posted September 18, 2007 11:11 PM         

You have to realise that Romans would have probably have wanted the name of such a person erradicated from historical records. Until the arrival of Emperor Justinian, you obviously know the plight of Christians during the paganistic rule of ancient Rome. So reasoably, could one expect solid records of the founder of Christian beliefs? Logically, offcourse not. Economically, Christianity would have been a devistation on the pagan temples and their priests who had quite a bit of grip in terms of wealth on the individual cities of the Roman empire. A monotheistic rule would have been ruinous to them. So what do you do? You try to erase the very existance of Christianity. Unfortunately Justinian's rule came a bit too late to solidify the birth records and solid historical writings proving that Jesus Christ was a person of flesh and blood.

posted September 18, 2007 11:26 PM         

quote:

---

Economically, Christianity would have been a devistation on the pagan temples and their priests who had quite a bit of grip in terms of wealth on the individual cities of the Roman empire. A monotheistic rule would have been ruinous to them. So what do you do?

---

You hold a council to meld early Christianity and various pagan religions into the most brilliant system of control the world has ever seen, that's what. Hence Easter, Christmas, the Mass, etc. etc.

quote:

---

You try to erase the very existance of Christianity. Unfortunately Justinian's rule came a bit too late to solidify the birth records and solid historical writings proving that Jesus Christ was a person of flesh and blood.

---

You'd think God would've put a stop to that.

quote:

---

Does it proves that Jesus didn't exist? Not int he least bit since there are still sources that do indicate his existance.

---

There is some evidence that various people during the time claimed the status of messiah, as people are doing even today. But that's not what Christianity is based on. There isn't any evidence that the son of God was born of a virgin, died for the sins of humanity, and ascended to heaven. Passing references to the some anointed one or another, usually by historians decades or centuries after the crucifiction [sic] don't really cut it.

posted September 18, 2007 11:30 PM         

quote:

---

Pure hearsay. Sorry, arguments from ignorance and appeal to tradition simply don't cut it. Believe what you want, if that gives you the secure, caring universe you need, but don't pretend that objective facts support the superstition.

---

Arguments from ignorance that are meant to appeal to tradition??? The Jewish Talmud and Roman Historians are about as objective a source you'll get on Christ considering their very *favorable* view on him.(sarcastically speaking)

quote:

---

Religion is the bane of all humanity. Suppression of human nature, blind adherence to authority, misrepresentation of origin, persecution of science, hostility to free inquiry, and the list goes on. Sorry to offend, but mankind needs to get some intestinal fortitude and take command of our own destiny, rather than relying on some oppressive deity to save us from ourselves

---

And this is coming from someone who claims to have no issues with religion.Surrrrre. I'm not even heavily religious myself yet I am able to see it very clearly. And anyways, if we use your logic: if were not supposed to believe certain sources that claim Jesus' existence because they happen to be 'religious sources' and may be biased, then why should we believe you when you say Jesus does not exist? How do people know that you may not be speaking out of own bias considering your own views of religion? Think about it.....

posted September 18, 2007 11:39 PM         

quote:

---

The Jewish Talmud and Roman Historians are about as objective a source you'll get on Christ considering their very *favorable* view on him.

---

Careful... even mentioning the talmud gets people branded with some unpleasant names some places. But no, objective sources on Jesus don't slander him or vilify him; that's not objectivity.

quote:

---

And this is coming from someone who claims to have no issues with religion.Surrrrre.

---

No, like I said, just issues with killing, mutilation, and all the other things people do in it's name. Religion is myth; it's pointless to have issues with myth. People who follow it unquestioningly are the problem. I do have issues with those.

quote:

---

And anyways, if we use your logi: if were not supposed to believe certain sources that claim Jesus' existence because they happen to be 'religious sources' and may be biased...,

---

I don't recall saying that. I'm against appeals to tradition and the use of hearsay as evidence. Or just dishonest rhetorical methods in general. But yeah, take bias into account, definitely.

quote:

---

How do people know that you may not be speaking out of own bias considering your own views of religion?

---

posted September 18, 2007 11:42 PM         

And you must understand that the Bible and the Quran does phrase many context in ancient versions of Arabic and Latin. Total accurate traslations of these two books have yet to be done. Pfft... even the most prolific Islamic scholars have yet to desipher to metaphorical meanings of many texts in the Quran (Though we Muslims do not believe he was the Son of God; He was a messenger.)

God works in Mysterious ways. Many argue that if God is all good then why would he allow evil to exist. Well my answer to that question is, if Evil didn't exist, would we even know what good is?

posted September 18, 2007 11:50 PM         

quote:

---

God works in Mysterious ways. Many argue that if God is all good then why would he allow evil to exist. Well my answer to that question is, if Evil didn't exist, would we even know what good is?

---

Hm. If that was true, and such a god existed... I certainly couldn't worship him. I have to wonder if anyone who supports such a view has a realistic understanding (or as much of one as possible) of the extent of the cruelty and suffering in the world. A loving god allows this to give us a point of comparison? And, if during our life we become disillusioned with it all, he casts us into a pit of fire to burn forever?

Tsk. It's actually slightly comforting to not believe in such a being.

posted September 18, 2007 11:54 PM         

quote:

---

Careful... even mentioning the talmud gets people branded with some unpleasant names some places. But no, objective sources on Jesus don't slander him or vilify him; that's not objectivity.

---

But you're missing the point: neither of those sources would have ANY reason to lie about Jesus' existence considering they did not hold him in high regard. Objective? Maybe not so. But reliable as outsiders' sources? Yes.

quote:

---

I don't recall saying that. I'm against appeals to tradition and the use of hearsay as evidence. Or just dishonest rhetorical methods in general. But yeah, take bias into account, definitely.

---

I don't know...even with biblical records I don't see any reason why Peter would've dreamt his friend Jesus up and suffer severe persecution for it.

quote:

---

God works in Mysterious ways. Many argue that if God is all good then why would he allow evil to exist. Well my answer to that question is, if Evil didn't exist, would we even know what good is?

---

Whoa, totally Dejavu-ish! Somebody just mentioned this on another forum: the theodicy question I think its called. Long story anyways...it was part of a discussion on evolution versus creation being taught in school.

posted September 19, 2007 12:03 AM         

Should I have been anguised from it all? Should I have given in to the propaganda that runs rampant against the Jews of Israel? Part of me still believes that it would have been so much easier to do just that.

Religion however is so much more then just political ideology. As much as it has been twisted to be so by those in authority, the test of true faith is still in the individual who must read and get to know his/her religion on their own.

posted September 19, 2007 12:05 AM         

quote:

---

But you're missing the point: neither of those sources would have ANY reason to lie about Jesus' existence considering they did not hold him in high regard. Objective? Maybe not so. But reliable as outsiders' sources?

---

The two sections of the Talmud, the Mishnah and the Gemara, were written at least two centuries after Jesus' supposed death, and some parts of those were written even centuries later. They're not reliable evidence for anything pertaining to Jesus' life. In short, they're hearsay, and not credible. Tacitus was born in, like, 50 AD, well after Jesus' supposed death, and based his accounts on the (at least) second-hand accounts of the early Christian cult of the time. Neither does Tacitus make any remark about any of Jesus' miracles; he just disses the Christians for being wacked-out, martyr-complexed zealots and whatever. You'd think walking on water would make it into the history books, but nope.

posted September 19, 2007 12:13 AM         

quote:

---

Religion however is so much more then just political ideology. As much as it has been twisted to be so by those in authority, the test of true faith is still in the individual who must read and get to know his/her religion on their own.

---

I think that's an admirable viewpoint. Really, I'd say the majority of tenants espoused my most modern religions are pretty admirable. I think humanity would be better off putting aside the superstitions and myths around which we build these moral principles and subscribing to just plain rationality and humanism. Good and evil are objective matters, ignorance is the root of all evil, and no problem is so difficult it cannot be solved by human ingenuity; I'd say that's all we need to know to make the world a paradise. We don't need gods or devils any more, and they're keeping us at the archaic level we were at when we invented them.

posted September 19, 2007 12:16 AM         

quote:

---

The two sections of the Talmud, the Mishnah and the Gemara, were written at least two centuries after Jesus' supposed death, and some parts of those were written even centuries later. They're not reliable evidence for anything pertaining to Jesus' life. In short, they're hearsay, and not credible. Tacitus was born in, like, 50 AD, well after Jesus' supposed death, and based his accounts on the (at least) second-hand accounts of the early Christian cult of the time. Neither does Tacitus make any remark about any of Jesus' miracles. You'd think walking on water would make it into the history books, but nope.

---

True again, but as of what we have already discussed, the Roman Empire at the time would have not allowed any solid written proof of the existance of Jesus since it didn't exactly work in their favor until Justinian came. So as I said, its the best we got. Is it solid historical evidence? No. Though is there plenty of heresay upon the topic of existance of Jjesus christ? Plenty actually.

Troy was supposably a myth until there is ample proof of its exitance (minus the little scandle about the the little find of Helen's Jewels.)

posted September 19, 2007 12:19 AM         

quote:

---

The two sections of the Talmud, the Mishnah and the Gemara, were written at least two centuries after Jesus' supposed death, and some parts of those were written even centuries later. They're not reliable evidence for anything pertaining to Jesus' life. In short, they're hearsay, and not credible. Tacitus was born in, like, 50 AD, well after Jesus' supposed death, and based his accounts on the (at least) second-hand accounts of the early Christian cult of the time. Neither does Tacitus make any remark about any of Jesus' miracles. You'd think walking on water would make it into the history books, but nope.

---

But how do you think that history even survives to the present day period? Because I could use your own argument to prove that many other events or people never happened just because they come from secondary sources. There could be many reasons that there is no first hand record from an outside source from around Jesus' time that have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread and yes it is unfortunate that Emperors such as Constantine and Justinian came too late to stop that. But for now, most of the New Testament including the four approved gospels, the Gnostic gospels, and Peter or Paul's letters to the Romans do just fine for me. They may not be objective outside party sources, but when decifered correctly, I still find them veritable. I don't care what you think.

quote:

---

Are you aware of the incredible degree of similarity between Jesus and Horus? Prometheus? Any of the other multitude of solar-deities? It's worth consideration that Jesus is more an archetype (killed-and-risen god) than a flesh-and-blood historical figure.

---

Yes, and Buddha's among those figures. Yet just like Jesus, most historians agree that he existed. I wonder if you'd dispute that.

posted September 19, 2007 12:21 AM         

quote:

---

True again, but as of what we have already discussed, the Roman Empire at the time would have not allowed any solid written proof of the existance of Jesus since it didn't exactly work in their favor until Justinian came.

---

I've never heard that Rome suppressed information on Jesus. While I suppose it's possible, it seems unlikely; Rome was a secular empire, and allowed for cultural and religious diversity; Christians were probably persecuted more for being outlandish and for denying imperial authority than for simply holding beliefs contrary to those of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

quote:

---

Troy was supposably a myth until there is ample proof of its exitance

---

posted September 19, 2007 12:22 AM         

Thanks for all the info, Xodian

posted September 19, 2007 12:24 AM         

quote:

---

I don't care what you think.

---

I'm not asking anyone to care what I think, just that they think. If everyone questioned everything and took nothing on authority, the world would be sooo much better... But religion is comfortable and easy. I totally know the feeling.

quote:

---

Yes, and Buddha's among those figures. Yet just like Jesus, most historians agree that he existed. I wonder if you'd dispute that.

---

I know almost nothing about the Buddha. I thought there have been a few of them? Doesn't Buddha mean "Enlightened One?"

posted September 19, 2007 12:26 AM         

quote:

---

The problem here may have started way back with Santa.

---

Are you saying the problem is just that I'm snippy and sarcastic, Mirandee?

posted September 19, 2007 12:36 AM         

quote:

---

I know almost nothing about the Buddha. I thought there have been a few of them? Doesn't Buddha mean "Enlightened One?"

---

No, the Buddha would be Siddhartha Gautama so yes I think it is a comparable analogy. He may not have a god-like status but he has many similar qualities and is a central figure of Buddhism. And....he's someone generally agreed to have existed.

quote:

---

I'm not asking anyone to care what I think, just that they think. If everyone questioned everything and took nothing on authority, the world would be sooo much better... But religion is comfortable and easy. I totally know the feeling.

---

But you see, I have questioned this too to figure out that he did indeed exist.

quote:

---

If Jesus never existed then he is doing darn good after over 2000 years because he is the most popular guy on the planet. I would say that's real good for a non-existant person

---

posted September 19, 2007 12:38 AM         

quote:

---

While I suppose it's possible, it seems unlikely; Rome was a secular empire, and allowed for cultural and religious diversity; Christians were probably persecuted more for being outlandish and for denying imperial authority than for simply holding beliefs contrary to those of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

---

posted September 19, 2007 12:42 AM         

Twas I who was being snippy in that remark.

Although I said it tongue in cheek.

Thank you for asking instead of just jumping down my throat. That is very refreshing. You set an example in communication for all of us at LL.

posted September 19, 2007 12:52 AM         

quote:

---

No, the Buddha would be Siddhartha Gautama so yes I think it is a comparable analogy. He may not have a god-like status but he has many similar qualities and is a central figure of Buddhism. He's someone generally agreed to have existed.

---

Oh, thanks for the info. Not something I know much about, so I can't argue that he did or didn't exist.

quote:

---

But you see, I have questioned this too to figure out that he did indeed exist.

---

So, would you say you have at least faith the size of a mustard seed? I'm eagerly awaiting demonstration!

quote:

---

If Jesus never existed then he is doing darn good after over 2000 years because he is the most popular guy on the planet. I would say that's real good for a non-existant person

Yeah I know, really?

---

Ack, but that's ad populum, it doesn't work; i.e. "A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.

posted September 19, 2007 01:00 AM         

quote:

---

So, would you say you have at least faith the size of a mustard seed? I'm eagerly awaiting demonstration!

---

No, but my devoutly religious mother thinks so.

Off to bed now. I have to be up again at 7 am....eek.

posted September 19, 2007 01:29 AM         

If you can't believe in anything you can't see or have never seen why are you talking to your computer screen and having this conversation with us? You have never seen us. You have no proof but words on a page of a computer screen that any of us exist.

Yet you take it on faith that there is someone on the other side of your computer screen don't you? I mean, we could all be machines. Not real at all. What evidence do you have that we are not programmed robots?

Suppose I said that you don't exist and never did because I have never seen you face to face? I also have no historical evidence that you ever existed. I have never seen your birth certificate. You could be a programmed robot for all I know.

Yet I take it on faith that you do exist. And so it is with Jesus. But more, there is much historical evidence that Jesus existed.

They have never found the body of Jesus. And if they ever do all of Christianity will have to be rethought. Because his birth, death, resurrection and ascending to heaven body and soul is what all Christianity is based on.

Since that is what all Christianity is based on don't you think it might be a little bit insulting to the billions of people on this planet that are followers of this system of belief for you to say he never existed?

I think that is what DL is saying when she stated it's one thing for you personally to not believe in Jesus, you don't have to, but it's just not cool to cut down the whole belief system of Christianity.