Did Jesus Christ Exist as a historical person? If so, who was he?

Discuss religion and spirituality topics.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 12543
Joined: August 16th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Cornfed »

MarcosZeitola wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 4:38 am
Since you repeatedly state you are unable to marry and raise a family because of your shitty financial situation
It's not so much my personal shitty financial situation but just the normal problems with the West that we've gone into 1000 times. Actually, from a child support perspective I'd be in the perfect position to impregnate someone right now and pay virtually nothing. Hmmm.


Meet Loads of Foreign Women in Person! Join Our Happier Abroad ROMANCE TOURS to Many Overseas Countries!

Meet Foreign Women Now! Post your FREE profile on Happier Abroad Personals and start receiving messages from gorgeous Foreign Women today!

User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5415
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Cornfed wrote: It's not so much my personal shitty financial situation but just the normal problems with the West that we've gone into 1000 times. Actually, from a child support perspective I'd be in the perfect position to impregnate someone right now and pay virtually nothing. Hmmm.
Are you intimating the actual rape of some poor girl? No girl in her right mind would ever agree to be defiled and polluted by the likes of your loser seed, financial misery or not!
User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5415
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Cornfed wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 7:15 pm
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 11:19 am
Cornfed wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 6:06 am
So we can all agree. Nothing of you two will survive you and you don't want it to. When you depart this mortal coil you both will simply be gone and you agree that is a good thing, and I agree also. We are all in agreement then and I am glad this forum has helped us reach common ground.
Oh no! :shock: I am now triggered into a panic because an obese, unemployed, repulsive to women, medically-impaired, beer swilling, ugly, autistic, low-IQ, formerly homeless, soon to be homeless again psychopath who does nothing but mope about his house says I will perish! I better go knock up some women soon or I will be all but gone just because this major loser at life said so! OMG!
Why are you being hostile?
What makes you think the truth is hostile? Truth is truth although the sting of it might very well seem hostile.
User avatar
MarcosZeitola
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4268
Joined: May 31st, 2014, 12:13 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MarcosZeitola »

Cornfed wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 3:58 pm
MarcosZeitola wrote:
June 21st, 2019, 4:38 am
Since you repeatedly state you are unable to marry and raise a family because of your shitty financial situation
It's not so much my personal shitty financial situation but just the normal problems with the West that we've gone into 1000 times. Actually, from a child support perspective I'd be in the perfect position to impregnate someone right now and pay virtually nothing. Hmmm.
Maybe you should. At least no one could say to you that you're all talk and didn't actually do anything. If you're a white dude and you are concerned about the survival of white genes, however questionable their quality in the eyes of some, it's up to you to see to it they survive into the next generation, or else just like CE and Shemp, you're out the genepool forever. Something that does not seem to bother them, but would bother you. So now's the time to act, if ever.
On "Faux-Tradionalists" and why they're heading nowhere: viewtopic.php?style=1&f=37&t=29144
User avatar
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1788
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MrPeabody »

Did Jesus get kicked out of his own thread?
User avatar
Shemp
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1643
Joined: November 22nd, 2014, 7:45 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Shemp »

Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
June 22nd, 2019, 9:05 am
...a genius can produce a feeble-minded Cornfed...
[Edit: CE apparently deleted the post I'm quoting]

Works the other way too. And I don't think Cornfed is feeble minded, just wrong-minded, since it's evident from his postings that he has very high verbal skills. Maybe if he added a little genetic diversity by mating with a woman from Haiti or Africa in search of green card, the resulting offspring might be excellent genetic quality. Rearing the child and influencing his/her mind is precisely what we don't want Cornfed to do. Just let him contribute genes and child support. The result might be a great athlete, genius and good-looking leader rolled into one.

For the genes-obsessed people, note that 98% of genes are in common with apes, 90% in common with cockroaches and upwards of 99% with other humans. Most genes are for underlying cellular processes, not skin color and shape of the nose and other superficial things. It will be easy in the future to reproduce someone very similar genetically to me by laboratory genetic manipulation, if the world really needs another human just like me genetically for some reason.

As CE writes, the only sane reason for having children is because you personally want to have them, and especially to raise them, not because you want to preserve your particular combination of genes, which is a doomed effort, as he correctly argues. Also, the idea that humanity needs your particular combination is megalomania.
User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5415
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Shemp wrote:
June 22nd, 2019, 9:33 am
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
June 22nd, 2019, 9:05 am
...a genius can produce a feeble-minded Cornfed...
[Edit: CE apparently deleted the post I'm quoting]

Works the other way too. And I don't think Cornfed is feeble minded, just wrong-minded, since it's evident from his postings that he has very high verbal skills. Maybe if he added a little genetic diversity by mating with a woman from Haiti or Africa in search of green card, the resulting offspring might be excellent genetic quality. Rearing the child and influencing his/her mind is precisely what we don't want Cornfed to do. Just let him contribute genes and child support. The result might be a great athlete, genius and good-looking leader rolled into one.

For the genes-obsessed people, note that 98% of genes are in common with apes, 90% in common with cockroaches and upwards of 99% with other humans. Most genes are for underlying cellular processes, not skin color and shape of the nose and other superficial things. It will be easy in the future to reproduce someone very similar genetically to me by laboratory genetic manipulation, if the world really needs another human just like me genetically for some reason.

As CE writes, the only sane reason for having children is because you personally want to have them, and especially to raise them, not because you want to preserve your particular combination of genes, which is a doomed effort, as he correctly argues. Also, the idea that humanity needs your particular combination is megalomania.
I just bounced deleted that post and created a new thread. Yours would be a good response there too.
User avatar
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1788
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 11:53 am

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MrPeabody »

Speaking of genes, Edward Dutton has done some serious statistical research on the topic. He says that the statistics show that atheists are more intelligent than religious people, however religious people have more children. Thus, in the long run, the society becomes more religious again. He also said that atheists are basically mutations and tend to be neurotic and have other mental problems. That is why they adopt what evolution would consider maladaptive attitudes like not desiring children.

Here is an interview on Red Ice Radio: (the first hour is free)

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/race-di ... nocentrism
User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 11:27 am

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Neo »

Cornfed wrote:
June 22nd, 2019, 6:49 pm
MrPeabody wrote:
June 22nd, 2019, 6:24 pm
Speaking of genes, Edward Dutton has done some serious statistical research on the topic. He says that the statistics show that atheists are more intelligent than religious people
He seems to think this is caused by the environment in the modern West, presumably due to our rodent overlords not liking Christianity or any unifying belief among their subjects.
There are things that matter, and then there are things that do not matter.

For example. Some intelligent people think that the knowledge of E=MC^2 is vital and makes a person intelligent. Others realize that the wisest thing a person can do in this lifetime is seek out the commandments and keep them. The religious people might not score well on a test that assesses the knowledge of astrophysics or the hominid morphology of australopithecines.
Prudence is the knowledge of things to be sought, and those to be shunned.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Winston »

Keep in mind that Philo of Alexandria who documented the history of Judea at the time Jesus existed supposedly, doesn't mention Jesus at all. Not even once. That creates a dilemma. If Jesus wasn't that important, how did Christianity spread all over Europe? If he was, then how is it that he was never mentioned by historians at the time? It's a conundrum. Joseph Atwill says that the Romans invented Jesus. See his documentary "Caesar's Messiah".

It's impossible to prove a negative. No one can prove Jesus didn't exist. The evidence for his existence may be scant, but it's likely that he did exist, because a religion or movement can't be based on nothing or made up out of whole cloth. It has to have some origin or founder. A hoax has no power and only lasts a few days, not two millenia. However, that doesn't mean that the original Jesus had anything to do with the persona of Jesus in the Gospels of course.

Most secular historians do believe that Jesus existed. However, they claim that the historical Jesus was far different from the Jesus of the Gospels. Also look up Reza Aslan, he's another great neutral Jesus scholar besides Bart Ehrman.

Keep in mind that the Jewish Talmud, which hates Jesus, admits that he existed.

It's not true though that the evidence for Jesus' existence is greater than that for Julius Caesar. That's an obvious myth spouted by Christian apologists, and it's not true either, because none of the historians at the time of Jesus mention him, such as Philo of Alexandria, whereas Julius Caesar was mentioned by many who knew him including his whole large army, his lover Cleopatra, his close friend Marc Anthony, the Roman Senate, and his successor Caesar Augustus, etc. There's no comparison at all. Also, Caesar wrote his own memoirs whereas Jesus wrote nothing.

Interesting video by Let's Talk Religion about the controversy about Jesus' existence. This is from a neutral unbiased perspective.

Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
MrMan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6654
Joined: July 30th, 2014, 7:52 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MrMan »

Winston wrote:
July 16th, 2021, 10:29 pm
Keep in mind that Philo of Alexandria who documented the history of Judea at the time Jesus existed supposedly, doesn't mention Jesus at all. Not even once. That creates a dilemma.
Philo wrote on the history, from his perspective in the first century, of the Jewish people. What work did he write about his own time? Josephus is well known for having written a history of that time period, and he DID mention Jesus, and His brother James also.

This does not seem to be written from a Christian perspective and it lists some non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus from that time period.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus- ... l-evidence

I would disagree with the article. I do not know when it was written, so maybe this had not been made public yet. It was in the news many years ago that St. James Ossuary had been found and examined. The ossuary-- a kind of coffin for bones, said on it, if translated, "James the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus." It was not the custom to put a brother's name on ossuaries, so his brother must have been very important. Experts did statistical studies on the frequency of different names in Judaea and the case was strong that this was authentic, and it was likely that this ossuary had once been housed as a relic in an Armenian church building in the area.
If Jesus wasn't that important, how did Christianity spread all over Europe? If he was, then how is it that he was never mentioned by historians at the time? It's a conundrum. Joseph Atwill says that the Romans invented Jesus. See his documentary "Caesar's Messiah".
Arguments based on not examining the evidence can lead to stupid conclusions. Aside from non-Christian evidence, there is a lot of evidence from Christians who were willing to lay down their lives for the faith. The idea of Romans inventing Jesus does not make sense and does not fit the historical evidence.
Most secular historians do believe that Jesus existed. However, they claim that the historical Jesus was far different from the Jesus of the Gospels. Also look up Reza Aslan, he's another great neutral Jesus scholar besides Bart Ehrman.
Most secular historians? How many have you surveyed? What makes one a secular historian? If someone graduate from Harvard with a PhD in history, but has religious beliefs, is he disqualified as a 'secular historian'?
Keep in mind that the Jewish Talmud, which hates Jesus, admits that he existed.
It also implies that he has supernatural power, since it claims that Jesus was tried as a sorcerer, and they made a distinction between that and those who performed illusions with no real power.
It's not true though that the evidence for Jesus' existence is greater than that for Julius Caesar. That's an obvious myth spouted by Christian apologists, and it's not true either, because none of the historians at the time of Jesus mention him, such as Philo of Alexandria, whereas Julius Caesar was mentioned by many who knew him including his whole large army, his lover Cleopatra, his close friend Marc Anthony, the Roman Senate, and his successor Caesar Augustus, etc. There's no comparison at all. Also, Caesar wrote his own memoirs whereas Jesus wrote nothing.
Again, what history did Philo write? And since Josephus mentioned Jesus, why would absence of reference of Jesus by name--- by Philo a philosopher/religious commentator who lives far away in Egypt-- be an issue in this discussion. The argument that there is more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar is based on a number of specific arguments such as numbers of manuscripts, the range of people who mentioned Him, etc. References to Christ show up among non-Christians not too long after the events took place.

It is rare for someone to have any archeological evidence of their existence, so the fact that some exists for Jesus Christ (his name on His brother's ossuary) is rather remarkable.

There are also those who argue for archeological evidence for the existence of Christians in first-century Pompei.
MrMan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6654
Joined: July 30th, 2014, 7:52 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MrMan »

It is likely that first century Jewish men, for the most part, could read.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Winston »

MrMan:

"Most secular historians? How many have you surveyed? What makes one a secular historian? If someone graduate from Harvard with a PhD in history, but has religious beliefs, is he disqualified as a 'secular historian'?"

No, secular historian means they are neutral and not religious or biased. You know what I mean. They usually conclude that Jesus did exist but the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is not the same. The Jesus Seminar concluded this too. It's what most if not all, secular neutral unbiased historians conclude.

I never claimed Jesus didn't exist, but it's not proven that he did either. The evidence is scant. But the balance of probability is that he did exist.

Joseph Atwill said "The creator of Donald Duck had a neighbor who had a duck named Donald. Does that mean Donald Duck is a historical character?" So you see, this is problematic if you wanna say that a myth or legend is based on a historical person.

You wrote:

"Philo wrote on the history, from his perspective in the first century, of the Jewish people. What work did he write about his own time? Josephus is well known for having written a history of that time period, and he DID mention Jesus, and His brother James also."

Well supposedly Philo wrote a lot. His writings were detailed. So why not one word about Jesus? If no historians in 33 AD mention Jesus, then that is problematic. Not saying he didn't exist, but that's problematic. The Gospels are not first hand accounts. Neutral scholars all agree on that. They were written to promote a Gospel. They did not claim to be eyewitnesses and were anonymous too. The Gospels did not originally contain the name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those names were placed on them later.

Also Jesus never said the Bible was God's word. The Bible didn't exist at that time. Only the OT did.

I agree that the Romans can't just make up a man. People at the time would have said "I was around in 33 AD" or "I know people who were around in 33 AD, and there was no man named Jesus or Yeshua." All stories have to have some real person or event as a basis.

Jospephus never met Jesus and did not live at the same time. He was merely saying what Christians believed. Also the Josephus passage may have been partially interpolated. Meaning the original version of it was simple but it was embellished later on to authenticate Christianity.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
MrMan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6654
Joined: July 30th, 2014, 7:52 pm

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by MrMan »

Winston wrote:
July 18th, 2021, 1:53 pm
MrMan:

"Most secular historians? How many have you surveyed? What makes one a secular historian? If someone graduate from Harvard with a PhD in history, but has religious beliefs, is he disqualified as a 'secular historian'?"

No, secular historian means they are neutral and not religious or biased. You know what I mean. They usually conclude that Jesus did exist but the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is not the same. The Jesus Seminar concluded this too. It's what most if not all, secular neutral unbiased historians conclude.
It's kind of circular reasoning-- historians who are not religious do not necessarily believe Jesus was as presented in the New Testament. Well, that is to be expected.
You wrote:

"Philo wrote on the history, from his perspective in the first century, of the Jewish people. What work did he write about his own time? Josephus is well known for having written a history of that time period, and he DID mention Jesus, and His brother James also."

Well supposedly Philo wrote a lot. His writings were detailed. So why not one word about Jesus? If no historians in 33 AD mention Jesus, then that is problematic.
The thing is, I am questioning the assertion that Philo wrote a history of first century Jerusalem, Judea or Galilee. He lived in Egypt. Josephus wrote a history of the time period with a focus on the Jewish wars, and he DID mention Jesus. Historians debate some references to Christ, but my understanding is they would generally accept the reference to the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.

Which of these works of Philo are you referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_works

I believe Philo referred to Jesus as 'the Word of God' without realizing he was referring to Jesus.
The Gospels are not first hand accounts. Neutral scholars all agree on that. They were written to promote a Gospel. They did not claim to be eyewitnesses and were anonymous too. The Gospels did not originally contain the name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those names were placed on them later.
There were early church traditions regarding the authors. John does claim to be a first-hand account. They Gospels may have had a common source, possibly an oral tradition that was repeated by the apostles in Jerusalem.
Also Jesus never said the Bible was God's word. The Bible didn't exist at that time. Only the OT did.
I am not sure why that would be a significant point considering many of the epistles had not been written yet. Jesus referred to 'Honor your father and mother' as 'the word of God.'
I agree that the Romans can't just make up a man. People at the time would have said "I was around in 33 AD" or "I know people who were around in 33 AD, and there was no man named Jesus or Yeshua." All stories have to have some real person or event as a basis.

Jospephus never met Jesus and did not live at the same time. He was merely saying what Christians believed. Also the Josephus passage may have been partially interpolated. Meaning the original version of it was simple but it was embellished later on to authenticate Christianity.
The part that some accuse of being embelished later is not the only reference to Jesus in his work. And he lived in the first century.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Was there a historical Jesus Christ? If so, who was he?

Post by Winston »

MrMan wrote:
July 18th, 2021, 11:05 pm
Winston wrote:
July 18th, 2021, 1:53 pm
MrMan:

"Most secular historians? How many have you surveyed? What makes one a secular historian? If someone graduate from Harvard with a PhD in history, but has religious beliefs, is he disqualified as a 'secular historian'?"

No, secular historian means they are neutral and not religious or biased. You know what I mean. They usually conclude that Jesus did exist but the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is not the same. The Jesus Seminar concluded this too. It's what most if not all, secular neutral unbiased historians conclude.
It's kind of circular reasoning-- historians who are not religious do not necessarily believe Jesus was as presented in the New Testament. Well, that is to be expected.
You wrote:

"Philo wrote on the history, from his perspective in the first century, of the Jewish people. What work did he write about his own time? Josephus is well known for having written a history of that time period, and he DID mention Jesus, and His brother James also."

Well supposedly Philo wrote a lot. His writings were detailed. So why not one word about Jesus? If no historians in 33 AD mention Jesus, then that is problematic.
The thing is, I am questioning the assertion that Philo wrote a history of first century Jerusalem, Judea or Galilee. He lived in Egypt. Josephus wrote a history of the time period with a focus on the Jewish wars, and he DID mention Jesus. Historians debate some references to Christ, but my understanding is they would generally accept the reference to the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.

Which of these works of Philo are you referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_works

I believe Philo referred to Jesus as 'the Word of God' without realizing he was referring to Jesus.
The Gospels are not first hand accounts. Neutral scholars all agree on that. They were written to promote a Gospel. They did not claim to be eyewitnesses and were anonymous too. The Gospels did not originally contain the name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those names were placed on them later.
There were early church traditions regarding the authors. John does claim to be a first-hand account. They Gospels may have had a common source, possibly an oral tradition that was repeated by the apostles in Jerusalem.
Also Jesus never said the Bible was God's word. The Bible didn't exist at that time. Only the OT did.
I am not sure why that would be a significant point considering many of the epistles had not been written yet. Jesus referred to 'Honor your father and mother' as 'the word of God.'
I agree that the Romans can't just make up a man. People at the time would have said "I was around in 33 AD" or "I know people who were around in 33 AD, and there was no man named Jesus or Yeshua." All stories have to have some real person or event as a basis.

Jospephus never met Jesus and did not live at the same time. He was merely saying what Christians believed. Also the Josephus passage may have been partially interpolated. Meaning the original version of it was simple but it was embellished later on to authenticate Christianity.
The part that some accuse of being embelished later is not the only reference to Jesus in his work. And he lived in the first century.
Well of course MrMan. A neutral scholar that is unbrainwashed is free to objectively evaluate the historical Jesus, whereas a Christian scholar has to believe the Church orthodoxy about Jesus. There's no comparison here. One is free to think and follow the data, the other must conform to dogma even if it has no basis. Which do you think is better? lol. It's a no brainer.

What do you mean about Philo? I haven't read his works. But every historian agrees that Philo wrote nothing about Jesus. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so can I see it? Where did Philo mention Jesus? Saying "the word of God" can mean many things.

As far as I know, there is only one passage in Josephus about Jesus. Where is the other?

If Jesus never said the Bible is God's word, and you agree, then who or what makes the Bible into God's word? You've never answered that and you keep dodging that question.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Religion and Spirituality”