Where is Jesus?
- Thread starter fields316_2000
- Start date
wrong.
One main reason is that a guy named "Jesus that got curzified in Jerusalem" is mentioned in a Tacitus text, a non christian historian from Rome that lived around that time. You can't shut that point down Jokerman, I translated it myself. It's a fact, there's been a man named Jesus that started trouble, everything beyond that is called belief.
P.S: Back to topic. Dude, think about it, your question in here is serious? Just cause guys can date a bone, doesn't mean they can find every body out there...
P.S.S: AS I read I see you guys don't accept our arguments. Aight, fine, you might as well leave the thread. There has to be a point where u accept something as a fact. IF not there is no point in discussion. I can doubt reality too, the existence of this board - maybe we are all caught up in the matrix. I can believe that but see, there is no point in discussion then...
One main reason is that a guy named "Jesus that got curzified in Jerusalem" is mentioned in a Tacitus text, a non christian historian from Rome that lived around that time. You can't shut that point down Jokerman, I translated it myself. It's a fact, there's been a man named Jesus that started trouble, everything beyond that is called belief.
P.S: Back to topic. Dude, think about it, your question in here is serious? Just cause guys can date a bone, doesn't mean they can find every body out there...
P.S.S: AS I read I see you guys don't accept our arguments. Aight, fine, you might as well leave the thread. There has to be a point where u accept something as a fact. IF not there is no point in discussion. I can doubt reality too, the existence of this board - maybe we are all caught up in the matrix. I can believe that but see, there is no point in discussion then...
Tacitus lived decades after the time Jesus was suppose to be alive. His quote about Christ was never cited until 1500AD, even by religious scholars. Even if that line was 100% correct, his book (the Annals) was written 80 years after Jesus's death, where Christianity had become organized and 3 Gospels written. Tacitus could have just written what he had heard
Edit: Also, like posted earlier, it does not specifically say "CHRIST", but it was "Chrestus", both being common names at the time
Edit: Also, like posted earlier, it does not specifically say "CHRIST", but it was "Chrestus", both being common names at the time
Coins? if i made coins with an image of a flying man on them and 3000 years from now when people look at them thats hardly proof of a flying man. 
King Tut for example we know he lived because we discovered his mummy. thats proof. and im not sure about this but did he not live before Julius?
I'm not denying the existence of Julius, I do believe he once lived. but you can't just deny a mans existence who just happens to be one of if not the most influential being that ever lived, Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born B.C and A.D. You can deny the miracles we believe he performed or that he was the son of God, sure, but to deny he ever lived because he's thought to be just that is how shall i say it stupid?
King Tut for example we know he lived because we discovered his mummy. thats proof. and im not sure about this but did he not live before Julius?
I'm not denying the existence of Julius, I do believe he once lived. but you can't just deny a mans existence who just happens to be one of if not the most influential being that ever lived, Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born B.C and A.D. You can deny the miracles we believe he performed or that he was the son of God, sure, but to deny he ever lived because he's thought to be just that is how shall i say it stupid?
TecK NeeX said:
Coins? if i made coins with an image of a flying man on them and 3000 years from now when people look at them thats hardly proof of a flying man.
King Tut for example we know he lived because we discovered his mummy. thats proof. and im not sure about this but did he not live before Julius?
King Tut for example we know he lived because we discovered his mummy. thats proof. and im not sure about this but did he not live before Julius?
The evidence that Ceasar existed is overwhelming. Records, coins, statues, bustes, inscriptions.
The evidence of Jesus' existence is limited to (sketchy) records. I do believe he existed as a historical figure, but you can't compare the two.
If there are documents that were written at the time it happened, that would be more proof than documents written 100 years after the fact. If a person was set to be crucified in Rome, there would have been written records from the courts saying who was the judge and who was being executed, but there are none for Jesus.
A Pope 1500 years after the suppose birth of Jesus made the date December 25, there is nothing supporting the date of December 25
A Pope 1500 years after the suppose birth of Jesus made the date December 25, there is nothing supporting the date of December 25
Still that ain't my question, what is valid in our past? We have less proof and more proof in your opinion, but what is 100% true and real then? Doubting like you guys do, we can't believe in nothing what our history books are tellin us......
Since Jesus wasn't from Rome nor a roman citizan, I don't think you have a good point here....
Since Jesus wasn't from Rome nor a roman citizan, I don't think you have a good point here....
Whether some historical person actually existed or not, or whether something is historically valid, has to be settled in the court of historical criticism. For most figures, such as Caesar, there's no question as to whether they existed, there's nothing leading one to believe they didn't exist. There's no coincidental myths that sound exactly the same as their story. There's no lack of eyewitness accounts and records.
Not so with Jesus. Even people in the early Church doubted that Jesus existed. The Jesus story has all the landmarks of a myth, so could it be that that's exactly what it is?
So much of Christianity came from the Pagan religion that preceded it. The site of the Vatican was a Pagan site of worship. As early Christianity became the dominant power in the previously Pagan world, popular motifs from Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus. Even Jesus' teachings weren't original, but had been anticipated by Pagan sages. If there is a real Jesus beneath all the Pagan borrowings, then we can know nothing about him, and for all intents and purposes, there's no reason to think he existed.
The Gnostics, early Chrisitians, did not believe Jesus had ever lived. They weren't even concerned with the historical Jesus. They viewed the Jesus story in the same way that Pagan philosophers viewed the myths of Osiris and other gods--as an allegory that encoded mystical teachings.
The Gnostics were later persecuted out of existence by the Literalist Roman Church, who tried to destroy all their writings. The Roman Church took the Jesus story as a literal account of historical events. This is the only reason we are having this discussion now. This is the only reason anyone thinks Jesus lived, or even places importance on whether he lived or not. If the Roman Church had adopted Osiris as their god, you all would have been certain now that he had existed. Because they would have taken that myth and literalized it into a biography and persecuted anyone who knew different.
Take all these Gnostic gospels in the news lately. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas. Most were discovered in a cave in 1945. No one reads these today and takes their fantastic stories as literally true. They are readily seen as myths. If the four gospels in the New Testament had been lost and then recently found, who would read them today and think they were historical accounts of a man born of a virgin, who walked on water and returned from the dead? Hello. It's just familiarity and cultural history that prevents us from seeing them in the same light.
Strictly speaking, there were no "original Chrisitans," but rather a continuous stream of Gnostics from different cultures with different experiences of life, all producing thier own variations on the perennial philosophy. Amongst some Jewish Gnostics a school developed which synthesized Jewish and Pagan mythology to produce what we now call Christianity.
Not so with Jesus. Even people in the early Church doubted that Jesus existed. The Jesus story has all the landmarks of a myth, so could it be that that's exactly what it is?
So much of Christianity came from the Pagan religion that preceded it. The site of the Vatican was a Pagan site of worship. As early Christianity became the dominant power in the previously Pagan world, popular motifs from Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus. Even Jesus' teachings weren't original, but had been anticipated by Pagan sages. If there is a real Jesus beneath all the Pagan borrowings, then we can know nothing about him, and for all intents and purposes, there's no reason to think he existed.
The Gnostics, early Chrisitians, did not believe Jesus had ever lived. They weren't even concerned with the historical Jesus. They viewed the Jesus story in the same way that Pagan philosophers viewed the myths of Osiris and other gods--as an allegory that encoded mystical teachings.
The Gnostics were later persecuted out of existence by the Literalist Roman Church, who tried to destroy all their writings. The Roman Church took the Jesus story as a literal account of historical events. This is the only reason we are having this discussion now. This is the only reason anyone thinks Jesus lived, or even places importance on whether he lived or not. If the Roman Church had adopted Osiris as their god, you all would have been certain now that he had existed. Because they would have taken that myth and literalized it into a biography and persecuted anyone who knew different.
Take all these Gnostic gospels in the news lately. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas. Most were discovered in a cave in 1945. No one reads these today and takes their fantastic stories as literally true. They are readily seen as myths. If the four gospels in the New Testament had been lost and then recently found, who would read them today and think they were historical accounts of a man born of a virgin, who walked on water and returned from the dead? Hello. It's just familiarity and cultural history that prevents us from seeing them in the same light.
Strictly speaking, there were no "original Chrisitans," but rather a continuous stream of Gnostics from different cultures with different experiences of life, all producing thier own variations on the perennial philosophy. Amongst some Jewish Gnostics a school developed which synthesized Jewish and Pagan mythology to produce what we now call Christianity.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.