Discussion in 'Christianity' started by neonspectraltoast, Dec 29, 2017.
So David0301 sees Christians as dwarfs?
Imagine there are people out there who still speak aramaic. The assyrian people. I went to school with one assyrian guy. These guys dont mix with other races. They are kind of like jews. Only marry within the race. That makes aramaic the oldest still spoken language.
Hmmm Dave...... We really dont know a thing about Jesus! (I dont think we should blindly believe the bible (Which is biased))
The problem with the bible is that we are never able to read it. Because it has been mistranslated. Why? To gain certain benefits. Who? All kindsss of people
But his teachings exist.
Just as Socrates teachings exist.(who is even older than jesus)
You understand this is just more affirmation that there's no solid proof, right?
His teachings are not proof for his existence. They could simply be bestowed on a fictional person. Jesus is a very inspiring figure regardless
We already covered that there's proof of the existence of other people who lived before Jesus, and even of some people who lived at the same time as Jesus. It doesn't say anything with certainty about Jesus himself.
I know I remember our conversation.
What I noticed is that people pick&choose subliminally in their mind whether a historical figure existed or not . If the skeptic is an atheist (which I also am, but there is 2 kinds of "atheists") then jesus did not exist. But other - even older figures- such as julius cäsar,Socrates,cleopatra existed.
Besides that, what I also noticed is that: if jesus really existed and died so young as the bible tells us, what if he had gotten old and lived , lets say, until 80??? Maaannn he would be the most influential person there ever was. )))
I mean for somebody who only preached - according to the bible - 3 years and died at ca 33 years his legacy is crazy effective even 2000 years post. I cant think of any other historical figure who can compete with him in this regard.
There are even more 'kinds' of atheists. It seems you assume my conviction? I'm not convinced or arguing he didn't exist. I'm nuancing your convictions that 1) there are written sources known of him from during his life, and 2) that it is certain he existed.
You in return to that reacted with personal attacks and pitiful insults like only fact ignoring zealots do lol
Another indication that these teachings possibly did not come from one individual
Buddha comes to mind.
You're right - there is no evidence that Jesus ever physically existed, other than the Bible, and some other gnostic texts, all written many decades after he was said to have lived. And they are all written originally in Greek, not Aramaic.
The situation with Buddha is similar. No writings produced until a long time after his alleged lifetime, and no external historical record. I don't think there's much difference in other cases of religious figures such as Moses and Krishna.
let's respect each other in this thread please. No personal insults are needed to make your points.
(c. 37-100 C.E.) This Jewish priest and historian states that Annas, a Jewish high priest who continued to wield political influence, “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin [the Jewish high court] and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200.
Josephus was writing decades after the event, like the evangelists.
Indeed, he's a wellknown name for people interested in this subject. One of the first you will run into.
Its curious Future mentions this source as it seems to conflict with biblical ones about Jesus' siblings and he regards the Bible as the word of God
It appears that both sides of the debate like to cite Josephus.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Bible does mention that Jesus had brothers.
To me the most convincing proof that Jesus existed is the book of James. Written in the 40's by Jesus's brother.
Albert Einstein, a German-born Jewish physicist, asserted: “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” When asked if he viewed Jesus as a historical person, he responded: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.”
I don't see no point in arguing whether or not Jesus was a real person. Religion is faith, not science...believe it or not it's up to you!
Separate names with a comma.