Why do you need to bring the muslim bashing to this thread? The teachings of Jesus probably sounded crazy to people back then. I mean turn the other cheek? He could have been a crackpot or maybe the son of good, but if jesus had been born in this era he would have been ripped to shreds with the media,internet,etc. Constantine probably was more important to the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion that it is.
That's hardly evidence of anything. From what I understand there isn't a single document referencing the existence of Jesus during the time he's supposed to have lived. Strange for a man that performend miracles and had followers and was crucified. Not a single person who'd ever met him decided to write anything about it apparently and this is the single most important figure in the history of Christianity. How would you explain that?
I always wondered about the same thing, but never really looked into it. My assumption is the person Jesus probably existed, but his stories might be a collage of stories of different persecuted religious leaders back in the days of the Roman Empire. If there any official records of the person existing? As far as if he was really the son of God, I really have no idea and there's probably no way of knowing.
I definitely think Jesus walked the earth and was a great man who spread a message of peace and love to many many people and was likely worshipped as a higher power much like Siddartha. I actually visited Jesus's tome in Kashmir - it was crazy eerie. I wonder if he died in Kashmir or if he really was killed on a cross. Anyway, I definitely think he existed.
why do you need someones previous actions to know how to be a good man? I can create a perfect image of a good man and in 1000 years should there be 2 billion people trying to mimic him?
yes i think it is a positive as well. i think it is relevant because i think people deserve to understand the historicity of the holy books and the religions they claim to follow. all of the things you mention about jesus are from the bible, no? the gospels were not written as a history. are you comfortable with the fact that these things you claim to know about jesus were written many, many years after he was supposed to have lived? how much do you think (EDIT) jesus's life story changed between the time he ascended into heaven and the first council of nicaea?
I believe he does exist..Im a Seventh-Day Adventist and we learn the bible each week. May I ask which church do you go to, OP?
i am not opposed to answering this question... may i ask why it matters? for example, if i say i was raised jewish or baptist... would that affect the way you perceive the topic?
Txppratt, there is a book called "The Case for Christ" written by a man named Lee Strobel. He was an atheist and a former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He covered plenty of court cases and decided one day to treat the same question that you have as a court case. He took this "case" to trial...examining all of the evidence and interviewing those who only had concrete proof and facts pertaining to Jesus and the culture back then. You should check into it...I even have a copy that I will give you if you are interested. As for proof...there are documents that exist today from that period that speak of Jesus and his disciples. More than 5000 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament exist today from that era. By comparison, Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote "The Annals of Imperial Rome" in 116AD and only 6 books of it exists today all inside of only 1 manuscript. Now I know that doesnt prove that Jesus was the Son of God but if the scholars of today use this as proof that Tacitus existed with so little evidence, then the thousands of manuscripts speaking of Jesus should do the same thing. Even 1st century historian Josephus wrote of Jesus in his work "The Antiquities. It was about the history of the Jewish people but because of his collaboration with the Romans...the Jews hated him. Josephus certainly had nothing to gain from writing about Jesus in his work and every major scholar today believes that this author existed. Josephus even went so far as to mention other people such as the Roman Governor Festus...who is mentioned in the Bible as the one who had Jesus' brother James stoned. Scholars throughout the years have taken the works of Josephus and dissected other aspects of it and the dates have always matched up. If you want to read this book, let me know and I will give you my copy...nothing is "a given" and every piece of evidence is scrutinized. This book was written by an atheist who actually thought that he would actually discredit who Jesus was but eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus is who He said that He was. I think in the end...one will either believe or they wont. Personally, I've seen way too much evidence in my life to discount it as coincidence. Hope that helps.
I think the important thing is that you love the Jesus (PBUH) that you know. As for whether Jesus existed, I'd say probably. As for whether Jesus existed and was somehow linked to God, I'd say it's between maybe and unlikely. I also have a general rule that if the major religions agree on something, then it's probably true. They have way too much motivation to disagree with each other, and anything that keeps common ground one would realistically expect that it's either insignificant or extremely close to the truth. Like I said though, Jesus claimed to come to give people something, and if that is the case then the designation is far less important than the value of the information we were supposed to receive. Obviously, it's important to constantly verify what you know lest you become a religious bigotdroid. From that angle, it would be very interesting to see some of the documents that recognise the existance. Does anyone have a link to some of them?
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gR-O2G3cngA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gR-O2G3cngA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>
I was raised Baptist, and I was a Christian (I think) until I was 16 or so, and was unsatisfied with the depth of the answers to my inquiries at bible study. They were equally unsatisfied with my inquiries. I've seen all shades of Christians, and I've read that book. Two problems. One, I question the authenticity of Strobel's conversion or atheism, and two, you really can't "try" the existence of Christ by modern standards and expect some ironclad conclusion. It would be, at best, a mistrial, on account of lack of evidence. Again, I've read the book once, and like half of A Case for Faith, so I'm not an expert here, and my concerns are not with disproving Mr. Strobel. Growing up, I thought that so many people would have been watching this Jesus character, waiting for him to mess up and to exploit, that the fact that nobody has proven he sinned must have meant that: a) he didn't sin and b) he was who he says he was. Once I saw how fragmented the record was, I abandoned the fortitude of such an explanation. I knew I could never know for sure what they were asking me, so I simply moved on. As an adult, I find pause logically about fully believing in Jesus' existence, as claimed in the Bible (not counting the resurrection and the peripheral extensions of his story). I find it hard to envision a God, omnipotent and all-powerful, sending his messenger son into a pit of sin that he created, and only ensuring the documentation of incomplete parts of it. God doesn't drop the camera. If Jesus was needed to save Earth, and did so, then that would be the greatest, most epic story ever told. I can't envision God's Earth being a better equipped bunch with a foggier, perforated account of the the man who gave them the only chance they'll get at heaven. Or forget heaven, just a chance to avoid a fiery punishment. I mean, it doesn't even matter to me how indirectly the Gospels were composed, or that his story is mirrored in other theologies and mythologies. If God's the ghostwriter, then shouldn't it draw on some of that divine authenticity? The bible gets way too specific about such minor things and then you get to the big dramatic savior scene, and there's practically a "File Footage Not Found" card on the screen. Just my $00.02.
The more schooling I take the more I question organized religion, just don't tell my parents . I think Christian values are wonderful but as far as really believing that "Jesus" walked. No. Personally most of the bibles writings come from earlier scripts, I remember when I read the Epic of Gilgamesh I was stunned how similar it was to the Old Testament. But everyone is free to believe what they believe, if I found strong evidence to show me otherwise my view would change.
Timing of your post is weird, as I just finished reading Price's work The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. I could fill up multiple posts with all the amazing stuff he talks about and reveals in that book. Highly recommended.
I hate it when people bring up Strobel. What a bunch of dishonest trash. There is no way to know for sure but what I do know is: 1. There are no Roman records of Jesus or his particular "uprising", despite the fact that they loved to be bureaucratic and write about a bunch of other issues in the outskirts of the empire. There are no records from any other cultures at the time (not a surprise for anyone, though, since so little has survived). 2. Josephus was 100 years later and a lot of what he wrote has pretty obviously been doctored by Christians (he was a Jew) after his death. 3. In the battle for forming Christianity there were two major camps of Christian "fathers" with regard to Jesus. Those who said he was real and those who said he was a symbol and his person-ness was irrelevant. The "true man" guys won out. 4. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
For what it is worth, here is a somewhat long interview (about 16 min) from an agnostic Bible critic. It hopefully will help shed some light on the answer to the question Did Jesus really exist? <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zdqJyk-dtLs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> To summarize, most serious critics believe that Jesus in fact was a real person. The debate hinges on whether or not they believe He was who He says he was.
Not really. Yes, most think he existed, but the debate hinges on whether anything you read about him at all is legitimate. Regarding your post, for example, there is little evidence Jesus ever claimed to be anything. Only twice in the bible does he directly make a claim to be messiah, and in both instances the circumstance, translation, and editing makes it dubious. Repeat ad nauseum.
