Was jesus real?

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion he is either the a liar, l lunatic, or the Son the God. There can't be any middle ground.

I believe the later, but how can they justify saying a man who dedicated his whole life to preaching that He was in fact the Son of God is a holy man but everything he said was a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]
That he existed as a person does not imply that the gospels accurately capture what he said. There seems to be historical evidence outside the gospels that he existed, but as far as I know, there is no such evidence that he himself claimed to be divine (as opposed to his followers proclaiming him divine). If he did make such a claim, then yes, he clearly was a liar or a lunatic.

As for his philosophy, as attributed to him in the gospels, I find it abhorrent. It amounts to an all-out assault on the virtue of justice, replacing it by the alleged virtue of mercy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
As for [Jesus Christ's] philosophy, as attributed to him in the gospels, I find it abhorrent. It amounts to an all-out assault on the virtue of justice, replacing it by the alleged virtue of mercy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understandable position.

The Left can interpret such a principle to mean inaction and submission, which is anathema when faced with social injustices; the Right can interpret the principle to mean unacceptable tolerance towards those who do wrong, hence rendering human law, as we know it, irrelevant.

Note, however, that there is a different implication of the principle of piety/mercy, in recognition of human frailty and nature. By seeking justice, in human terms, Man will usually, if not always, commit evil acts: national justice means slaughtering others, personal justice means personal violence -physical or otherwise-, social justice means oppression of one class by another, moral justice means punishing those that do not abide by the majority's norms, and so on.

Jesus, or perhaps more accurately that fellow known as Peter, who created the Christian Church, suggests instead a radical departure from the notions of justice and stepping back from "all that" ephemera in order to (re)capture Man's possibilities for thinking, for understanding, for a clearer path to Truth as we can know it -- all of which He called "closer to thee", etc.

The mysticism inherent in Christian religion is only due to temporal circumstances. I do not believe in a notion of God or supreme divinity, especially as propagated by organised religions, but I know a good thing when I see it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Many historical events and places named in the Gospels have been shown to be factual.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such as ?


[ QUOTE ]
Archaeology continues to make discoveries that validate events in the Gospels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I recently visited Noah's Ark. Great deck, lousy first class.

'Twas right after we had lunch at Old Lot's restaurant (food a bit salty, natch).


[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have much time, but in brief, many historical events in the Gospels. have been shown to be factual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historical places? yes. Directly involving Jesus? You're wrong. It's speculative at best. There is no definitive, factual evidence that anything involving Jesus ever really happened.

That's where some of that 'faith' comes in.

b

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Such as ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The census and governorship of Quirinius from Luke 2:1-3


[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I recently visited Noah's Ark. Great deck, lousy first class.

'Twas right after we had lunch at Old Lot's restaurant (food a bit salty, natch).

[/ QUOTE ]

Clever. You do know that the location of those cities is known right? Funny line though.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The census and governorship of Quirinius from Luke 2:1-3

[/ QUOTE ]

Lame.


Although Luke tried the hardest to be historically accurate, the references to the census and the overall chronology are filled with contradictions.

And you realize that you are, once again, invoking an author of the Holy Bible to defend the historicity of ...the Bible!

I asked for independent verification od the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. And all I get are assurances that "there are lots of 'em" and more Gospel writers.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Although Luke tried the hardest to be historically accurate, the references to the census and the overall chronology are filled with contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]
And you realize that you are, once again, invoking an author of the Holy Bible to defend the historicity of ...the Bible!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be a jackass, I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is that poor. The point of bringing up an event of which Luke wrote was to show an independently verifiable event. I deliberately chose one of the more debateable ones, though again archaeological findings have made this one less controversial.


[ QUOTE ]
I asked for independent verification od the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. And all I get are assurances that "there are lots of 'em" and more Gospel writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tacitus
Suetonius
Josephus
Pliny the Younger
The Talmud
Lucian
Mara Bar-Serapion

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]
The references to the census, the Roman governor and Herod's reign are neither clear nor accurate.



[ QUOTE ]
The point of bringing up an event of which Luke wrote was to show an independently verifiable event.

[/ QUOTE ]
Luke wrote a Christian text. Not everything in those Christian texts was a fabrication or a religious allegory! I never claimed such a thing. The Gospels were full of historical references -- they were not a total fantasy, such as Lord of the Rings!

So, yes, Luke talks about various historically accurate events. Does that, by itself, make everything he wrote about historically accurate? N-ope.


[ QUOTE ]
Archaeological findings have made this less controversial.

[/ QUOTE ]
What "findings" ? Come on! The shroud of Turin? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Tacitus
Suetonius
Josephus
Pliny the Younger
The Talmud
Lucian
Mara Bar-Serapion

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear. I see we have been rather the busy bee, have we? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]Let me raise the stakes...

Here's a more comprehensive list of writers who lived during the time of Biblical Christ or until a century after that:

Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias the Traveler, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio, Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria, Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Plinius the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Plinius Secundus, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius, and Maximus. (source)

I already dealt with Joesphus and Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) here.

Suetonius in his "Life of Claudius" relates that "He (Claudius) drove the Jews, who at the instigation of Christas were constantly rioting, out of Rome." This is reported to have taken place about fifteen years after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as reported in the Gospels. So "Christas" is either not the Christian Jesus or is a second-hand relay of the original Christian assertions.

The rest of the authors in my list, which includes the names of your list, have nothing or next-to-nothing to offer in support of a historical Christ. You will find a small primer about the non-existence of evidence of Jesus as a historical figure in the same source, linked above. But do search the library too.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a more comprehensive list of writers who lived during the time of Biblical Christ or until a century after that:

Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias the Traveler, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio, Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria, Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Plinius the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Plinius Secundus, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius, and Maximus. (source)


[/ QUOTE ]

Remsberg, eh? Weak Cyrus, very weak.


[ QUOTE ]
I already dealt with Joesphus and Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats your idea of "dealing with it?"

Regarding Josephus, no one disputes that parts of that particular passage were inserted, most scholars accept that the passage is largely accurate and were Josephus's original work. In other words, the passage still points strongly to the existence of Jesus.

You got Pliny sort of right. But your appraisal of the signifigance of Pliny is wrong. The letter from Pliny by itself is a small piece of evidence. But combined with other sources, it continues to build the case for a historic Jesus.

Suetonius's contribution is as you said relatively small. Not worth debating to be sure.

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the authors in my list, which includes the names of your list, have nothing or next-to-nothing to offer in support of a historical Christ. You will find a small primer about the non-existence of evidence of Jesus as a historical figure in the same source, linked above. But do search the library too.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many reasons why those authors wouldnt have written about Jesus.

Briefly, they include:

1. Jesus wouldnt have been considered historically significant by the historians of his day.
2. He was executed as a criminal.
3. He mostly avoided the urban centers of Palestine.
4. He was a threat to the established religious order.
5. He hung out with undesireables.

Also the amount of writings available to us from the 1st century are incredibly small, so the fact that we find Jesus mentioned at all could be considered to be strong evidence in and of itself.

[Dead]

I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person.

There can be a debate on whether Jesus is God, but there can't really be a debate about whether or not Jesus existed. He almost certainly did exist, and numerous historical sources confirm it.

Now, we could have a debate about whether Jesus was a player or not. Maybe vulturesrow has something to add to that.