If Jesus was never born?!

faceman · 07-12-2006 07:28PM

Er hello people Christianity was around prior to Christ's birth (Constantine formalised it into a religon) so i presume we would either be Jewish or pagan. Probably jewish tho.

However if Jesus wasnt born it would also impact the muslim faith as Jesus Christ was one of their prophets.

Still though the transitition from the Old Test to new Test is strange. in Old Test, God is vengeful and mean. But in the New Test he is quite nice and forgiving. Although this is probably down to Noah. he was not impresses with God after the floods! Noah rules!

Moses thought imho is one of the most inspiring people in the bible.

Tar.Aldarion · 07-12-2006 07:42PM

shane86 wrote:

Im as religious as the next guy. Bar family christenings, which are always a great drink session I havent been at mass since I left school. But people embarrasing themselves on these forums with their anti religion thing is hilarious.

You not knowing why many poeple have a stance against religion is 'hilarious'*./quote]

I dont know if i believe, its not something i ever think about.

Shock.

Don't know if I believe, that's a good one...

*Nah, just not very clever.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/PaulGildea/image001.jpg

shane86 · 07-12-2006 08:29PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You not knowing why many poeple have a stance against religion is 'hilarious'*./quote]

Shock.

Don't know if I believe, that's a good one...

*Nah, just not very clever.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/PaulGildea/image001.jpg

Like most people born post 1970 it has never had much influence on my life. Which is something to be greatful for considering Ireland before then seems to have been like a catholic version of 1980s Iran. The only time I can recall the church being negative in my life was when I was 9 and my mother forced me into doing a reading at a memorial mass for my aunt, primarily because she herself didnt want to ("ah go on, sure do you not want to show everyone what a good reader you are for your age" grr feck off). My parents werent religious in the slightest, so it was never an issue otherwise.

Tar- I do know why so many people have an anti church stance. Its the same reason so many people in Ireland had an anti Iraq war stance before it broke out. The answer being, of course, that its ubertrendy.

AApart from that, my mind is non- traumatised by memories of big wads of cash on my communion/confirmation, and hazy memories of christening 12 hour drink sessions

Kwekubo · 07-12-2006 09:26PM

faceman wrote:

Er hello people Christianity was around prior to Christ's birth (Constantine formalised it into a religon)

Constantine wasn't born until AD 272.

Sam Vimes · 07-12-2006 09:31PM

not a whole lot of difference i think. we'd probably all be jewish. maybe we'd be a bit richer

SimpleSam06 · 07-12-2006 09:32PM

Slow coach wrote:

Most serious historians agree that He was.

What He was is the other question for the Philosophy forum.

Actually they really don't. The face of Jesus was based on the face of one of the Medicis, in a flattering portrait which caught on around the renaissance period.

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to suggest that there never was a Jesus figure, or if there was he bore little to no resemblance to the figure portrayed in the new testament. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence against his existence is the fact that the Romans, anal retentive record keepers that they were, have no records of any Jesus being crucified around that time. The name jesus in fact comes from the Greek word for "slave", or "servant" in common usage around that period.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg of the extraordinary, wild eyed, flailing, drugged to the gills, foaming at the mouth crazy millenia long train wreck that is the catholic church, but its enough to get you started.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2006 09:52PM

Would not have made any difference.
He was a fictional character invented by St. Paul & Co.

If Constantine had lost the battle or had a different dream then Christianity would not have got top billing. So what other religions were big then as they would be the replacements. Would Muhamad and the whole muslim thing have happened, or would they have replaced all the old pagan religions across the remnants of the empire.

Hagar · 07-12-2006 10:03PM

Could some Mod please lock this thread? Until January would do nicely.
I'm expecting some nice Christmas presents and these fuppers are rocking the boat.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2006 10:26PM

Hagar wrote:

Could some Mod please lock this thread? Until January would do nicely.
I'm expecting some nice Christmas presents and these fuppers are rocking the boat.

you haven't heard of "satan claus" have you ?

If you were christian to the backbone you would ignore christmas and all it's material trimmings. I still like the way the US do it and have thanksgiving and all that mushy sentimentality early to leave a clear run for the stuff.

http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html

User45701 · 07-12-2006 11:00PM

c - 13 wrote:

Sure that goes without saying, they would have had some hassle nailing him to a cross otherwise.

Faith wrote:

I lolled!

So did I , good one C - 13

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You not knowing why many poeple have a stance against religion is 'hilarious'*.

Another good one!

07-12-2006 11:59PM

Well.. there'd be none of them Jesus, lol jokes anyways

My life just wouldn't be the same!!!

TwoShedsJackson · 08-12-2006 12:20AM

rb_ie wrote:

Hrmm, maybe you'd like to educate yourself a little?It is the best solution for ignorance afterall...

Well, Ireland was Pagan before Christianity spread, so maybe we'd all be pagan now?
Or perhaps Islam may have spread further west and we'd all be muslim now, I'm sure England would have still invaded and would have probably forced whichever religion they followed upon us anyway.

Or maybe Buddhism or Hinduism could have got here first and we'd all be buddhists or hindus.

No way of telling really, whichever religion spread the quickest had christianity not came along. I wonder how different the world would really be, had Christianity and the history created with it not happened.

As for the social effects, well have a look at the lives of muslims/buddhists/hindus, the majority of us would probably be living our lives according to one of their teachings so we'd be the same.
Look them up in Wikipedia.

I'm reasonably well educated, I just choose to think that believing a magical invisible being created the universe out of pixie dust is a pretty stupid thing to think.

Also, telling someone to look anything up in Wikipedia is probably not the best idea, a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit is hardly an indispensable source of fact..

Binomate · 08-12-2006 01:12AM

To who ever it was who said that Jesus didn't exist. That's just as bad as the people who claim he's the son of God. First of all, you can't prove a negative, it's either he did exist, or it is unknown as to whether he existed. Second of all, he did exist, there's historical proof. Third of all, the debate isn't whether or not he existed, it is whether or not he was divine, to which there is absolutely no proof as far as I'm concerned.

User45701 · 08-12-2006 01:40AM

Binomate wrote:

To who ever it was who said that Jesus didn't exist. That's just as bad as the people who claim he's the son of God. First of all, you can't prove a negative, it's either he did exist, or it is unknown as to whether he existed. Second of all, he did exist, there's historical proof. Third of all, the debate isn't whether or not he existed, it is whether or not he was divine, to which there is absolutely no proof as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry but i dont get it
If you say there is proof he existed i assume i mean books and such? documentation?
Because those same documents say he was divine and the son of god which u say there is no proof off?

SimpleSam06 · 08-12-2006 01:44AM

Binomate wrote:

To who ever it was who said that Jesus didn't exist.

That would be me...

Binomate wrote:

To who ever it was who said that Jesus didn't exist. That's just as bad as the people who claim he's the son of God. First of all, you can't prove a negative,

Indeed you can't, if you are dealing with mathematical constants. If you are ignorant of the rules of logic, however, you can come out with sentences not unlike the one that just came out of you. For example, I can say definitively that the sky at the moment is not green, for accepted values of green within the set of humans (h), and be perfectly capable of proving a negative.

Binomate wrote:

it's either he did exist, or it is unknown as to whether he existed.

So what you're really doing is trying to apply rules you don't understand (are ignorant of) in order to prove something that you think you do understand.

Binomate wrote:

Second of all, he did exist, there's historical proof.

Oh do tell, I always find proof fascinating. Links would be good. Ones not to brainwashed organised religious sites would be even better.

Binomate wrote:

Third of all, the debate isn't whether or not he existed, it is whether or not he was divine, to which there is absolutely no proof as far as I'm concerned.

So if it can be proven that he did not exist, that has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of his divinity, as far as you're concerned.

You must forgive me if I find that inspires a certain amount of amusement, as well as utterly undermining whatever point it was you thought you were making.

Drink up, me hearties, yo ho...

Lust4Life · 08-12-2006 02:53AM

That's it. I'm going to hell. I laughed too hard reading this thread.

Tar, where did you find that picture? Roffles!

Binomate · 08-12-2006 02:34PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Indeed you can't, if you are dealing with mathematical constants. If you are ignorant of the rules of logic, however, you can come out with sentences not unlike the one that just came out of you. For example, I can say definitively that the sky at the moment is not green, for accepted values of green within the set of humans (h), and be perfectly capable of proving a negative.

You're not allowing for possibilities outside your realm of knowlege. i.e. A caveman can't say that polarbears don't exist simply because he has never seen one. Polar Bears are outside his realm of knowlege. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. Same applies to your example. You can't prove that green skies don't exist simply because you've never experienced a green sky. Maybe I worded what I said originally wrong.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Oh do tell, I always find proof fascinating. Links would be good. Ones not to brainwashed organised religious sites would be even better.

The recordings in the Bible claims he existed and that he was the son of God. The claim that he was the son of God is an irrational claim and there is no evidence to suggest that he is devine in anyway. Acknowlegeing his existance whether or not he was the son of God is not an irrational statement. Think of it as a tabloid. Lets imagine there's a story about Paris Hilton where there is some baseless claim made about her. The claim might not be true, but just because the claim isn't true, doesn't mean that she doesn't exist.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

So if it can be proven that he did not exist, that has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of his divinity, as far as you're concerned.

I'm saying that you can't prove that he didn't exist, but you can discredit the claim that he is divine.

Tar.Aldarion · 08-12-2006 03:17PM

Lust4Life wrote:

Tar, where did you find that picture? Roffles!

My sister sent it to me. Dunno, maybe people she knows . :P

Binomate wrote:

I'm saying that you can't prove that he didn't exist, but you can discredit the claim that he is divine.

How can you discredit one and not the other?
Contradictory.

You can't prove he existed, or if he did not. You can not prove if he was 'divine' or not.

galah · 08-12-2006 03:22PM

Binomate wrote:

The recordings in the Bible claims he existed and that he was the son of God. The claim that he was the son of God is an irrational claim and there is no evidence to suggest that he is devine in anyway. Acknowlegeing his existance whether or not he was the son of God is not an irrational statement. Think of it as a tabloid. Lets imagine there's a story about Paris Hilton where there is some baseless claim made about her...

Hm, if I follow that example, does that mean that all the creatures the Brothers Grimm wrote about also exist? (can't help but compare the bible to a collection of fairy tales...With the added bonus that Grimm's Fairy Tales usually have some sort of moral/social relevance to it, and are fairly coherent in the application of said morals - can't say that the bible is coherent ...)

bean · 08-12-2006 07:02PM

If Jesus wasnt born there would be another dominanat spiritual belief

Jesus teachings were a kind of reformation within Judasim. Like most religions Judaism stops moving with the times and teachings.

Jesus preached greater equality addresses more spiritual moral issues while keeping with general tenants of Judaism.

Catholic church "globalised" taken by Romans and other cultures. Local rituals added into the mix e.g. Easter Holy Trinity etc. Before long power and abuse of authority starts.

Reformation again begins Lutharism etc but again these too begin to fall to dogma politics etc.

People will always try to reform and get it right just to have the result hijacked again.

SimpleSam06 · 08-12-2006 10:59PM

Binomate, mate, this may have some deeply spiritual meaning for you but I have long, long since progressed beyond this waffle. However, lets tread the steps one more time for the sake of argument...

Binomate wrote:

You're not allowing for possibilities outside your realm of knowlege. i.e. A caveman can't say that polarbears don't exist simply because he has never seen one. Polar Bears are outside his realm of knowlege. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. Same applies to your example. You can't prove that green skies don't exist simply because you've never experienced a green sky.

Not at all. An eskimo may never have seen a salt pan desert, but we're not discussing deserts here. You say its irrefutable historically that Jesus was born, I say it is not.

Binomate wrote:

Maybe I worded what I said originally wrong.

Oh, you can say that fairly definitively.

Binomate wrote:

The recordings in the Bible claims he existed and that he was the son of God. The claim that he was the son of God is an irrational claim and there is no evidence to suggest that he is devine in anyway. Acknowlegeing his existance whether or not he was the son of God is not an irrational statement.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest you research the origin of the word "apocalyse", then apply what you have learned to your understanding of the bible.

Binomate wrote:

Think of it as a tabloid.

Now thats the best description I've heard of the bible yet.

Binomate wrote:

Lets imagine there's a story about Paris Hilton where there is some baseless claim made about her. The claim might not be true, but just because the claim isn't true, doesn't mean that she doesn't exist.

Why not, I love comparing Jesus to pr0n stars. So what you're saying is that if I claim Paris Hilton wore green shoes on Tuesday, whereas in fact she wore red shoes, it does not prove that she does not exist? Aha! Testify....

Binomate wrote:

I'm saying that you can't prove that he didn't exist, but you can discredit the claim that he is divine.

I and many people can prove that there is a preponderance of evidence to prove that there never was a Jesus or Jesus figure as portrayed in that superb work of fiction, the new testament. Its hard to be divine when you just don't damn well exist in the first place.

Binomate · 09-12-2006 01:10AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I and many people can prove that there is a preponderance of evidence to prove that there never was a Jesus or Jesus figure as portrayed in that superb work of fiction, the new testament. Its hard to be divine when you just don't damn well exist in the first place.

I may very well be wrong about Jesus having existed, how ever you still can't prove that he didn't exist. All you can do is discredit claims that he did exist. I'd like you to show me something to discredit the claim that Jesus existed as a human being if you claim the weight of the historical evidence suggests that he didn't exist.

SimpleSam06 · 09-12-2006 02:05PM

Binomate wrote:

I'd like you to show me something to discredit the claim that Jesus existed as a human being if you claim the weight of the historical evidence suggests that he didn't exist.

Well here is a good place to start... FTFA:

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time.

Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud).

He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles.

It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.

And believe me when I say thats just the tip of the iceberg. So yes, it is possible to definitively prove that Jesus as portrayed in the new testament never existed, and the whole warped, knock kneed greatest story ever told god bothering industry that has built up in the last two millenia is an utter fabrication. Hows that for an eye opener?:D More like the greatest scam ever pulled.

I do wish I had thought of it first, though. Sure beats the hell out of working.

Terry · 09-12-2006 02:59PM

just as i type this there is an ad on the telly for the new movie "The Nativity Story".

anyway, i believe that a man named "Jesus Christ" was born sometime around 2,000 years ago. i don't believe he was the son of god, as i don't believe there is a god.
a couple of things regarding JC. 2,000 years the area around galilee experienced cold winters, caiusing the sea there to freeze over. where was he between the ages of 12 and 30?

i once asked a priest what year jesus was born. he told me that he didn't exactly know, but most scholars put it somewhere between 4AD and 4BC, but there is no exact year given.

Dave! · 09-12-2006 03:02PM

julep wrote:

anyway, i believe that a man named "Jesus Christ" was born sometime around 2,000 years ago.

It was actually "Jesus of Nazareth", I believe... 'Christ' means The Annointed One -- it's not a surname, but a title.

Terry · 09-12-2006 03:06PM

yeah. same guy though.

SimpleSam06 · 09-12-2006 03:12PM

julep wrote:

anyway, i believe that a man named "Jesus Christ" was born sometime around 2,000 years ago.

Well belief is fine for santa claus, but when it comes to historical figures and their existence or lack thereof, no belief is required. Just evidence. Which is sadly lacking in the case of Jesus. And in the case of frozen mediterranean seas.

julep wrote:

a couple of things regarding JC. 2,000 years the area around galilee experienced cold winters, caiusing the sea there to freeze over. where was he between the ages of 12 and 30?

Being dreamed up by Paul?

Faith · 09-12-2006 03:15PM

I'd say that there was a dude called Jesus, who maybe fancied himself as a prophet or the son of God, and went around preaching as much, but I'd say not a lot of attention was paid to him. Maybe his disciples believed him and wrote stories about him, exaggerating his abililties and that's why we have the New Testament.

I think most of it is crap though.

Also, if God decided to send his son down to Earth, why would he make him human and susceptible to everything that humans are? I know that if I were God, I'd send down a form that was unique and definatively proved my existance, not a run of the mill man.

Terry · 09-12-2006 03:16PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Well belief is fine for santa claus, but when it comes to historical figures and their existence or lack thereof, no belief is required. Just evidence. Which is sadly lacking in the case of Jesus. And in the case of frozen mediterranean seas.

http://www.fsu.edu/news/2006/04/04/ice.walk/

SimpleSam06 · 09-12-2006 03:26PM

Right, lets first consider the source, Florida State University. Florida is home to more batshiat crazy fundamentalists than most of the rest of the US put together, barring the bible belt. I don't know if you read Fark.com, but Florida is the only place in the world that has its very own tag for being the source of demented deeds and whatnot.

So I'd take anything coming from FSU with a large pinch of salt. And even the article itself says that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening. In fact it may never have happened at all and this man may be breaking wind out his mouth.

Such a perfect combination of conditions on the low-latitude Kinneret might well seem miraculous. In the last 120 centuries, Nof calculates the odds as roughly once in 1,000 years. However, during the life of Jesus the prevailing climate may have favored the more frequent formation of springs ice—about once in 30 to 160 years.

And anyway it would be hard for jesus to walk on water since he did not, in fact, exist. Did you even read that article I posted earlier? Or is the thinking more along the lines of "how can so many people be so horribly mislead"? I bet there were a few flat earthers who felt the same, too...

Eppur si muove.

If Jesus was never born?!

Comments