Was Jesus Christ a real historic figure ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
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 Mat ...[text shortened]... attributed to
him stemmed in some way from him seems a reasonable thing to believe.

Nemesio

You dare to use the word "scholarly". Shame on you.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You dare to use the word "scholarly". Shame on you.

You dare to use the word 'think.' Shame on you.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You dare to use the word 'think.' Shame on you.

So, lets "debate" it. The subject is "What is thought? can it be supposed by act alone?"

Ok? Let's do it. You tell me which side I am to take. If you dare.

Originally posted by Nemesio
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 al ...[text shortened]... some way from him seems a reasonable thing to believe.

Nemesio

Yes, I believe Constantine and the others existed but we have various degrees of evidence to support their existence; their writings (none by Jesus), contemporary accounts (it's seems disputed whether any of the Gospels were written by the apostles), physical evidence, etc. None of this seems to exist in Jesus' case. Did Krishna exist has a man in the past? I don't know but I assume we can rationally debate it using historical evidence.

I'm not saying it's not a "reasonable" belief to say there was a historical Jesus, but I want more evidence before I conclude that it would be an "unreasonable" belief to say there wasn't. The name of this thread indicates a question that can be at least approached using the logical tools at our disposal; I am open to actual evidence either way. But an assertion is not a fact and many ancient peoples believed in Man-Gods; we now say that there wasn't a real Heracles because there is not historical proof of his existence, why should Jesus be held to a different standard of proof?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, I believe Constantine and the others existed but we have various degrees of evidence to support their existence; their writings (none by Jesus), contemporary accounts (it's seems disputed whether any of the Gospels were written by the apostles), physical evidence, etc. None of this seems to exist in Jesus' case. Did Krishna exist has a man ...[text shortened]... ot historical proof of his existence, why should Jesus be held to a different standard of proof?

This is fantastical. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? How about Ceasar?

You want Jesus not to exist because it makes you uncomfortable if He does.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, I believe Constantine and the others existed but we have various degrees of evidence to support their existence; their writings (none by Jesus), contemporary accounts (it's seems disputed whether any of the Gospels were written by the apostles), physical evidence, etc. None of this seems to exist in Jesus' case. Did Krishna exist has a man ...[text shortened]... ot historical proof of his existence, why should Jesus be held to a different standard of proof?

Do you believe that St James existed and was the leader
of the first Christian community in Jerusalem?

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html

There is a letter in the Bible attributed to St James which
is, generally, not disputed. Josephus names him in what
is believed to be a genuine passage of his history.

The reason I ask is because this man is explicitly Jesus's
brother in all Gospel texts (even while subsequent traditions
attest to Mary's Perpetual Virginity).

If the only stories about Jesus were those that were fantastical,
I could understand why someone would question His historical
status. But he has teachings attributed to Him, teachings that
were transmitted in sources all by themselves (such as Q or the
Gospel of St Thomas). I see no reason to believe that Jesus was
a pseudonym for St James (for example).

I also believe that Buddha existed, if that matters.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
This is fantastical. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? How about Ceasar?

You want Jesus not to exist because it makes you uncomfortable if He does.

No. Actually he is afraid that maybe Jesus does exist.

He has recently been told that he rules in the debates forum, so now he worries about that. He wonders why he was so blessed by the gods of the forums.

I don't know. I don't see it myself.

But maybe another fruitless challenge is in order.

What say you mr. great number one killer of kids in the dark?

Want to debate? Any subject. Anything you fancy. You just choose it and tell me which side I am on. Ok?

Mr. great numeroUnoKillerInTheDark?

let me know.

Originally posted by Darfius
This is fantastical. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? How about Ceasar?

You want Jesus not to exist because it makes you uncomfortable if He does.

What part of my post is difficult for you to understand? I've read parts of Julius Ceasar's book on his invasion of Gaul and it is well-documented by other historians and by archeological evidence as is Alexander the Great's deeds. You're an idiot to say "I want Jesus not to exist"; where do I say that? You are projecting your religious bigotry unto me; if there is sufficient evidence Jesus existed as a historical person. I'll believe it, if not he's the same as Heracles. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the evidence; present some or go preach in another thread.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
No. Actually he is afraid that maybe Jesus does exist.

He has recently been told that he rules in the debates forum, so now he worries about that. He wonders why he was so blessed by the gods of the forums.

I don't know. I don't see it myself.

But maybe another fruitless challenge is in order.

What say you mr. great number one killer of k ...[text shortened]... se it and tell me which side I am on. Ok?

Mr. great numeroUnoKillerInTheDark?

let me know.

I don't debate raving lunatics.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part of my post is difficult for you to understand? I've read parts of Julius Ceasar's book on his invasion of Gaul and it is well-documented by other historians and by archeological evidence as is Alexander the Great's deeds. You're an idiot to say "I want Jesus not to exist"; where do I say that? You are projecting your religious bigo ...[text shortened]... purpose of this thread is to discuss the evidence; present some or go preach in another thread.

Ok.

You do want Jesus to exist?

That is what you say.

Why?

Why do you want superstition to rule?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part of my post is difficult for you to understand? I've read parts of Julius Ceasar's book on his invasion of Gaul and it is well-documented by other historians and by archeological evidence as is Alexander the Great's deeds. You're an idiot to say "I want Jesus not to exist"; where do I say that? You are projecting your religious bigo ...[text shortened]... purpose of this thread is to discuss the evidence; present some or go preach in another thread.

If you READ the New Testament, rather than CONDEMMING IT OFFHAND, you could then check to see that archeological evidence corroborates much of the historical aspects of it. Many scholars agree that as far as history goes, the Bible is the best source of ancient history. I don't mind as much when you don't believe Jesus didn't do the miracles that are attributed to Him, but I do mind when you make a claim no reasonably intelligent scholar would make.

Originally posted by Darfius
If you READ the New Testament, rather than CONDEMMING IT OFFHAND, you could then check to see that archeological evidence corroborates much of the historical aspects of it. Many scholars agree that as far as history goes, the Bible is the best source of ancient history. I don't mind as much when you don't believe Jesus didn't do the miracles that are at ...[text shortened]... ibuted to Him, but I do mind when you make a claim no reasonably intelligent scholar would make.

There is no archeological evidence to support the notion that Jesus
was Resurrected. Yes, there were tombs. Yes, there were boats.
Yes, Pontius Pilate was governor. Yes, there were Jews.

There is no archeological support for the explicit claims of the Bible:
1) Jesus existed.
2) Jesus had a ministry.
3) Jesus died.
4) Jesus was raised.

&c.

The evidence for Jesus's existence is purely literary, not
archeological.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
If you READ the New Testament, rather than CONDEMMING IT OFFHAND, you could then check to see that archeological evidence corroborates much of the historical aspects of it. Many scholars agree that as far as history goes, the Bible is the best source of ancient history. I don't mind as much when you don't believe Jesus didn't do the miracles that are at ...[text shortened]... ibuted to Him, but I do mind when you make a claim no reasonably intelligent scholar would make.

I'm getting sick of your rubbish; I've read the New Testament, particulary the Gospels, many times. You assume I didn't just because you are a religious fanatic and have foolish preconceptions about anyone who doesn't agree with you. The New Testament is no more proof of the historical figure of Jesus than the Illiad is proof of the historical figure of Achilles. In both there are historical facts (there was a Pilate; there was a Troy) but so what? In the works of Aristophanes there are characters; are they proven historical figures because he mentions Athens and there was an Athens? Of course not. I invited you to present such evidence as you could, but rather than actuallly presenting any you make grandiose statements that you have no expertise in: you're certainly not a "scholar" and you don't seem to be "reasonably intelligent" so what would you know about what "reasonably intelligent scholars" believe? And for the last time, I've made no "claim" at all regarding Jesus' existence as a historical figure, I'm trying to see the evidence on both sides and make up my mind; so again, either present some or preach in another thread. I'd also like if you would look at the site I gave above and critique it. That would make this an actual DEBATE.

Originally posted by Nemesio
There is no archeological evidence to support the notion that Jesus
was Resurrected. Yes, there were tombs. Yes, there were boats.
Yes, Pontius Pilate was governor. Yes, there were Jews.

There is no archeological support for the exp ...[text shortened]... us's existence is purely literary, not
archeological.

Nemesio

I'll break it down.

When I say New Testament, I mean every place, person, position of authority in it. Archeology has proven Luke to be right when scholars thought he was wrong about places many times. Why, if Luke was simply lying to make up a story, would he be so meticulous about places and names, and then lie about what Jesus did? Can anyone give me a rational answer?

Thank you for insulting my intelligence for no reason, no1. Yet again, we see the atheist attack people's on a personal level. Your life must prove to be a shining example for those who know you.

Originally posted by Darfius
I'll break it down.

When I say New Testament, I mean every place, person, position of authority in it. Archeology has proven Luke to be right when scholars thought he was wrong about places many times. Why, if Luke was simply lying to make up a story, would he be so meticulous about places and names, and then lie about what Jesus did? Can anyone give ...[text shortened]... le's on a personal level. Your life must prove to be a shining example for those who know you.

Don't worry about it. The stinkin' little nemotoad has gone to bed. He has not the courage to face the world. Instead, he will just have stinkin' little toad dreams of what he should have done.