Was Jesus Christ a real historic figure ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please start another thread as to whether Satan and his demons are historical figures and stop polluting this one.

PS I'm still getting to Tacitus, Ivanhoe just on the slim chance that we can ever get back to having a discussion regarding the topic of the thread (don't look promising though).

Stand firm, No1 !

Originally posted by blindfaith101
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
GENESIS 1:1
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they became together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Since God created the heaven and the earth, and HE used HIS HOLY GHOST to make Mary pregnant, and the baby that she w ...[text shortened]... (1) HIS HOLY SPIRIT(2) HIS SON JESUS CHRIST(3) that these trhree are actuall the same person GOD

You wrote yourself: 'This would seem to mean...'

You are interpretting, which is fine. But that isn't what the 'Bible says.'

The Bible never makes explicit reference to the Trinity; it doesn't
even personify the Holy Spirit (except to say that sins against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven).

Indeed, you wrote 'He used His Holy Ghost...' as if the Holy Spirit
were a tool, not an independent person, a member of the Trinity.

Face it: the Bible does not 'clearly state' any notion of a 'Three-in-One'
God; it makes no mention of the Trinity. You were wrong to suggest it.
Trinitarian Doctrine was a notion created by 3rd-century Christians and
expounded upon by 4th-century Christians.

Unless you have another passage that actually 'clearly says' that God
is Three-in-One.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think I might start alerting your posts, although I loathe censorship. You idiots will not allow a single rational discussion to take place in the Debates forum; you hijack every single thread with religious rantings. I doubt seriously that Jesus (if he existed) barged into every conversation that he saw going on and berated people; why you do i ...[text shortened]... Hill; if you ever come up with an original thought, please PM me as I wouldn't want to miss it.

we have not broken any of the rules here. We have talked respectfully even we get insulted and cursed. You donot like our point of view or what we believe in.That is fine, but just as you like respect in the "real" world you should give it. The suject is about JESUS CHRIST, and that is what the reponsees have been. If you didn't want it to go this far, you should have stated it in the FIRST post. Not when the topic goes where you did not want it to go.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Stand firm, No1 !

I am curious as to what you Christian zealots think of this site:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

In it, the author points out the extreme paucity of historical references to Jesus: he mentions the ones already sited and two others but points out that there were dozens of other histories written (one by a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, if Jesus existed) that do not mention at all the "greatest event in history". He also points out that there were early "Christian" sects like the Gnostics and Essenes who did not believe in a historical Jesus or Resurrection.

An interesting "kicker" is his comparison with the characteristics of Jesus' story with the stories of Horus (Egypt) and Krishna (India). Both these figures were said to have been born of virgins, to have died and been resurrected and have many other similiarities to the Jesus story. And, of course, these stories pre-date Jesus by hundreds of years. Any of you "fair minded" people like to take a gander at it and refute these points logically?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You wrote yourself: 'This would seem to mean...'

You are interpretting, which is fine. But that isn't what the 'Bible says.'

The Bible never makes explicit reference to the Trinity; it doesn't
even personify the Holy Spirit (except to say that sins against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven).

Indeed, you wrote 'He used His Holy Ghost... ...[text shortened]... ss you have another passage that actually 'clearly says' that God
is Three-in-One.

Nemesio

So I guess that when GOD used his HOLY SPIRIT to announce that JESUS CHRIST was HIS SON, and JESUS HIMELF said that HE and GOD were one, doesn't count.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
we have not broken any of the rules here. We have talked respectfully even we get insulted and cursed. You donot like our point of view or what we believe in.That is fine, but just as you like respect in the "real" world you should ...[text shortened]... RST post. Not when the topic goes where you did not want it to go.

That is not true. You are trolling this debate by preaching rather than discussing the issue presented. The issue is whether Jesus was a historical person, not about Satan and demons and the WORD OF GOD, etc. etc. etc. Please look at the site I mention in my prior post and offer your opinion on it; I'm interested in that but I'm not interested in more preaching.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I am curious as to what you Christian zealots think of this site:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

In it, the author points out the extreme paucity of historical references to Jesus: he mentions the ones already sited and two others but points out that there were dozens of other histories written (one by a Jewish con ...[text shortened]... ny of you "fair minded" people like to take a gander at it and refute these points logically?

Are you saying that you believe or disbelieve what they are saying? Do you give what these unbelievers state as fact? Have YOU examined all that they have said? Has all that they said agree with one another? This would not be another situation, where just as the liars were at the trail of JESUS, they could not get their lies straight, would it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is not true. You are trolling this debate by preaching rather than discussing the issue presented. The issue is whether Jesus was a historical person, not about Satan and demons and the WORD OF GOD, etc. etc. etc. Please look at the site I mention in my prior post and offer your opinion on it; I'm interested in that but I'm not interested in more preaching.

I have not been preaching, all I have done is bring out, what JESUS said when HE was on this earth. JESUS when HE spoke, HE taught history. In fact HE taught it using THE WORD OF GOD. If THE WORD OF GOD bothers you.........it should. Maybe all is really not well with you and your soul.
All is well with you and your soul. Then there is no part of THE WORD OF GOD, that should offend you or anyone else.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
So I guess that when GOD used his HOLY SPIRIT to announce that JESUS CHRIST was HIS SON, and JESUS HIMELF said that HE and GOD were one, doesn't count.

No, it doesn't count as the Bible 'clearly' stating that there
is a triune God, no matter how hard you try.

Does the Father or Jesus ever say, 'The Holy Spirit is God.'

No.

Does the Holy Spirit ever say, 'I am God.'

No.

Does any Apostle or Prophet, motivated by the Holy Spirit
ever say, 'The Holy Spirit is God.'

No.

Trinitarianism is a 3rd-century concept. I'm sorry this is so
confusing for you. The Bible never makes mention that
the Holy Spirit is God, as you wrongfully claimed. The Holy
Spirit is always used as an instrument of God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Are you saying that you believe or disbelieve what they are saying? Do you give what these unbelievers state as fact? Have YOU examined all that they have said? Has all that they said agree with one another? This would not be another situation, where just as the liars were at the trail of JESUS, they could not get their lies straight, would it?

What I'd like you to do is to try to refute the statements on the site if you can. If you cannot, then if it is a fact that the story of Krishna contains the same elements as the story of Jesus and was written 500 years earlier what is your explanation? This is how people DEBATE; I haven't reached a conclusion on the site but you people take it as a matter of "faith" that there was unquestionably a historical Jesus and that the proof of this is so strong that anybody who believes differently is "deluded". If that is so, you should have no problem demolishing the assertions of that site by logical argument, not irrational screeching about "unbelievers".

Originally posted by Nemesio
No, it doesn't count as the Bible 'clearly' stating that there
is a triune God, no matter how hard you try.

Does the Father or Jesus ever say, 'The Holy Spirit is God.'

No.

Does the Holy Spirit ever say, 'I am God.'

No.

Does any Apostle or Prophet, motivated by the Holy Spirit
ever say, 'The Holy Spirit is God.'

No.

Trinitari ...[text shortened]... as you wrongfully claimed. The Holy
Spirit is always used as an instrument of God.

Nemesio

are you a believer?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What I'd like you to do is to try to refute the statements on the site if you can. If you cannot, then if it is a fact that the story of Krishna contains the same elements as the story of Jesus and was written 500 years earlier what is your explanation? This is how people DEBATE; I haven't reached a conclusion on the site but you people take it ...[text shortened]... he assertions of that site by logical argument, not irrational screeching about "unbelievers".

Refute what? What a group of unbelievers have said? I need not need to prove their lies,check them all out. Does everything they say agree with all the others in their group. They do not all agree.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
are you a believer?

Here we go again.

Answer: My beliefs are between me and God and
my faith community, and no one else.

Whether I am a 'believer' or not does not change
the fact that your claim about the Bible 'clearly'
stating that the Trinity exists is totally bogus.

Nemesio

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Refute what? What a group of unbelievers have said? I need not need to prove their lies,check them all out. Does everything they say agree with all the others in their group. They do not all agree.

This is why you shouldn't be in a DEBATE forum; you don't want to debate. Of what possible difference is it that "unbelievers" disagree with each other? Is it a fact that the story of Krishna has A) the same elements as the story of Jesus (virgin birth, moral teacher, died and resurrected, etc.) and B) that the story of Krishna was written 500 years before your Gospels? And if both are true, then does this tend to show that Jesus was not a historical figure but an amalgamation of various pre-existing mythical figures? Or is there some other explanation? Please, DEBATE!

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is why you shouldn't be in a DEBATE forum; you don't want to debate. Of what possible difference is it that "unbelievers" disagree with each other? Is it a fact that the story of Krishna has A) the same elements as the story of Jesus (virgin birth, moral teacher, died and resurrected, etc.) and B) that the story of Krishna was written 500 years ...[text shortened]... on of various pre-existing mythical figures? Or is there some other explanation? Please, DEBATE!

Well, in the scholarly 'Historical Jesus' community, academes divide
Jesus into two parts, fantastical/mythical and historical. The mythical
group includes the healings, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and so
forth. Just about all of the elements of the fantastical Jesus can be
found in earlier religions, including the Hebrew Scriptures. St Matthew
was deeply moved by Isaiah, and so you find a lot of Isaiaic parallels;
St Luke was inspired by Elijah.

These mythic elements are unprovable. They are recorded solely in
post-Jesus Christian literature (and, there are many texts which are
not Scripture which report even more extraordinary stuff). The academes
relegate these things to matters of faith and let them be.

The historical things, however, they look at and examine. It's very
credible to believe that, if Jesus existed, he was killed based on the
stories about him: he was an upstart, a teacher and therefore leader
of Jewish men, he was crucified by Pilate, a vicious Roman governor.

There has to be a certain point after which you definitely believe
something existed, a terminus ante quem. Do you believe
Constantine existed and made Christianity the state religion for
the entire East? If yes, do you believe that the early Church Fathers
like Sts Origen and Ignatius and Clement existed? If yes, do you
believe that St James and St Paul existed (the writings attributed
to St Peter are considered spurious, but several of the letters of St
Paul are uncontested as is the letter by St James).

Someone(s) wrote down the Gospels at some point. At some point
they came into being. Someone said the parable of the Mustard Seed
and the Good Samariten. If you excise all the fantastical stuff from
the Bible, I don't believe there is any reason to believe that Jesus didn't
exist. If He, in fact, did not do all the miracles and didn't rise from the
dead and so forth, who would remember Him? Just His Disciples (and
family, like St James), who would keep His memory alive through
stories and writings. It doesn't seem incredible (i.e., a matter of faith)
that the 'historical' Jesus existed. I won't argue about the fantasical
stuff; that's a matter of personal faith, but the historical stuff and the
fact that many of the teachings, parables and aphorisms attributed to
him stemmed in some way from him seems a reasonable thing to believe.

Nemesio