Prove Jesus Existed

MeatProduct

Originally posted by bizmark
Meh its kinda blanced out with your following comment



Honestly does it matter if some guy called Jesus lived 2,004 years ago? or does the message matter more than the man?

(Yet again don’t bleave in religion)

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. The church may have lied about the existence of Christ buts that's ok because Chist is a good guy?

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Emboss
immature?

that's my honest opinion.

"but they choose not to access it"

that's the keypoint here...CHOICE

you have yours I have mine

let THEM have theirs

No I think the key point on this issue is that they do not think they have to do research because they believe they are being told the truth by their religious leaders.

Point taken though. Choice is vital here, but an informed choice is even more vital.

Nick

Draupnir

I think this began as an excellent topic but has spiralled badly. Shouldnt we be discussing the points MeatProduct made rather then trying to find out why he has done this research or why he cares. Doesnt anyone have an opinion on the amazing similarities he has discovered.

I have often asked many people why we should consider our own religious beliefs are right having passed off Ancient greek or egyptian gods with scientific reasons or reasons of uneducation. This topic has increased this question in my mind.

I have to say Emboss that you have been very immature in this topic. you seem to be bothered by MeatProducts ideas, are you a very religious person?

As much as a priest or religious person has the right to teach and talk about their beliefs, someone like MeatProduct is entitled to express his

MeatProduct

Dear Draupnir,

Thank you for your praise on this topic. As you said we should be discussing the points made and I would very much enjoy that. I did get some useful comments from JustHalf which I will act on tomorrow by going into the library and doing further research on the Horus issue.

The fact is that there are some amazing similarities. A virgin birth is such a common event in ancient stories of gods and spiritual leaders. Indeed the classical image of the virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus can be seen in depictions of the virgin Isis holding her son Horus.

Much of the past religions revolved around sun worship and that is why 12 is such a recurring number among religions as it represents the signs of the zodiac and the saviour/sun travels trough them each year. So the sun with its 12 signs becomes the son with he 12 followers. In many ways Christianity evolved from paganism and sun worship.

You point about passing off other religious beliefs and choosing Christianity is a very valid one. The answer that I think is the most obvious is marketing. Christianity was well marketed.

I can very much understand how Emboss would feel about my comments. I won't comment further on that though.

Could we use the example of Draupnir and get back to the point of this thread. I would very much like to hear other points of view in an open and friendly way. Anger is not a good way to communicate ideas.

Many thanks,

Nick

Emboss

Originally posted by Draupnir
I think this began as an excellent topic but has spiralled badly. Shouldnt we be discussing the points MeatProduct made rather then trying to find out why he has done this research or why he cares. Doesnt anyone have an opinion on the amazing similarities he has discovered.

I have often asked many people why we should consider our own religious beliefs are right having passed off Ancient greek or egyptian gods with scientific reasons or reasons of uneducation. This topic has increased this question in my mind.

I have to say Emboss that you have been very immature in this topic. you seem to be bothered by MeatProducts ideas, are you a very religious person?

As much as a priest or religious person has the right to teach and talk about their beliefs, someone like MeatProduct is entitled to express his

No I'm not religious at all, if you read my posts you'd know I'm not

I'm not bothered by his findings at all as I happen to agree with some of them.

Hence the reason for me not being religious

But who am I to question someone elses?

I fail to see where I was immature, If it was the santa remark it's a valid point.
if it's the "ever think of becoming a priest" it was a valid question

Meatproduct is entitedl to express anything he likes.

I am entitled to question his motives.

:rolleyes:

Draupnir

You certainly are, I just felt you were attacking them more than questioning them. thats my interpretation. I get a vibe of attitude and anger from the way you have phrased your posts.

Originally posted by MeatProduct
The first census of this time was ordered by Caius Caesar Octavanus Augustus. At this time Mary was with child so therefore Jesus didn’t make it onto that census.

Dear Meatproduct.

So you have conceded that Mary was with child, is this out of faith or do you have any proof of this?

neuro-praxis

Taking a book written by AN Wilson and calling it research is a bit rich. The man hates CS Lewis, for goodness' sake.

That is almost as subjective as a Young Earth Creationist passing off Genesis as a scientific text. The guy has an agenda and you have swallowed it whole.

Jesus existed. While there have been plenty of books written about Jesus' non-existence, their validity is undermined by the sheer weight of evidence as accepted by most serious historians and academics in the area.

Let me put it to you this way, "historians" have published books pushing this idea in the same way that "philosophers" like David Icke have claimed that the world is run by 8 foot tall lizards dressed as humans.

Real historians (if I can be so judgemental of people's abilities) wouldn't call these other "historians" historians at all. And history bears that out.

As recorded by historians.

As far as the "quest for the historical Jesus" is concerned, I'm going to leave it with Albert Schweitzer, who at the age of twenty three, published a definitive text on the matter. He ended with these two paragraphs:

"For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."

Oh yeah.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Taking a book written by AN Wilson and calling it research is a bit rich. The man hates CS Lewis, for goodness' sake.

That is almost as subjective as a Young Earth Creationist passing off Genesis as a scientific text. The guy has an agenda and you have swallowed it whole.

Jesus existed. While there have been plenty of books written about Jesus' non-existence, their validity is undermined by the sheer weight of evidence as accepted by most serious historians and academics in the area.

Let me put it to you this way, "historians" have published books pushing this idea in the same way that "philosophers" like David Icke have claimed that the world is run by 8 foot tall lizards dressed as humans.

Real historians (if I can be so judgemental of people's abilities) wouldn't call these other "historians" historians at all. And history bears that out.

As recorded by historians.

As far as the "quest for the historical Jesus" is concerned, I'm going to leave it with Albert Schweitzer, who at the age of twenty three, published a definitive text on the matter. He ended with these two paragraphs:

"For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."

Oh yeah.

Great, good points. I am aware of Wilson's beliefs but I certainly didn't come across them in his book. I actually used his book very little in my above postings. Could you tell me the points that you have problems with and I will either try and address them or will do further research on them.

Nick

neuro-praxis

I thought I'd include a few details about Schweitzer.

He was a German, who much like MeatProduct, didn't buy into this fairy tale about a bloke called Jesus, so he thought he'd do a little research. He reviewed about 500 theologians from the nineteenth century and he compiled an analysis of their opinions to try and find a "real historical" Jesus, in 1906.

But, by the time he had finished the book, he was so convinced by his findings that he became a Christian.

After receiving his doctorate in theology and pretty much redefining theology, he got bored and did a doctorate in music. He became a master piano maker. That didn't keep him interested though, so he trained to become a doctor medicine, and called by Jesus, he took his over-educated ass to Africa where he was a pastor and he practised medicine with the poor until he died.

He has now has a street in Montpelier named after him. He rocks my little cotton socks.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Earthman
Dear Meatproduct.

So you have conceded that Mary was with child, is this out of faith or do you have any proof of this?

Dear Earthman,

Mary could have been with child. Which Mary is the problem. As I'm sure you would agree there were probably a great many Marys in that time. Joseph and Mary are not uncommon names.

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I thought I'd include a few details about Schweitzer.

He was a German, who much like MeatProduct, didn't buy into this fairy tale about a bloke called Jesus, so he thought he'd do a little research. He reviewed about 500 theologians from the nineteenth century and he compiled an analysis of their opinions to try and find a "real historical" Jesus, in 1906.

But, by the time he had finished the book, he was so convinced by his findings that he became a Christian.

After receiving his doctorate in theology and pretty much redefining theology, he got bored and did a doctorate in music. He became a master piano maker. That didn't keep him interested though, so he trained to become a doctor medicine, and called by Jesus, he took his over-educated ass to Africa where he was a pastor and he practised medicine with the poor until he died.

He has now has a street in Montpelier named after him. He rocks my little cotton socks.

Thank you for that. I would have to question his research on "theologians". I don't see how researching peoples' theories would give concrete evidence to the existence of Jesus Christ.

He is, without a doubt, a remarkable man. His example should be followed in the sense of his exploration for knowledge.

Nick

neuro-praxis

Dear Saint Nick

My main problem (apart from the tabloid stuff that you have cut and pasted in your initial post) is your suggestion (or rather the suggestion of many tabloid "theologiocal historians") that Jesus never existed. I basically disagree with this notion.

The evidence points to the contrary. For goodness' sake, even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents, considering their literary style and the authors.

If we are to take you seriously, then it means requestioning the whole of history, as the existence of Jesus is better supported than a vast number of pre-renaissance
characters and events.

The post-modernists have begun deconstructing all of literature with their goddamn revisionary tactics...please may they keep their mitts off history!

MeatProduct, I'm looking at you. You big sausage.

With love,

neuro_beeraxis

neuro-praxis

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I don't see how researching peoples' theories would give concrete evidence to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Nick

What do you want, DNA?

We don't have concrete evidence of any historical figures bar what is written about them. Or that they wrote themselves. Or that we believe they wrote themselves.

Goodness man, would you argue within the context or don't argue at all.

You question his research of 500 theologians? And you've read, what three books on this issue? Or a few websites?

If I could give you his DNA, I would. Although I would be afraid what you'd do with it.

Oh and he was assumed into heaven so there's no DNA left anyway. Convenient for us blind Christians eh?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Dear Saint Nick

My main problem (apart from the tabloid stuff that you have cut and pasted in your initial post) is your suggestion (or rather the suggestion of many tabloid "theologiocal historians") that Jesus never existed. I basically disagree with this notion.

The evidence points to the contrary. For goodness' sake, even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents, considering their literary style and the authors.

If we are to take you seriously, then it means requestioning the whole of history, as the existence of Jesus is better supported than a vast number of pre-renaissance
characters and events.

The post-modernists have begun deconstructing all of literature with their goddamn revisionary tactics...please may they keep their mitts off history!

MeatProduct, I'm looking at you. You big sausage.

With love,

neuro_beeraxis

LOL! "Big Sausage!" How did you know?

"even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents"

Don't you see a problem with this? "Quite reliable".

I don't see how a questioning of all history is necessary here as Jesus Christ is mentioned in only a very small part of it.

Nick

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Dear Earthman,

Mary could have been with child. Which Mary is the problem. As I'm sure you would agree there were probably a great many Marys in that time. Joseph and Mary are not uncommon names.

Nick

Dear meatpacker,
You stated in your post that Jesus couldnt have been in the census for mary was with child at the time...
You must know which mary and which Jesus for to be able to post that or else you are posting uncoroberated statements as fact...
Which is what you seem to accuse the Christians of doing...

Now thats tripping up your whole analysis before it gets off the ground at all...

care to sort that out?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Earthman
Dear meatpacker,
You stated in your post that Jesus couldnt have been in the census for mary was with child at the time...
You must know which mary and which Jesus for to be able to post that or else you are posting uncoroberated statements as fact...
Which is what you seem to accuse the Christians of doing...

Now thats tripping up your whole analysis before it gets off the ground at all...

care to sort that out?

Not at all, I was simply viewing the Christian angle of that census. I have no idea which Mary that could have been but Josephus apparently does and I was viewing it from his angle.

Nick

neuro-praxis

The existence of Jesus is one of the best-supported sections of pre-renaissance history. If we re-question that (which is unnecessary as, previously mentioned, it is accepted as FACT that he existed by RELIABLE SOURCES) then we must re-question the section of history right after that (in the modernist chronoloigal sense of the words - not in a post-modernist understanding of temporality), as our understanding of that section is built upon the assumptions we take from Jesus' era.

So if we have requestioned these two sections, we must keep re-questioning on and on until we get to today, where everybody is simply a figment of our imagination and our lives are built on sand and fog.

We also have to define the sections. Any formula for that?

Why? Because you insist upon rejecting obvious truth in favour of the Daily Mirror.

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Not at all, I was simply viewing the Christian angle of that census. I have no idea which Mary that could have been but Josephus apparently does and I was viewing it from his angle.

Nick

Dear meatpacker
You were presenting as fact to support a point that you were before and after presenting as unproven...
That is an illogical position..
Care to sort that out?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
The existence of Jesus is one of the best-supported sections of pre-renaissance history. If we re-question that (which is unnecessary as, previously mentioned, it is accepted as FACT that he existed by RELIABLE SOURCES) then we must re-question the section of history right after that (in the modernist chronoloigal sense of the words - not in a post-modernist understanding of temporality), as our understanding of that section is built upon the assumptions we take from Jesus' era.

So if we have requestioned these two sections, we must keep re-questioning on and on until we get to today, where everybody is simply a figment of our imagination and our lives are built on sand and fog.

We also have to define the sections. Any formula for that?

Why? Because you insist upon rejecting obvious truth in favour of the Daily Mirror.

Dear Neuro-Praxis,

I can understand your point here but I don't think it applies. The fact of the matter is that apart from the bible there is very little historical support for the man.

Nick

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Dear Neuro-Praxis,

I can understand your point here but I don't think it applies. The fact of the matter is that apart from the bible there is very little historical support for the man.

Nick

Dear meatpacker

How do you know Jesus is a man?
Is it faith or do you have any evidence of this?

JustHalf

I'm watching over this thread very closely. Earthman, stop the meatpacker line or you're banned for a week.

neuro-praxis

Dear Neuro-Praxis,

I can understand your point here but I don't think it applies. The fact of the matter is that apart from the bible there is very little historical support for the man.

Nick

The fact of the matter? Your opinion, more like.

History states that he existed, and we must trust this in the same way that we trust that Plato existed, or Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great, and so on and so forth.

And what is your problem with the new testament as a historical document? Whether or not Jesus was God, there were certainly a number of monotheists running around in the first and second centuries AD, who were willing to die for this "fairytale" person, Jesus...and die they did. For what? As an elaborate trick to enslave the masses?

For the people who aren't MeatProduct:

Peter, Paul, John and James (some of the new testament writers) certainly existed. What MeatProduct is suggesting is that these mostly uneducated men got around a table and fabricated a Messiah figure who two thousand years later is still winning a hundred thousand converts every week.

If Jesus is a fictional character, these men are the most gifted writers in history far outstripping anything that came in the two thousand years before or after. The impact of their "lies" has changed the lives of billions, inlcuding mine.

I am fed up of your nonsense!

imp

Originally posted by MeatProduct
The first census of this time was ordered by Caius Caesar Octavanus Augustus. At this time Mary was with child so therefore Jesus didn’t make it onto that census.

Its my understading (and admittedly I'm not a Christian so I'm open to correction) that Mary and Joseph were on their way to Bethlehem to put their names on the census when Jesus was born, so he would've been on it. Like I said, I may be wrong.

}:>

40crush41

Hello, how are you doing today?
This is an interesting topic and thank you for allowing me to stop and think about my faith.
Surely if Jesus the Christ did not exist, that would be "the greatest fraud in history." While studying religion in school we learned about the historical accounts of Jesus given by flavius josephus, tactius... this sitehere has them. however, you have said that you find these sources weak, and plus being an internet site, some of you may not take it seriously. at the same time however, these are historical accounts that prove this man existed.. i don't understand how you can say, "there is no historical evidence besides this historical evidence." i don't think you should throw away information that may help lead to a conclusion.
and since this may not appease you,
theres the point about the Bible. The Bible may not be accurate, but the site above deals with that issue. Its fact that these four men wrote these stories that are basically the same in content, though written at different times, in different places for different reasons .. but still about the same one man who lived, Jesus.
and u say, so the Bible may still be a myth,
But its this truth that proves the existence of Jesus to me. The accounts of the uprisings of the Christians and the letters of St. Paul talking about the start of the new christian community. How could have this community started if their faith is based on a man who had never walked the earth? u may say, well, they could have been crazy, but then explain all the people who died for their faith.. would have they been so willing to die for a man they made up? why isn't their One account to say that it was all fraud and that Jesus didn't really ever live, never mind raise from the dead (for this is the reason that they believed Jesus is God). could an entire group of people be that crazy? sure, anything is possible, but not everything likely.

just curious, what do u think about St. Veronica's cloth?

These are the reasons why I (at least I) believe that Jesus was a man who walked this earth, hope i answered your question.
btw neuro-praxis, u had some good points there. and meat-product, im interested in what you have to say about these points. i hope i wasn't rude in anyway.

have a pleasant day,
~beth

Sysiphus

Hi,

Before I start I have to say that I didn't read all the thread, but swiped through to get the overall jist. Having had this type of debate many many times over the last many many years (to paraphrase comm. lassard!) I want to throw in my 2 cents.

Even without reading the entire thread I feel that i can unreservadly agree with MeatProduct in all that he feels (not that he claims though). I have noticed a tendancy with people to substiute one tome for another. I know we need to have some form of solid ground historical texts to work from to provide a context of the past (and the bible sure ain't it) but one needs to be careful about use of other sources. Most if not all books are written with or translated with a particular bias, no matter how small, and unless you want to lean hebrew and aramaic and translate the texts yourself you have to allow for this.
I'm a secular humanist myself and have no love of religion or its "institutions" and the argument of "well if it makes people happy, what harm" falls flat when you read of Kentucky, Ohio, Utah etc. trying to foist Creation Science in school and GWB invoking JeZUUUUUahhhhhhhhhhs in the "War on Terror" and trying to sneak prayer into the constitution (aside - why is "In God We Trust" on the Dollar when the Constition states secularisim??)

Just a few quick points before I ramble off the edge....

1) the birth of christ - only mentioned in one gospel - Mathew (I think) 200 years after the event. - Look at any contemorary (within the last 200 years) event - Do you trust its veracity? Even WW1 isn't thaught acuratly in school, or the Easter Rising or The Famine (!) or WW2 etc, so texts from 2000 years ago (uncoroborated ones - not all) are even less trustworthy due to age and multiple translation (a game of chinese whispers anybody - I've 2 and 4 pence for a dance!)

2) Mary the Virgin - apparently the Hebrew word for Virign is the same as that for young girl, anyone got more on this idea, what was old joe up to????

3) Jesus (to quote John Prine) the Missing Years - around 7 to 30 are missing in the bible, what was he up to (if he existed!) is it possible he was doing the same as the rest of us? Out and ABOUT?

4) More Serious - Parable - Jesus thaught through parable - easier for the uneducated to understand - Loves fishes etc. showing generosity of poor folk, therefore etc... Did the educion system improve in 200 years that the "truth" could be laid out without resort to alegory and metaphore?

5) Is God Schitzo? The melding of the two testaments is crude and silly, in the Old T god is vengeful, petty and mean, willing to destroy his creation en masse or individally for displeasing him (much like the greek, roman and other pagan gods). And suddenly with the birth of his only (?) son he mellows out and become the god of love and light and forgiveness, where does this leave the four horseriders - redundant? did siptu know?? Does this mean that the Appocolypse isn't going to happen? that people won't suffer in eternity? ah damn!!

At the end of the day I don't think it matters whether or not JC existed or not. Those that believe will stick their fingers in their ears and follow (like the sheep the bible tells them they are) their indoctrination. While the non-believers and blasphemers will try to educate the masses to free thinking. (Personnaly I don't think society would function if we all thought indepently, (I want to be DIFERENT so 'll just join this group and dress and talk and think like them to assert my individuality!!))

Above all personal faith does no harm if kept in check, be it faith in your own (not organised) god, faith in the theories of science (no matter how well supported by evidence, still theories eliglble for a tweak), or just pure I don't care attitude as long as I don't have to give money and can enjoy a pint philosophy.



I'll end this ramble with a few choice quotes, can't remember the sources though....

I concede that we are all athiests, I just belive in one less god than you.

There's no such thing as the devil, its just god when he's drunk (T. Waits)

But your eminence, there are Christians inside,
I don't care, Kill them all, let God sort them out,
Bishop in charge of the sacking of Constantinople

Excelsior

Your points are almost entirely off topic. But I will make a stab at covering your queries. Check out Matthew 1:18, Luke 2:1 and John 1:1. All different ways of saying the same thing: God became man in Jesus. Mark doesn't feature a birth story but Mark is the shortest one, a Gospel for dummies. His account can be read in under an hour and so he skips all but the essentials.

The essentials does not include the "Lost Years". All Christians would fully accept that the big JC was hanging around making tables and playing the equivalent of football in those years.

He didn't just teach in parables. And they aren't easy to understand. They are easy to grasp, but only a fool would claim it easy to get to the bottom of their depth and meaning. He taught in many ways, most obviously by doing and not saying.

As far as Testament differences are concerned, I don't think you have read the Hebrew texts if you think God is schizo when compared with the New Testament. A good article explaining this "discrepancy" can be found here:http://zoomtard.antidisinformation.com/archives/000004.html

I love this idea that all believers are ignorami who have blindly believed their parents. Is Nelson Mandela an idiot? Are professors of theology all repressed and incapable of free thought? Was my intellectual immune system low the day I converted from atheism to Christianity? How patronising can you get?

Now did you have something to say about whether Jesus existed?

neuro-praxis

Sysiphus, you sound like you are MeatProduct, run off and re-hashed with a new quick identity.

I don't think I keep my faith "in check". Could you come round and monitor it to make sure I'm not waging a holy war or anything?

But you might not recognise me, as I look just like all the other Christians. I'll wear a bible on my head!

Draupnir

Has anyone else noticed how aggressive people can become when somebody tries to question the existence of Jesus?

Why is it that the people who question can remain calm, while the people whose believes are in question become insulting, defensive and attack the person making the point?

Draupnir

By the way, that was a rhetorical question and the answer is DOUBT