[EDIT: split from this thread: [url]http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229249376/15#15[/url]

OK smartypants, find any historical record that references jesus or king arthur.

If you mean I do not accept third, fourth, fifth hand accounts, written hundreds of years after the fact, as evidence, then you would be right.

It is not that I lie, it is just that you don't like the truth.

Quote:

OK smartypants, find any historical record that references jesus

The Bible.


Quote:

or king arthur.

The legend of King Aurthur and his merry men.

I think there are some non-Biblical references to Jesus from people who would have had a motive to deny his existence. Of course, the strongest evidence is the existence of his followers, especially those who saw him in the flesh. You just can't get that sort of thing happening around imaginary people. Given the evidence, his actual existence is far more likely than his fabrication. It takes a bizarrely absurd conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence and justify a claim that he didn't even exist. You are obviously applying a completely different standard to that applied by the majority of academic historians. It's as if his following counts against the liklihood of his existence, rather than for it.

NO?
Couldn't find any?
You would have thought with all the walking on water, floating up into the sky sort of stuff, he got up to, someone may have called the local papers to do a story on him.

You see, I think there well may have been an historical jesus, although we have absolutely no evidence to corroborate the fact, but the tome on which you pin your hopes is unfortunately not reliable.

Are you still saying there is no evidence, or just that you reject it? You seem to be contradicting yourself on the issue.

Sorry FD, you must be unfamiliar with the rules of evidence.
What you are proffering is hearsay.
Which does not mean it cannot be true, just that we have no actual evidence that it is.

Quote:

Sorry FD, you must be unfamiliar with the rules of evidence.

Why yes I am Mozz. I wasn't even aware that there was a single universal set. Please, enlighten me.

I am sure you are more than capable of looking them up if you are actually interested, rather than diverting from the point.
Needless to say, you will find that hearsay is not usually allowed as evidence, except under exceptional circumstances.

No I am not capable of looking them up. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a universal set of rules of evidence, so I wouldn't know where to begin. As far as I can tell, you are either making these rules up as you go along, or you are taking a set of rule designed for one situation (eg a criminal trial) and applying them to another situation to which they are ill suited (eg history). Furthermore these rules are designed to reject certain forms of evidence, not to define them as not being evidence.

In other words, there is no fundamental difference between the evidence for various historical figures you accept or reject as having existed. The difference is that you accept some evidence, but not other evidence, based on some fairly complex, arbitrary, inconsistent and inappropriate standards. It is not a matter of evidence existing about one person and not for another. To say the eivdence doesn't exist is simply a lie.

Do you accept the existence of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism?

I'm not sure if I subscribe to the "Jesus Never existed" brigade. I agree that The Bible and one or two other extra canonical sources - Josephus, and I think Tacitus was another.  Maybe Pliny the younger made some mention of early Christians too.

Would you say there is not even any evidence that he existed?

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 2:03pm:

Would you say there is not even any evidence that he existed?

I'm saying that he most probably existed, but was caught up in the usual hyperbole that is associated with verbal accounts that go around too long before being put to paper. If we compare the Song of Roland to the written history of Charlemagne, we get an idea of the kind of result that follows from this kind of process.

There are similarities between Homer and certain parts of the Old Testament, probably for the same reason. Another example is that many of the same elements in the Biblical Nativity can be found in the birth of Mithras - for example the Shepherds and the Wise Men (representing the Four Winds in this case) following a star. The fact that Mithras's birth date was celebrated on December 25th seems to add weight to this influence.

Mozza, you and I are very similar in out views about faith and the value of religion but I have to say that I do believe that Jesus actually existed as a person. I just don't ascribe any divinity to him. As to Arthur I also think that there is a possible connection to a real figure as there is in many legends but the evidence is very scant and tainted with a lot of wishful thinking.

Yes, I agree that their possibly was a real Jesus character on which the bible stories are based, but the fact remains, that while there were jewish historians who recorded important events from that time and place in history, they make no mention of Jesus at all.

Hence the actual Jesus, and the biblical representation of the Jesus character, are most likely to be hugely different.

If any of the biblical claims were true, it is immensely unlikely to have gone unrecorded by anyone, other than the much later recorded reports, ascribed to his biblical apostles.

FD, first hit on google was beyond you it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence

Quote:

FD, first hit on google was beyond you it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence

So I was right then? You are simply taking a set of standards that apply to one situation and applying them to another for which they are completely unsuited. You might as well demand someone perform a scientific experiment to prove Jesus existed.

Quote:

a scientific experiment to prove Jesus existed.

Well that is easy, you take the square root of the reliability of verbally transmitted messages, with generational gaps between translations, which is .00397, then you multiply that by the number of people who will accept anything they are told by an authority figure, 4,587,974,396, then you divide that by exposure to dogmatic programming of juveniles with jesus specific focus, 2,011,738, then you multiply that by the number of these who still maintain a functioning capacity for reason, 649,872.

Which coincidentally equals 33, Jesus age at the time of his crucifixion(fiction)?, which is obviously a divine sign that you were right all along.

So, I guess I'll see you sunday. ;)

I think that calculation went awry somewhere. I got 42 for some reason  ;D

On King Arthur, there is good evidence that such a person existed, and he was a Regional Praetor who became a king soon after the breakup of the Roman Empire in 415. He was known for organising the local British Celts against the invading Saxons*. That's entirely off the top of my head. Exactly where he ruled is not known. There are Welsh, Scottish and English traditions there. Of course the legends were largely embellished during the late medieval period.

Also Old King Cole - remember the merry old Soul from Nursery Rhymes? He was a similar Romano-British Praetor who ruled in what is now Southern Scotland. They spoke an ancient form of Welsh at that time, and his real name was Coel Hen (Caelius Vetus or 'Old Caelius' to his friends).

* The Saxons and Jutes were first employed as mercenaries to fight against the Picts when the Roman Empire failed to respond to the Romano Britons' call for help (They had enough problems of their own). Again from memory, the Jutes were given what is now Kent and they settled down reasonably happily. The Saxons had bigger ambitions, and ultimately took over most of modern day England, pushing the original inhabitants North, West and South West into Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. I thought you might appreciate that bit of potted history.

Thanks muso, I love all history, it is so illuminating to see how far we have progressed in some regard, and how little in others.

As for King Arthur, lots of british historians have done extensive research to track him down, and I have seen a few different speculative theories on who he may have been.
Still nothing definitive has arisen, but we will keep searching with an open mind, and hope that one day some conclusive archaeological discoveries will provide answers.

The same applies to Jesus.

Now if to continue the previous mathematical exercise and multiply the result by the number of active brain cells of an atheist the answer is zero. 8-)

Mozz you keep going on about Jesus not existing, then conceding that he 'might' have. What do you think is more likely, that he did exist, or that he didn't?

I would like to think he existed, after all, the Jesus character was a fantastic role model, of acceptance, generousity of spirit, love, compassion, in short, all the best aspects of human nature that a person could hope to ascribe to.

Unfortunately, the fact that if a character of such prominence existed, and remember the bible describes jesus as being 'famous', with 'multitudes' of followers, then to have no-one from his lifetime make reference to him is troubling, to say the least.
Remember, we had him tried by Pilate, questioned by the high priests, publicly crucified by the romans, and yet none made mention of it in any way.

The fact is that we are solely restricted to the bible, which was assembled by the church, hundreds of years after Jesus was supposed to have lived, by choosing which texts to include, remember that they only used some of the available gospels, and called the others they discarded as 'heretical'.

Then we have the events from the bible that we might have expected independent historians and scholars to record, like the slaughtering of all the infants at the time of Jesus' birth, or the Lunar Eclipse, and Earthquake, at the time of his death.
The absence of any mention of such things must raise questions about the reliability of the bible authors who tell these stories.

Also the 'Fictional Writing' like style parts of the gospels, where Jesus thoughts are recorded, must be questioned, when written by someone living possibly 2 to 4 generations later than Jesus.

So, in balance, I would say that the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus is troubling, but not definitive enough to absolutely say there was no Jesus, but it would certainly indicate that there most likely was no Jesus as portrayed by the bible.

Proving the historic Jesus


By Harry V. Martin


Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995



EDITOR'S NOTE: This article does not debate the divinity nor the spiritual aspects of Christianity, but only the historical evidence that Jesus Christ did, in fact, exist. The recent finding of the burial cave of Caiaphas, the high priest, adds even more evidence to the general historical truth of the New Testament.
Most Biblical scholars, historians, archeologist and even the clergy are knowledgeable about one fact of Christianity that the Christian worshipper is not, there is limited historical facts to establish finite historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. The vast majority of what Christians believe today is based purely on the New Testament , a collection of writings and testimony of those who knew Jesus and from those who never saw him. The origin of the New Testament was not the "bible" of the Christians until after 150 A.D. The actual "bible" of the early Christians was the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. For more than a century after the death of Christ, the early Christians relied on the Old Testament.

The writings in the New Testament were mostly from men of little literary learning, they were from long-time memories, and some were from hearsay. Biblical scholars have often pointed to glaring errors in the New Testament, conflicts in the testimonies between those who knew Jesus. Many "books" or testimonies were omitted from the New Testament. The writers of these Testaments were less concerned with the historical accuracies of their words and more concerned with the spiritual meanings of Christ's teachings.

The most fascinating time in Christianity began after the death of Christ through to the conclusion of Emperor Constantine's Christian conclave, the true shaping of Christianity as we know it today, this epic period merged the diverse views of the Apologists to the Gnostics. Jesus Christ and his Disciples were not part of the long series of debates that established Christian dogma. The Early Christian Fathers, published by The Westminster Press, states, "The most striking facts about early Christian literature are its rich variety and its almost exclusively Gentile authorship. Outside the New Testament writings, little belongs to the first century, the only considerable document being Clement's Letter to the Church of Corinth." No Jewish Christian literature appears to have survived the ages. Few Jewish Christians from the Palestinian Church survived after the fifth century, though their teachings and work can be found in the religion of Islam. The Gentiles, and not the Jewish Christians who lived and worshipped in the land of Jesus, dominated the Christian religion, and changed much of its original concepts.

EARLY CHRISTIAN SCHISM

The main battlelines in the second century focused around the "Orthodox" Christians and the Gnostics. After Constintine's conclave, the Gnostics vanished into history, some of their work survived and was unearthed in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. The discovered writings are known as the Nag Hammadi library, the Gnostic manuscripts virtually begin where the Dead Sea Scrolls end. These writings provide insights into early Judaism and the roots of Christianity. The Gnostics challenged the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament. They viewed the Jewish and Christian revelations as antithetical, noting the contrast of the good God revealed by Jesus Christ with the Old Testament God of retaliation and vengeance. The Gnostics, in essence, were responsible for doing away with the Old Testament as the sacred book of Christians, and in its place supplied a cannon called The Gospel and the Apostile. There was no unity in determining which books should be contained in the New Testament until the fourth century.

The Early Christian Fathers states, that Christian doctrine was established to embrace the Gentile concepts. "To interpret it to the Gentile mind, its affinities were the best in pagan religious thought were utilized. To maintain it against persecution, the martyr was willing to suffer. Finally, to ensure the perpetuity of the faith, the Church built up a close knit organization that was as uncompromising toward heresy and schism as it was toward the demands of the State." In The Verdict of History by Gary R. Habermas, this concept is carried further. "The charge is often made that Jesus' message was actually quite different from the one which Christians have traditionally taught concerning him. This sometimes is said to be the case, for instance, because the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself." Hugh Schonfield, a noted religious scholar, explains why the changes may have taken place. He states that Jesus was a teacher who was true to Judaism and who had no desire to start any new religion. "That is why, for instance, he never proclaimed his own deity," Schonfield wrote. Schonfield even challenges the early Church by claiming they may have written some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus. "The result is that Christian theology as it is taught today is not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles."

Paul's writings reveal little of the historical Jesus. A few historians have stated that Paul knew little of Jesus' historical life, the time of his birth, or death, for instance. G.A. Wells indicates that Paul may have conceived of Jesus as a supernatural being who led a very obscure life that was ended by crucifixion, perhaps even centuries before Paul's own time. But Paul was not interested in historical details, nor were the other writers of the New Testament, spiritual considerations dominated their thoughts. Habermas states that the "Gospels do not purport to record actual historical events, but that they simply report the faith of early Christians. We know much less about the historical Jesus than the Gospels actually recorded, for these writers were just not too concerned with history."

HISTORICAL RECORDS

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

All hearsay Calanen, which does not mean it is wrong, just that there is still not a single account of Jesus from his lifeteime.

The closest is that of little jimmy, and his brother jesus, I guess the bible must have missed Jimmy?

I think it is Hitchens who suggested that the blatant fabrications in the Gospels (particularly in Matthew) are evidence that perhaps Jesus actually did exist.

For instance, Matthew goes to great lengths to place the birth of Jesus in David’s birthplace of Bethlehem, even placing him anachronistically as being born at the end of the reign of Herod the Great and having been subjected to Cyrenian census that forced his family to return to Bethlehem, thereby getting him out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem.

As there appears to have been no census at that time, less so the need to return to the father’s birthplace for the census, which would have been a logistical nightmare, it would seem that the author of Matthew made it all up.

Hitchens’ point was, why the need go to these lengths to fabricate the story unless Jesus was known to have existed and probably known to have been born in Nazareth?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 21^st, 2008 at 7:27pm:

All hearsay Calanen, which does not mean it is wrong, just that there is still not a single account of Jesus from his lifeteime. The closest is that of little jimmy, and his brother jesus, I guess the bible must have missed Jimmy?

Hard to know, brother James may have meant spiritual brother as in the apostle James rather than his actual blood brother.

References to Pilate's report by the Imperial Senate are pretty good. All historical references are 'hearsay' and remember that most Roman records were destroyed in the great book BBQ by the barbarians when they took over. We forgot engineering knowledge, and how to build concrete for a 1000 years or so. Records as to an obscure preacher in an obscure Roman province are less likely to have been preserved.

I think there is little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but whether he was the son of God or not - is another question entirely.

Quote:

I think there is little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed

If you mean that most people accept this as true, then you are obviously correct.

Of course the fact of what is considered as reliable, varies greatly between ancient history, and modern history, but even with the far laxer standards applied to ancient sources, the historicity of jesus, is certainly not confirmable, beyond room for reasonable doubt.

I tend to lean towards the possibility that he was a real historical figure, whose story has been embellished for religious purposes, but I do not reject the possibility that he may well have been a complete invention, to fulfil the messiah role that had been prophesied in jewish literature.

We see way too many asserting that we see the proliferation of christianity throughout history, as proof of his existence.

Like with other religions, this just shows us that many people have a need to accept a spiritual doctrine, in their life, and as I have said before, that is beyond the scope of reason, and debating it on that basis is meaningless.

Quote:

Then we have the events from the bible that we might have expected independent historians and scholars to record, like the slaughtering of all the infants at the time of Jesus' birth, or the Lunar Eclipse, and Earthquake, at the time of his death.

How many historical lunar eclipses and earthquakes were recorded? Are you sure about the infant slaughtering?


Quote:

Also the 'Fictional Writing' like style parts of the gospels, where Jesus thoughts are recorded, must be questioned, when written by someone living possibly 2 to 4 generations later than Jesus.

How do you know that it was written so much later?


Quote:

We see way too many asserting that we see the proliferation of christianity throughout history, as proof of his existence

.

The early proliferation is certainly strong evidence. It is pretty hard to have a religious movement in the absence of a leader.

Quote:

Like with other religions, this just shows us that many people have a need to accept a spiritual doctrine, in their life, and as I have said before, that is beyond the scope of reason, and debating it on that basis is meaningless.

Just so we're clear, I'm a Catholic by descent, but an athiest in belief. I agree, being a biodegradable sentient being that can contemplate its own destruction leads us to the inevitable conclusion that we have to create fantasy figures to protect us from our fates. Instead of facing reality. Facing reality is sometimes hard, doesnt mean we shouldnt do it.

The idea of going to magical heaven land where everything is wonderful after we die is just a simpletons fantasy.

So my view is, we live and we die. But we had nothing before we lived, so what are we losing really? Nothing. We were also pretty lucky to have been the matter that happened to get into the food chain and become sentient. Most matter is not sentient, and never will be. If you want to know what being dead is like, think what it was like before you were born. Didnt worry you, did it? So why will being dead be a worry?

Moreover, we are at the peak of the food chain, and able to live a reasonable quality of life before our cells have too many errors and we are back as biodegradable matter in the soil again.

If though, this reality is too horrific for people made of less stern stuff to deal with - let them have their make believe stories to get them through the day. No skin off my proverbial until they interfere with my life.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 11:38am:

[EDIT: split from this thread: [url]http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229249376/15#15[/url] OK smartypants, find any historical record that references jesus or king arthur. If you mean I do not accept third, fourth, fifth hand accounts, written hundreds of years after the fact, as evidence, then you would be right. It is not that I lie, it is just that you don't like the truth.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g135/talgrund/lackoffaith5yd.jpg

*Sorry, I was dying to use that pic for a certain situation.

I think he did exist. There must have been an inspiration for Jesus, whether it be someone entirely different, or exactly as the bible tells us. In all probability, it's the former.

I'll have to do some research but I vaguely remember reading how the bible has been changed over the years, and I do know there was a bit of a fight between 2 people about what content would be put into the bible. He could have had a different name, but this person might have died on the cross for a crime and he might have spread the message of 'good-will' or whatever it is.

I just don't think they could have pulled the religion out of a hat, there would have to have been a sort of inspiration for Jesus.

As for the half religious debate here, I believe people need to face reality and you CAN. Personally I am a humanist - put simply, someone who abides by Christian values and doesn't necessarily conclude that religion is all wrong, but I don't go to church and I believe in the physical evidence of evolution and the such.

Religion is not completely going to fairyland. The vast majority live well and true and are people that you should truely admire. I mean, you wouldn't go around lying, stealing and killing would you?

Even if there is no physical evidence of Jesus, he never existed, it's all a myth - I tend to look at it this way. Jesus is a great role model and he lived his life as people could live up to. I'll go either way - if they somehow prove he didn't exist, I would accept it. Until then, I live believing he did exist, in some form.

Welcome to OzPolitic Ant.

I think it would take a rather extraordinary conspiracy to create Christianity without Jesus.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 12:02pm:

Welcome to OzPolitic Ant. I think it would take a rather extraordinary conspiracy to create Christianity without Jesus.

I tend to agree with you. In any case we have in Jesus Christ, an incredible role model and inspiration for humanity.

A friend recently lost a loved one. She was previously a Christian but lost her faith as a result. When she told me, I felt very uneasy about it. The way I see it, she is in the eye of the hurricane at the moment, and the last thing she wants to do is lose another thing that provides her with solace and inspiration. Besides, it's becoming an atheist for all the wrong reasons.

I think I persuaded her to rethink her position.  

Quote:

I think it would take a rather extraordinary conspiracy to create Christianity without Jesus.

Yes, it is hard to conceive how an illiterate man can say he had an angel give him the complete set of rules, straight from god, and have billions of people, not only believe it, but also be prepared to kill and die to promulgate the same belief in others.

Yet it happened.

When it comes to religion, the unbelievable is matter of fact.

Well, this is my take on it, and my theory is backed by the journal of factual conspiracy theories. :P


I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus existed as depicted in the bible. The chances are that he never did.

The purpose of all religions IMO, is to state a fixed reference point of morality, and how to conduct yourself in order to live a more fruitful life.

As in the previous mathematical arguments (which were moved), without a known reference point to measure against, there is no hope of reaching any conclusions or plotting progress.

The legal system is supposed to achieve a community standard, but it doesn't.  In an increasing population, laws are constantly changing to do away with freedoms which were once taken for granted.
To a large extent, laws are designed to be changed.

In regards to Jesus, I find it of no surpirise that his word was never known until many years after his death.
Finding a living symbol for Christianity would've been nigh on impossible, so a mythical symbol was invented.
Together with a mish mash of known religions and concepts of the day, and some very good marketing techniques to spread the word, Chrisitianity
succeeded as a religion.

But this is not to say that I think that religions are a load of junk. I hold some in much higher regard than our legal system or poliitical system.
They've stood the test of time where other concepts have failed and I plan on devoting more time to reading the bible.

Quote:

..and the last thing she wants to do is lose another thing that provides her with solace and inspiration.

wb muso.

I suppose most religious people would question their faith from time to time.
Even mother Theresa got pissed off that Jesus spoke to her once as a girl, took her to the slums of India, and then never spoke to her again nomatter how much she prayed.

Quote:

I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus existed as depicted in the bible. The chances are that he never did.

The existence of the church and the following it spawned is pretty strong evidence. If it was just some book they dug up yesterday then it would be more questionable. But you can't start a religion around a leader who doesn't exist. You only have to look at all the religious movements, big and small, that have been spawned since then. It is hard enough to start one with a charismatic leader. Without one it gets a bit ludicrous. People were not so fundamentally different 2000 years ago in such a way that the siutation is somehow reversed and the grand conspiracy becomes more plausible. I don't see why people somehow see the conspiracy as more plausible just because religion is involved. You need to apply Occam's razor here. Perhaps the great separation in time make people more comfortable in brushing aside all the difficulties you would have in pulling something like that off. It's like some people assume the conspiracy theory is correct and then use the absence of evidence against their conspiracy theory as validating it. It just doesn't make sense. You don't reject the simple, obvious explanation in favour of the absurd one because there is not enough evidence to satisfy you.


Quote:

The legal system is supposed to achieve a community standard, but it doesn't.

I see it more as a last resort.


Quote:

In an increasing population, laws are constantly changing to do away with freedoms which were once taken for granted.

All freedoms tend to conflict with other people's rights and freedoms. This becomes a bigger problem as the population gets denser.

Quote:

All freedoms tend to conflict with other people's rights and freedoms. This becomes a bigger problem as the population gets denser.

Yep the dumbing down of the population is always a problem  :D

Ant wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

I think he did exist. There must have been an inspiration for Jesus, ....

Cumran Scrolls?

Amadd wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 10:59pm:

Quote: All freedoms tend to conflict with other people's rights and freedoms. This becomes a bigger problem as the population gets denser. Yep the dumbing down of the population is always a problem  :D

Smarting ppl up is even bigger challenge.

tallowood wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 11:12pm:

Amadd wrote on Jan 4th, 2009 at 10:59pm: Quote: All freedoms tend to conflict with other people's rights and freedoms. This becomes a bigger problem as the population gets denser. Yep the dumbing down of the population is always a problem  :D Smarting ppl up is even bigger challenge.

It is a far better thing to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. Muso 13:1

The real question though is do you believe...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dVLMyNRIClo

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 7:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:38am: [EDIT: split from this thread: [url]http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229249376/15#15[/url] OK smartypants, find any historical record that references jesus or king arthur. If you mean I do not accept third, fourth, fifth hand accounts, written hundreds of years after the fact, as evidence, then you would be right. It is not that I lie, it is just that you don't like the truth. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g135/talgrund/lackoffaith5yd.jpg *Sorry, I was dying to use that pic for a certain situation.

And i was just dying to use my above link  :D

Good ol' Charlie.
It coulda done with a "well, do yu punk?"

mozzaok wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 3:54pm:

Quote: I think it would take a rather extraordinary conspiracy to create Christianity without Jesus. Yes, it is hard to conceive how an illiterate man can say he had an angel give him the complete set of rules, straight from god, and have billions of people, not only believe it, but also be prepared to kill and die to promulgate the same belief in others. Yet it happened. When it comes to religion, the unbelievable is matter of fact.

;D ;D That's excellent Mozza, well said. Thanks for the chuckle. I do still believe he existed as a historical PERSON. But not as a supernatural being.

tallowood wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 11:11pm:

Ant wrote on Jan 4th, 2009 at 11:59am: I think he did exist. There must have been an inspiration for Jesus, .... Cumran Scrolls?

The Qumran scrolls are interesting. I found this link which gives some insight into the scrolls themselves.

http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm

The interesting thing to me is that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity began at about the same time in history.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 11:04am:

tallowood wrote on Jan 4th, 2009 at 11:11pm: Ant wrote on Jan 4th, 2009 at 11:59am: I think he did exist. There must have been an inspiration for Jesus, .... Cumran Scrolls? The Qumran scrolls are interesting. I found this link which gives some insight into the scrolls themselves. http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm The interesting thing to me is that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity began at about the same time in history.

I agree Muso, that is very interesting.

I think the dead sea scrolls hold a lot of hidden information.
They tell of a time in which it's societies were filled with miracle workers, prophets, and of course conflicts (surprise surprise).

John the Baptist was supposedly linked to the Essenes and prophesied the coming of a savior greater than even he...wow weee!
He was said to have baptised this savior (greater than even he) who then went on to preach his ministry to the masses. Shortly after the baptism, John the Baptist was beheaded.

Strangely emough, nothing was ever written (or no writings have been found) about this amazing savior or his ministry until 50 or more years later where the gospels told conflicting stories.
Could it be that the prophecy of John the Baptist was created and he was an original founder of Christianity?

Other than that, could it be that the Romans destroyed all writings about the king of the Jews, and the legend travelled through time from word of mouth?
If this was so, and considering the cicumstances, it would be unusual if the legend didn't grow (to ridiculous proportions) over time.

I reckon the scrolls were some sort of anti establishment organised religion revolution DIY.

tallowood wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

I reckon the scrolls were some sort of anti establishment organised religion revolution DIY.

The author of that site I linked to was of the opinion that it was too close to Jerusalem to be anti-establishment. I can understand his argument that a military installation like the one at Qumran couldn't be anti-establishment. Still, it was a turbulent time.