Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clarence Dember on February 1, 2010 at 4:57pm

I select answer C. I don't believe such a person existed. He was most notably cobbled together at the Council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine. There is evidence that this character is a composite of many people and not actually a single individual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on February 4, 2010 at 1:38pm

Of course, whether he existed or not doesn't make a bit of difference.

It seems to make a great deal of difference to the believers and it was one of the final nails in the coffin of my own Xian upbringing. All the contradictions and hypocrisy were bad enough, but then to start digging and learn there's no evidence that Jesus was even a real person? Of all the lies that the institution of Xianity drilled into my impressionable child-brain, perhaps the greatest of all is that such a person even existed in the first place.

Whenever I ask a Xian friend, it does seem to come down to believe in historical Jesus is a requirement to follow the religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 4, 2010 at 1:43pm

Which is why, incidentally, the historicity of Jesus is allowed such a lower threshold of evidence than, say Hercules. Because no one believes in the Greek Gods anymore, but unless you fudge the facts with Jesus, people tend to get upset.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 2, 2010 at 1:17am

B. Given the evidence for his existence as a historical figure (Tacitius Annals 15.44, to name one), I believe he did exist. Further, given the enormously powerful effect he apparently had on so many and despite not really performing any significant actions to otherwise justify such, I cannot but conclude that there had to have been very strong reasons for the effect he had on others. Thus, while I certainly do not believe what the Biblical Gospels have to say, and even less what Paul or any of his other male "disciples" promulgated, yet there was obviously something rather remarkable and peculiar about the man and his insights... and, thus, I cannot discount the possibility that he might have attained potentials we have yet to discover, and that... as he actually taught... are nevertheless within our grasp. The historical "Jesus" (Yeshua) might very well have developed capacities and potentials related to that called the "Noetic Sciences" (noetic.org) that have absolutely nothing to do with him as any "Son of God," but instead speak to the potentials within each and every one of us.

When one reads between the lines of the "Gospels," one cannot but be struck by the fact that Jesus was not at all attempting to start up some new religion... but was, to my view, attempting instead to wake people up to their own true potentials, nothing more... or less. Whether the "miracles" attributed to him were real or not (and I doubt they were... or at least were not as portrayed), yet the attitude "Jesus" reportedly projected regarding them and what he taught following them reflect a very non-religious and highly heretical mindset that I find truly fascinating and worthy of consideration despite my general abhorrence for all things religious.

When he supposedly walked on water and Peter asked to join him, Jesus immediately told Peter to come right on out and do it! And Peter actually did... for a few seconds. Such an account in a religious "scriptural" text is nothing short of astounding! No "god" or "prophet" that I know of would ever lower himself or his abilities to the common man! And yet, here and elsewhere in the canonical Gospels, Jesus does this time and time again. His message seemed very clear and pointedly NON-religious: all of this YOU can do, too, and without any need for priests, rites, rituals, or ordinances, with no need for religion. Thus, given this, anything I read that puts words in his mouth that are directly contradictory to his reported actions forces me to discount such words as the later embellishments of the "orthodox" leaders who took over after his death and who, thus, needed justification to subjugate all such believers under themselves.

It seems glaringly apparent that the actual historical Jesus did not involve himself in so much as a single religious dogma, rite, liturgy or any other such ritualistic quackery, nor attempt to lord (no pun) any such supposed "authority" over anyone. Again... for a supposedly religious text, this is absolutely extraordinary, if not entirely unprecedented.

Jesus was forever teaching that what he did was really no big deal at all... that all such was within the reach of everyone. In fact, he was constantly chiding others because they couldn't do what he did ("Oh ye of little faith"... remember?). Thus, again, indicating that he was not attempting to aggrandize himself at all, but was instead attempting to have others see their own deeper potentials ... and develop them.

Sadly it was, instead, his followers after his execution who so self-servingly turned it all into some new "religion" and, thus, completely hijacked and then derailed what his true teachings were into the true train wreck that later became orthodox "Christianity."

If you want a real laugh sometime, just compare the teachings of Paul (the real founder of what we today call "Christianity") with the canonical "Gospels" and you will find that Paul didn't have a clue to what Jesus was really teaching. Jesus taught self-empowerment while Paul taught just the opposite: religious orthodoxy and submission to religious hierarchy. To my view, this realization has given me a far deeper appreciation for the actual historical "Jesus" and what he might have actually known.

Thus... it seems to me that the real "Jesus" was most certainly not any "Son of God" (which, by the by, the "Messiah" was never prophecied to be!), did not teach religion nor attempt to elevate himself above everyone else, at all. What he seemed to teach, after first awakening people to who they truly are... is self-empowerment. This seems rather akin to the lessons found in my absolute favorite allegorical book: Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Small wonder that, despite never really accomplishing anything historically extraordinary, yet two millennia later, he is still remembered ... and just as greatly still misunderstood. Hence the religious "abortion" that is modern "Christianity."


Again ... just my $0.02 worth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on February 2, 2010 at 1:26am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Eh, looks awfully dodgy to me. And it is just an explanation of the supposed origin of the religion the Christians themselves were shopping around, nearly 100 years after the fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on February 2, 2010 at 3:53am

Your beliefs about Jesus rely on books of doubtful authenticity written many decades after the man Jeshua supposedly lived. All you can safely say is that the authors of the gospels did not believe in the same Jesus as Paul did.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 2, 2010 at 10:38am

"B. Given the evidence for his existence as a historical figure (Tacitius Annals 15.44, to name one), I believe he did exist. Further, given the enormously powerful effect he apparently had on so many and despite not really performing any significant actions to otherwise justify such, I cannot but conclude that there had to have been very strong reasons for the effect he had on others."

Although you reach a different conclusion, the "historical certainty" displayed over a vague passage describing early Christians with an aside about Jesus written in 116 AD, seems lifted from Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 2, 2010 at 11:34am

Forgive me, but I did not use the phrase "historical certainty" anywhere in my reply. Please do not attempt to ascribe words to me that I never used.

Additionally, the event reported by Tacitus, an actual Roman senator and somewhat prolific historian who was neither a Christian nor a sympathizer, could hardly be described as "a vague passage."

As with all great empires, the Roman Empire kept quite meticulous records. And as both a Senator and a historian, Tacitus would most certainly have had access to them all and would, and did, use them. And given the high degree of accuracy found elsewhere throughout his writings, it is illogical to conclude that on this one point he would so definitively report on an event he had not first investigated and verified. Especially given that most certainly "Pilatus" would have submitted a report of the execution, just has he had for previous such events (one of which reports had him previously recalled to Rome for chastisement following one of his more brutally violent acts of Jewish suppression in Jerusalem).

Thus, to opine that Tacitus would have reported something that was not well supported by the historical evidences at his disposal does not seem justified. And there is nothing at all vague in his reporting that someone called "Christus" (a Latinized rendering of the Jewish term for "Anointed One") had been put to death by "Pilatus," one of Rome's own rulers in Judea, and whose followers ("Christianos" or perhaps "Chrestianos," as Tacitus called them) were accused by Nero of starting the great fire of Rome.

Obviously, if Tacitus ... or anyone else in the Roman Empire ... could have proved by their own records that this "Christus" never existed or that the claims of him having been executed by one of their own governors was a lie, he surely would have said so. Such a statement with the records to back them up would have severely if not fatally discredited the "Christian" movement if it were proved that such a man never even existed. And yet... Tacitus did no such thing; quite the opposite, in fact. He freely admits the existence of the man known as "Christus." The only explanation why he would have done so is if the Roman records then available, as well as common public knowledge of all who witnessed the public execution, both Roman and Jewish, would have made such a false claim laughable. Thus, it could not have been plausibly denied.

Thus... again... this is not "vague" at all; it is "smoking gun" evidence from a bonafide, 1st-Century, pagan, Roman Senator of the actual existence of a man called "Christus," executed by "Pilatus," whose followers were subsequently called "Christianos," and who were persecuted by Nero for supposedly causing the fire in Rome.

Thus... regardless the exaggerations and false "divinity" ascribed to this "Christus," yet he most certainly did actually exist in history.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 2, 2010 at 11:40am

"Forgive me, but I did not use the phrase "historical certainty" anywhere in my reply. Please do not attempt to ascribe words to me that I never used."

I'm sorry. Most non-idiots realize when I use "scare quotes" I'm not quoting them.

Yes, I know you didn't use the term "scare quotes".

Are you really trying to channel Josh McDowell? If you are, it's actually a brilliant piece of troll theater.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 2, 2010 at 11:52am

And most "non-idiots" do not attempt to reply with ad hominem rejoiners. I am not a troll nor have I responded like one. If you wish to take issue with any of my points, I would welcome any such discussion. Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 2, 2010 at 11:53am

You don't even know what ad hominem is, do you?

Ad hominem isn't a "personal attack". The way that, well, idiots, use it on the internet is to flag what they consider to be a non-civil bit of discourse. It's code for "You didn't speak to me with the respect I haven't earned".

Strickly speaking, ad hominem (literally "to the man") involves bringing up an irrelevant bit of personal information that has no bearing on the argument.

So, to say "Khemin's assertion that 2+2=4 is wrong because he's a goat fucker" is ad hominem. However, writing "Khemin's supposed objective defense of goat fucking is biased by the fact that he's a goat fucker" is actually relevant.

So, anyone who goes off on a red herring butt-hurt snit, adopting high dungeon because I used scare quotes which obviously weren't any attempt to quote anyone, I surmise is an idiot.

In addition, although this is not strictly relevant, you are also probably a goat fucker.

I do, however, apologize for calling you a troll.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 2, 2010 at 12:06pm

Your understanding of ad hominem is as faulty as the rest of your logic, frankly. As you were using subtle personal attack as part of your argument against my own, this does indeed constitute ad hominem, despite the fact that it might not fit the simplistic middle-school example of same you selected as illustration.

Yet why attempt to argue with someone with the intellectual agility of a small soapdish?

Oh... and as your avatar looks surprising like a goat from here, you can consider yourself soundly fucked.

Ball's in your court... goat-boy.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• …
• 94
• Next ›
• Page