim", "forgery", etc. is just simply an amateur tactic.   If such opinion is introduced into historical records then nothing of history can be agreed upon, and all history devolves into pointless fiction.

Remember, I did not introduce a debate about the deity of Jesus ... just simply whether or not a particular historical figure existed.  All the criteria upon which historians validate the existence of an individual is satisfied by the historical records of the time period, and I'm not aware of any movement by historians which disagrees with the existence of a historical Jesus (even by the Christ opponents).

So, if anyone would like to sabotage the way that historians validate history ... then be prepared for all of history to be rewritten based upon contemporary agendas.