i've made no attempt to defend the accounts of suetonius and tacitus... we'll get there as soon as you answer the question that i first posed to you.

if you can't answer a simple question just say so and concede your point. if jesus was commonly perceived as a mythic character by first century judaeans, then prove it. cite the historian. show me the historical evidence. it's your job to support your claim. i'm waiting.

-M

i've made no attempt to defend the accounts of suetonius and tacitus... we'll get there as soon as you answer the question that i first posed to you.

if you can't answer a simple question just say so and concede your point. if jesus was commonly perceived as a mythic character by first century judaeans, then prove it. cite the historian. show me the historical evidence. it's your job to support your claim. i'm waiting.

-M

So you don't have any historical evidence that Jesus existed. Is that what we are down to? Provide some or concede your point. I'm waiting.

I would also like to add that I am also quite puzzled by believers who seek out proof or evidence that support their faith. They state that their faith is the key to their salvation then they attempt to destroy that faith by proving their position. Every piece of evidence that you could gather erodes your faith in the premise. If you could conclusively prove that your premise were correct it would then be impossible to have faith in it.
If I were a faith based Christian I would be quite content knowing that there was no evidence to support my beliefs.

To piggyback on this, I'm baffled by the folks who seek scientific findings to confirm their belief, while completely disregarding the mountains of scientific evidence that contradict their dogmatic worldview.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i300/aimforcentermass/cartoon.gif

Actually, here's a great video discussing why this sort of reasoning is flawed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

Other religious texts have similar principles and ideas. Does this mean everything written in those texts are accurate? Additionally, for every nice thing you might find in the Bible, I can cite the bad: slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape, slaughter, unjust retaliation, etc.

A lot of people find meaning in the philosophical phrase, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", but one should not infer that the depictions of Star Trek are real simply because a teaching might be welcomed by society.

Don't get wrapped up in this 'debate'. Please watch this from start to finish and try to view things from a non-theists' perspective. Also, please check out the rest of this guy's video collection if you get the chance. (Can anyone embed this for me?)
YouTube - The Great Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE&feature=channel_page)

AFCM you are trying to convince someone that used to be you. No need to bother. I respect your opinion....I would just be careful to paint people who choose to believe in the bible as embarrassing.

I am not saying the Bible or any other religious document is the end all be all, but I do think they are on to something.....

How correct they are? No one can answer that definitively, but I don't begrudge people for wanting to believe in something bigger than chance.

AFCM you are trying to convince someone that used to be you. No need to bother. I respect your opinion....I would just be careful to paint people who choose to believe in the bible as embarrassing.

I am not saying the Bible or any other religious document is the end all be all, but I do think they are on to something.....

How correct they are? No one can answer that definitively, but I don't begrudge people for wanting to believe in something bigger than chance.

But what to believe in? OK, so lets say chance is implausible or not satisfying. How does one make the leap from "There must be more than chance" to "Zombie Jesus"?

If it all bgan with Horus, i guess there is some small level of comfort that it later became called Christianity instead of HOs R US

Just sayin

so you don't have any historical evidence that jesus existed. is that what we are down to? provide some or concede your point. i'm waiting.

i think there's historic evidence and i think we can discuss that... but first, you have to quit being evasive and cite some hard, verifiable evidence that 'everybody in the first century thought jesus was a myth'... 'cause you basically just made that up.

your debate strategy with other posters on this board has been 'answer my question or you concede your argument' so i'm only holding you to your own standard. -M

If it all bgan with Horus, i guess there is some small level of comfort that it later became called Christianity instead of HOs R US


well... i'm pretty sure most people would rather go to ho's r us. -M

I would just be careful to paint people who choose to believe in the bible as embarrassing.

I declared that I would be embarrassed and I'll gladly defend that statement because it's an honest representation of how I feel. Fervently believing something for which there is no evidence is not something I would brag about, regardless of the topic at focus -- Jesus, Thor, Zeus, Allah, unicorns, fairies, pixies, or the talking sofa from Pee Wee's Playhouse.

If I correctly assume you affiliate yourself with Christianity, I'd like to question why you don't believe in the other 'gods' as mentioned in various religious texts. Do you not believe in their existence because of a lack of evidence? Perhaps you just need faith.


I am not saying the Bible or any other religious document is the end all be all, but I do think they are on to something.....

Do you advocate slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape, injustice, and torture? What do you mean the Bible (or any other religious text) was on to something? The notion of kindness to others has existed long before Jesus or its documentation in the Bible. Please cite ONE beneficial contribution to society that can only be found in the Bible or other religious scribes.


How correct they are? No one can answer that definitively, but I don't begrudge people for wanting to believe in something bigger than chance.

Neither do I begrudge people for believing in something for which there is no evidence. However, I will dismiss their assertions that I am going to be eternally tortured by a magic sky daddy for lack of belief. I also reject any attempts to limit the freedoms of others because of someone's irrational belief.

How would you react if I started wars in the name of the Almighty Unicorn? How would you feel if I burned your mother at the stake for crimes committed against the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What would you do if I prohibited you from marrying another because doing so would go against the writings of the Holy Hot Dog? What would you think if all of the atrocities I could cite were motivated by something for which I CANNOT substantiate? Jesus or the Almighty Unicorn -- neither have a shred of evidence to their existence OR miraculous events, so why is Jesus accepted as real when the Almighty Unicorn isn't? If someone's going to start a war or prohibit me from doing something that goes against their sacred text, he had better be able to convince me that such a god exists. Testimony and primitive writings just don't cut it when people's freedoms and lives are at stake.

Thanks Thunder! How have you been lately?

Sick badly. :whiteflag

Sick badly. :whiteflag

Bummer. I hope you hang in there okay. I haven't seen you at work in a while. Are you still at Crest?

Bummer. I hope you hang in there okay. I haven't seen you at work in a while. Are you still at Crest?

Yes. Fri thru Tues at 5pm to 10pm.

Not sure about the 1st week of July, we all have to work on the 1st thru 4th. My off days may be changed during that time.

I am going to respond to the question of what some would call "The Historical Jesus," typically denoted by the name Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet another of my seemingly never-ending hobbies is the study of archeology and the ancient world, just for fun. I have a lot of thoughts swirling around, I'll try to put them out there.

First, it was not uncommon at all in antiquity for news to take years, sometimes decades to route its way throughout the region. Add to that the fact that much of history and tradition was passed down orally in this region and I don't think it is too disconcerning that Tacitus and others didn't write about Jesus of Nazareth until much later. Also consider that Tacitus' annals from 25 - 35 AD have been lost to the passage of time. We actually *don't know* if Tacitus had more to say about Jesus because the very books he would have documented this in are gone. But what Tacitus does say is not all positive as some would claim. If I remember correctly he called all of Christianity and its followers the bane of existence.

Secondly, for this period of time it is very uncommon that someone who isn't a warrior, a land-owner, or otherwise noble would be recorded at all in the history books. Also consider that the burning of Jerusalem in 66 AD probably wiped out a lot of ancient documents.

Historians, not just theologians, do typically look to religious texts to see if they believe there is anything historical in them. The things they look for are things such as whether or not the history documented in the text seems reasonable for the given place and time, and if anything surprising or embarrassing is documented about the given person as that usually denotes reality and not a rosy retelling of someone's life. They actually find a lot of embarrassing or 'not ideal' situations in the Bible which tends to lend itself to authenticity. Jesus' humble beginnings, the Baptism by another, and the betrayal by Jesus' own men would fit into this category. Surprising elements would be teachings that all men are equally capable of communing with God, not just priests and kings, that we should turn the other cheek, and other things which would be very radical for the time.

Other surprising elements would be things that do not lend themselves "to the storyline" but are additional details present that seem to lend credibility to a real person's life. Such details do exist in the Bible. Jesus being from a poor family, living in Nazareth, starting out as a fisherman... none of these are items that are simply parrotings of things that were to be foretold by the Old Testament, they just seemingly come out of nowhere. Historians would look at this and say that these are actual details of Jesus' life.

Historians (but perhaps not theologians) believe that the gospels were documented in around 70 AD, plus or minus a decade. Jesus was probably crucified somewhere between 33 and 40 AD. This really is a much smaller historical gap than many would have you believe, and when you consider the fact that a literary analysis of the Bible does seem to point to the fact that the gospels were constructed from earlier sources (e.g. the theoretical 'Q' document), and that there are many, many non-canonical gospels that were reviewed during the Councils of Trent and Nicea that predate the Biblical gospels, and I really don't think that this time frame is as big a problem as some would point out.

The Jewish historian Josephus makes mention of Jesus and his followers in "Antiquities of the Jews." The reference is generally considered authenticated.

It is pretty clear that Jesus did have female disciples, e.g. Mary Magdalene, and that her role was probably played down by the Church in the following centuries. It doesn't make sense to me that some story-teller would come up with such a contraversial detail whose own followers would have heartburn with in the centuries sense unless this was a bona-fide piece of historical information.

And perhaps this isn't historical, but I know for a fact that many historians share this view, but I just can't accept that an ideology that has influenced billions, that in the First Century was pushing radical ideas such as everyone, the rich and even the slaves, everyone -- were created equally and all were loved by God equally, that both men and women were equal in their love of and from God, that we should not continue to seek out religious leaders who are warrior kings but should instead turn the other cheek and forgive one another and try to be tolerant of one another, that we should not punish all criminals with death but instead should make sure that our punishments fit the perpetrator's crimes (e.g. the often misinterpreted "Eye for an Eye" sermon), and some of the greatest philosophical thoughts in human history didn't have at its core a real person.

"There must be more than chance" to "Zombie Jesus"?

http://www.cyberphobias.com/jesus_supper_zombie.jpg

This is a rather good debate.

HSC, I'm in shock.

If I correctly assume you affiliate yourself with Christianity, I'd like to question why you don't believe in the other 'gods' as mentioned in various religious texts. Do you not believe in their existence because of a lack of evidence? Perhaps you just need faith.

I would say that of all my readings through college, personal experience, etc. the bible has had the most applicable lessons to date. I have not read the Quran, but I am sure to your point that it has many applicable lessons as well. I do plan on reading it at some point once I have completed the bible.

Do you advocate slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape, injustice, and torture? What do you mean the Bible (or any other religious text) was on to something? The notion of kindness to others has existed long before Jesus or its documentation in the Bible. Please cite ONE beneficial contribution to society that can only be found in the Bible or other religious scribes.

No to all of the above and that is really minimilzing what the bible talks about. True, there are basic human rights that were around long before the bible, but I would agrue no where in history has their been more solid, meaningful advice in one book, warts and all.

To the 2nd part of your question....here is one contribution. Young man is addicted to drugs. Science can't cure him, counseling doesn't work, so he goes to church looking for anything to make the pain go away. People talk to him about the possibility that there may be more to life than just what the world offers and a God just might be able give you the strength to overcome your addictions. This man's new found faith in god helps him meet counseling head on and he's been drug free every since. There is no value in that? If not, how come so many broken people reach out to religion and are ultimately saved from a misreable existence. A variation of this has played itself out millions of times within our generation alone. Luck?

Neither do I begrudge people for believing in something for which there is no evidence. However, I will dismiss their assertions that I am going to be eternally tortured by a magic sky daddy for lack of belief. I also reject any attempts to limit the freedoms of others because of someone's irrational belief.

Has anyone ever face to face told you that you were going to hell? If so, then they may missed some key elements of the bible. I can think of at least two verses (and I am by no means an expert) that clearly teach against this. On your 2nd point, I do not feel people's personal freedoms should ever be limited due to religion. This country was founded on that principle. Religion and government can be a bad cocktail. If that's your stance with this statement you won't get an argument here.

How would you react if I started wars in the name of the Almighty Unicorn? How would you feel if I burned your mother at the stake for crimes committed against the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What would you do if I prohibited you from marrying another because doing so would go against the writings of the Holy Hot Dog? What would you think if all of the atrocities I could cite were motivated by something for which I CANNOT substantiate? Jesus or the Almighty Unicorn -- neither have a shred of evidence to their existence OR miraculous events, so why is Jesus accepted as real when the Almighty Unicorn isn't? If someone's going to start a war or prohibit me from doing something that goes against their sacred text, he had better be able to convince me that such a god exists. Testimony and primitive writings just don't cut it when people's freedoms and lives are at stake.

It's true that religion has be used to somehow absolve a person of guilt when it comes to imposing their will on another person. There are numerous examples in history where religion has been used in exact opposition with what it preaches. My response would be that these people probably aren't really Christian/Muslim/etc. and use a perverted version on the teaching to advance an agenda. But my overall conclusion would be regardless of this the end calculation when you take into acccount all the good deeds and bad deeds that religion bring to the table......it's still a landslide positive. Keep in mind I have been where you are and came to my own conclusion. This hasn't been my belief my entire life. I shunned even the thought of a God at one point. Experience has changed my mind on the subject.

Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Why the shock? Zombie Jesus merely corresponds with the literal words of the Bible. They ate his flesh and drank his blood, then after his death, he rose from the dead.... and BRAAAAIINNNS....

Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Why the shock? Zombie Jesus merely corresponds with the literal words of the Bible. They ate his flesh and drank his blood, then after his death, he rose from the dead.... and BRAAAAIINNNS....

Ahh, I get it now. :bright_id Then the churches should have this picture hanged up in the alter or whatever the area be.

.oO(probably regrets the day He lost his cool and said "oh bite me!")Oo.

I feel that I can add to Cabooses argument.

Long story short, Jesus is based on the sun.

The ancient egyptians personified the sun and the stars with myths, particuraly the story of Horus, the sun god, who was in a constant battle with Set, the god of darkness. Coincidentally, Horus was born on Dec. 25 to a virgin. Also, a bright star in the east was followed by three kings. Horus had 12 disciples, was betrayed, died, and was resurected after three days.

The same story is valid for Krishna, and Dionysis and others.

Its because it is based on a series of astrological events centered about the sun. On Dec. 24th, Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, aligns with the 3 brightest stars of Orions Belt. Sirius followed by the "3 Kings", points to the precise position of the sunrise on Dec. 25. Bethlehem is a reference to the constelation of Virgo. The death is a reference to the winter solstice where the sun, perceivably stops moving to the south, for 3 days, then shifts to moving north. The sun died on the cross, because it was in the region of the constellation Crux (the Southern Cross), the its furthest point south. The resurection of the sun is only celebrated when the sun overpowers darkness, the spring equinox, Easter.The 12 disciples has to do with the signs of the zodiac, which is beyond the immediate discussion.

For more on this perspective, you should watch the first part to the movie Zeitgeist which probably explains this concept better than I. Here is a link:
Zeitgeist, The Movie | Final Edition [ ENGLISH subtitles ] (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924)

For more on this perspective, you should watch the first part to the movie Zeitgeist which probably explains this concept better than I. Here is a link:
Zeitgeist, The Movie | Final Edition [ ENGLISH subtitles ] (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924)

There's also a new documentary coming out, piggybacking on this work:
YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" - Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI)

With regards to Zeitgeist, I think members should watch these condensed versions. Of course, many will choose to ignore these clips because they refuse to believe anything contrary to what they already believe. I guess learning about reality is out of the question for those. I encourage everyone to watch the following clips with an open mind and learn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSppZOnpbfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3L8hOZfO1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCHPYq4_jIo

AFCM, find anything that comes with text at the bottom. :omg:

Thunder, the link I provided to the full length film is subtitled. I put that link there with the hopes you would see that, and watch it. It is long (2 hrs), but I feel it is worthwhile.

I personally think you might object to it, but if you watch it, then hopefully you can accept that what you've seen, is as likely of a possibility as Jesus being an actual person 2000 years ago.

Jst, okay, I'll watch it when I get the time, since you said 2 hours. Thx!

I feel that I can add to Cabooses argument.

Long story short, Jesus is based on the sun.

The ancient egyptians personified the sun and the stars with myths, particuraly the story of Horus, the sun god, who was in a constant battle with Set, the god of darkness. Coincidentally, Horus was born on Dec. 25 to a virgin. Also, a bright star in the east was followed by three kings. Horus had 12 disciples, was betrayed, died, and was resurected after three days.

The same story is valid for Krishna, and Dionysis and others.

Its because it is based on a series of astrological events centered about the sun. On Dec. 24th, Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, aligns with the 3 brightest stars of Orions Belt. Sirius followed by the "3 Kings", points to the precise position of the sunrise on Dec. 25. Bethlehem is a reference to the constelation of Virgo. The death is a reference to the winter solstice where the sun, perceivably stops moving to the south, for 3 days, then shifts to moving north. The sun died on the cross, because it was in the region of the constellation Crux (the Southern Cross), the its furthest point south. The resurection of the sun is only celebrated when the sun overpowers darkness, the spring equinox, Easter.The 12 disciples has to do with the signs of the zodiac, which is beyond the immediate discussion.

For more on this perspective, you should watch the first part to the movie Zeitgeist which probably explains this concept better than I. Here is a link:
Zeitgeist, The Movie | Final Edition [ ENGLISH subtitles ] (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924)


Nice video. Thank you for adding that. There are a ton of books out there that go into much more detail about the astrological origins of the Christ myth.

I agree that ancient civilizations including ancient Hebrews were very much into astrology; however, I think that some things are being made of the astrology angle that are a bit of a stretch.

The pre-Jewish calendar had 10 months. The calendar possibly in use during the time of Jesus of Nazareth would have had 12 to 13 months depending on the year. I'm not saying that 12 wasn't a significant symbolic number at the time, but I am pointing out that some of the discussion here is historically inaccurate.

The December 25th issue. The details in the Bible point to a birth month of Jesus being sometime in the spring or summer, definitely not during the colder months. It is well known history that early Christians began having celebrations that coincided with the Pagan holidays of the times for two reasons: 1. during the non-persecution years it was easier to get people to convert if you kept all their holidays in tact, 2. during the persecution years celebrating your religion on the same days that everyone else in town was as well effectively camouflages your activities.

Pagan Yule festivals were a lot of fun. Early Christians kind of claimed that date as a Christian holiday. The Bible itself says that the date of Jesus' birth is not to be celebrated, but that his resurrection date is what is to be celebrated. So early in the first and second centuries those early Christians just took a few liberties.

Easter. This name is likely a reference to the Ishtar festival. Biblical sources never call Easter Easter... it is referred to as First Fruits. First Fruits kind of morphed into Easter over the centuries, again for the same two reasons as above.

I'm an amateur astronomer. The Southern Cross is not visible above 25^ N. Bethlehem, Jerusalem, etc. is situated at 31^47' N. Even the 2000 year precession of the Earth's axis cannot account for this. The article is astronomically incorrect.

I'm not saying that there aren't astronomical links. I'm just saying that the source you provided isn't a very good one.

Jesus didn't exist. The story was just copied from a previous copy of a previous copy. Kinda like how Christmas is a copy of the pagan holiday Saturnalia.

Religion/gods are all made up and there will never be any scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Might as well believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

...but if it helps you sleep at nite.

Jesus didn't exist. The story was just copied from a previous copy of a previous copy. Kinda like how Christmas is a copy of the pagan holiday Saturnalia.

Religion/gods are all made up and there will never be any scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Might as well believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

...but if it helps you sleep at nite.

You would likely say the same thing about Muhammad and Buddha, if it weren't for the fact that Muhammad is documented in history because he was a warrior, and Buddha because he was royalty. Both of those spiritual leaders exhibit behavior and beliefs that you could easily say was "copied," however both are known figures to have existed.

There was some discussion early on that Jesus was actually the offspring of a German soldier. People speculated that this was the Jewish response to the notion of a virgin birth. Some speculate that the fairhaired blue eyed idea of Jesus came from that story. Dunno. I like the pictur of him holding the lamb.

I was raised a Christian but have sooo many questions these days I'm just not sure what is going on in my spiritual realm.

This is an interesting discussion, I too have wondered how our typical image of Jesus came to be. It is hard for me to believe he was so fair skinned.

Hadn't heard that one ECO, who suggested that?

I was raised a Christian but have sooo many questions these days I'm just not sure what is going on in my spiritual realm.

This is an interesting discussion, I too have wondered how our typical image of Jesus came to be. It is hard for me to believe he was so fair skinned.

Hadn't heard that one ECO, who suggested that?

I thought the fair skinned version was from paintings done during the King James era, where they used an English model.

As a side note, my sister posed as Mary for a stained glass window for a church on West Reno in OKC.

The Philbrook has some early religious paintings predating Da Vinci's Last Supper (approx 1498), with many showing Christ. It is worth a looksee.

http://2amusing.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/raptor-jesus.jpg

Apparently some people lack the common decency and respect for other peoples beliefs and/or faith.

Is that what has become of OKCTalk?

Is this the face of the apostle Paul? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102503)

A 4th century painting of Paul and the possible discovery of his remains.. never know for certain, a little hard to find relatives for DNA....

Interesting that all but one of his disciples were killed for their believes in ways that were not quick and pleasant and Paul as well. I know they aren't the only ones who have died for what they believed in, but if it was made up I doubt all of them would have continued on if they had made up the fact that Christ really did exist.

I feel that I can add to Cabooses argument.

Long story short, Jesus is based on the sun.

The ancient egyptians personified the sun and the stars with myths, particuraly the story of Horus, the sun god, who was in a constant battle with Set, the god of darkness. Coincidentally, Horus was born on Dec. 25 to a virgin. Also, a bright star in the east was followed by three kings. Horus had 12 disciples, was betrayed, died, and was resurected after three days.

The same story is valid for Krishna, and Dionysis and others.

Its because it is based on a series of astrological events centered about the sun. On Dec. 24th, Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, aligns with the 3 brightest stars of Orions Belt. Sirius followed by the "3 Kings", points to the precise position of the sunrise on Dec. 25. Bethlehem is a reference to the constelation of Virgo. The death is a reference to the winter solstice where the sun, perceivably stops moving to the south, for 3 days, then shifts to moving north. The sun died on the cross, because it was in the region of the constellation Crux (the Southern Cross), the its furthest point south. The resurection of the sun is only celebrated when the sun overpowers darkness, the spring equinox, Easter.The 12 disciples has to do with the signs of the zodiac, which is beyond the immediate discussion.

For more on this perspective, you should watch the first part to the movie Zeitgeist which probably explains this concept better than I. Here is a link:
Zeitgeist, The Movie | Final Edition [ ENGLISH subtitles ] (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924)


This is interesting, and most of the information about Horus you state was added to the myth 150 years after Christ.

“The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven.” –Dr. Norman Geisler

“Not one clear case of any alleged resurrection teaching appears in any pagan text before the late second century A.D., almost one hundred years after the New Testament was written.” –Dr. Gary Habermas

If you have the time, here is Zeitgeist Refuted

Zeitgeist Refuted + Zeitgeist Debunked (videos) Dandelion Salad (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/zeitgeist-refuted/)

This is an interesting discussion, I too have wondered how our typical image of Jesus came to be. It is hard for me to believe he was so fair skinned.

nik4411,

Given that the "historical" Jesus lived in the Middle East, I doubt that He was fair skinned at all.

When you think of all the artistict renditions of Jesus, it's easy to see where we might get our present day likeness of him. Truth is, for all the creative genius...not one of the artist that painted Him actually saw Him.

If we are to believe the Bible...one day, "all' will see Him.

Apparently some people lack the common decency and respect for other peoples beliefs and/or faith.

Is that what has become of OKCTalk?

Yep.

Jesus lied for you, by the way.

Yep.

Jesus lied for you, by the way.

Would you care to explain?

I am not at all surprised by the number of folks on here that believe that Jesus never existed...simply because there isn't a "portrait" of Him? I guess that means they do not believe their great-great-great-great-great-great-great great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents never existed either? Got a picture?

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh at what folks write...other times ya just gotta wonder, period.

I am not at all surprised by the number of folks on here that believe that Jesus never existed...simply because there isn't a "portrait" of Him? I guess that means they do not believe their great-great-great-great-great-great-great great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents never existed either? Got a picture?

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh at what folks write...other times ya just gotta wonder, period.

Whew, if you believe that the lack of an actual picture of the actual Jesus is the reason most of us don't consider him as a diety, I TRULY have to wonder about YOU. NObody would attribute diety because of a picture. You are blatantly insulting us.

USG '60...uh, where did I say "diety?" I have never seen a pic of my great-great-great-grandparents, but I do have "historical" records that they existed.

I derived from some of the post, that some folks denied Jesus existed simply because there wasn't an actual portrait of what He looked like, even though there is historical evidence to the contrary (that He did in exist).

The thread started out with someone's curiosity about how the modern day pic of Jesus came to be. From that, some folks said Jesus didn't exist. Are they saying that because there isn't a portrait? That's all I wanted to know. I mean come on now, what other possible reason would "any" poster on here have to "deny" Jesus existed?

I could understand someone not believing that Jesus Christ is God in human form.

But, to deny his existence seems to stretch the limits of credulity.

USG '60...uh, where did I say "diety?" I have never seen a pic of my great-great-great-grandparents, but I do have "historical" records that they existed.

I derived from some of the post, that some folks denied Jesus existed simply because there wasn't an actual portrait of what He looked like, even though there is historical evidence to the contrary (that He did in exist).

The thread started out with someone's curiosity about how the modern day pic of Jesus came to be. From that, some folks said Jesus didn't exist. Are they saying that because there isn't a portrait? That's all I wanted to know. I mean come on now, what other possible reason would "any" poster on here have to "deny" Jesus existed?
I did misread you because when most people talk about him existing they are meaning it to mean that he should then be worshipped as a diety. Sorry.

I acknowledge that there was a person who was made into the Jesus. Whether much of what is in the Bible is true is more to the point. But, come on, who would not believe in Jesus just because there was no picture of him. I can't even imagine that kind of thinking. I can't imagine asking that question. Sorry.

I am not at all surprised by the number of folks on here that believe that Jesus never existed...simply because there isn't a "portrait" of Him?

Nah, it's more like if Jesus ever did exist, accounts of his existence are greatly exaggerated and further, imperial powers and later the Ancient Church used the legend of Jesus as a method to exert power over both peasants and nobility alike.

Many people see religion for what it has been used for -- as Lenin put it, an opiate of the masses.

Take the Mormon Church. They wanted to have complete control over their flock, and in doing so, they have invented a neat new trick -- a living prophet. A man with the power to revise and rewrite their religion's high texts in order to do things like comply with U.S. law.

Another example would be some of the more extreme varieties of Islam where they're actually able to convince people that if they detonate themselves while murdering others that their big guy in the sky thinks that's so awesome that he'll reward them with eternal life in paradise having sex with virgins... a reward made for simple people with simple desires.

Take Iran today. There's a massive clash of free thinking, educated, civilized people who want nothing more than for their votes to matter. The government is using a bunch of hicks from the countryside, armed with Korans and batons to try and inflict control through brutality -- and the only way they can motivate these Basij to do what they do is by telling them that they are acting on God's command. How bizzare is that?

But I know... I know.. your God would NEVER do that.

Now, don't get me wrong, Islam and Christianity have both had golden ages of enlightenment where their respective worlds led the world in philosophy and technology. Amazingly, that only occurs when the power of the religious leaders wanes. People in power despise change and will almost always fight it every step of the way.

Looking at religion across the world and the way it is used by the strong to exert power and influence over the weak, you have to admit it takes a lot of faith to grasp on to one particular sect of religion and say that it's the one true religion meant to serve a legitimate end and that its rules, e.g., tithing are really what God is all about. Some folks think that's a little silly. And I'd have to agree.

If there is a God, I wonder what it thinks about religion?

If there is a God, I wonder what it thinks about religion?

I thought you were Catholic?

Is agnostic Catholicism possible?

I thought you were Catholic?

Is agnostic Catholicism possible?

Luke, I can argue either side. I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but the above is a pretty strong argument for, at the very least, being spiritual but not religious.

Really though, regardless of what I say or believe, considering the way religion is being used and has historically been used ever since mysticism and organized religion were invented, it does take an enormous leap of faith to be able to conclude that this time, in 2009, we finally got it right... it's not just another one of many examples of someone trying to manipulate society, this is for real... And then you see folks like Sally Kern using your religion to manipulate voters to do things like vote for tort reform.

-- vote for lower liability for rich corporations that kill people and steal from people.. and negligent doctors... it's what Jesus would want you to do. In this sense, I'm dead serious though. It isn't difficult to see people, especially people in Oklahoma, being led around to think they should vote a certain way because Jesus is a Republican, etc.

I think this makes for interesting discussion. I agree with the above that not believing in a particular deity because of the inaccuracy of portraits is silly. There are much better reasons. Are those valid? Who am I to say?

Here is an article that refgerencces the idea of a German soldier as Jesus' father. The Virgin Birth — Myth or Miracle? | Brethren Revival Fellowship (http://www.brfwitness.org/?p=314)

I'm not saying that is correct - just saying some have trotted out that theory.

The older I get, the more the notion of using religion to control behavior strikes me as a fine idea. Whatever we can use to get people to choose to not bring babies into this world outside of marriage, not steal, not lie, etc., well, put me down as in favor. When I was young, the notion offended me. Now, I see how much misery it causes and I no longer am as devoted to the notion that self centered foolish people have the "right" to do what they think is right without someone telling them they are being ridiculous.

Today, the above is far, far more fun.

I don't think basing one's belief system, secular or otherwise should be based on the fun-ness of that belief system. It should be based on Truth and evidence.


I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but the above is a pretty strong argument for, at the very least, being spiritual but not religious.

Catholics have their bad examples, but so do protestants and heck, many Muslims would say the actions of a few don't represent them, either.

In fact, throughout the Bible (if I may) we see examples of the so-called followers of God becoming very poor representatives. And sometimes, there end up only being a few "true" followers of God (called "remnant" throughout Scripture), the ones who commit to following sacred texts without bending it to their own will.

As always, it doesn't come down to the people professing to be believers of a certain religion that makes it true. The validity of anything is based on evidence, not on people who are bad examples.


...religion is being used and has historically been used ever since mysticism and organized religion were invented...

Invented or discovered?


...it's not just another one of many examples of someone trying to manipulate society, this is for real...

I think that societal manipulation is not limited simply to the religious. Belief systems, secular and religious alike, take advantage of power and greed for their own use.

This, to me, says more about the nature of humanity rather than the nature of religion, secular or otherwise.

I don't think basing one's belief system, secular or otherwise should be based on the fun-ness of that belief system. It should be based on Truth and evidence.

No belief system has much truth or evidence behind it if viewed in a completely objective light. Take Christianity. At least to the Protestants, the Bible is seen as the 'truth and evidence.' But what about that? It wasn't actually put together until about 400 years after Jesus was allegedly born. And then it was put together under the auspices of the Roman Empire which had grown too big and Christianity was a way to keep the outer provinces under control. It's a lot more unlikely that people will rebel if in doing so they forfeit their immortal soul. At any rate, ancient Bibles differ markedly from those of today, so just as the Mormons now edit their book to keep up with the times, ancient Christians did the same thing.

The conclusion here is that there really is no truth or evidence. Just faith. That's fine, but call it what it is.


Catholics have their bad examples, but so do protestants and heck, many Muslims would say the actions of a few don't represent them, either.

Absolutely, and in all of those bad examples, there was no 'God' purpose -- just the powerful convincing the less powerful that what enhanced the power and control of the more powerful was the will of God. You'll find that it's almost unheard of for the will of God to be contrary to those in power... especially when those in power are wanting their people to commit abhorrent acts.


As always, it doesn't come down to the people professing to be believers of a certain religion that makes it true. The validity of anything is based on evidence, not on people who are bad examples.

There is no evidence. Just magical thinking and invented proof.


Invented or discovered?

Well, like the Mormon story with the Seer Stones, these things are invented, and the inventor will claim discovery.


I think that societal manipulation is not limited simply to the religious. Belief systems, secular and religious alike, take advantage of power and greed for their own use.

This, to me, says more about the nature of humanity rather than the nature of religion, secular or otherwise.

But you have to admit that religion is a powerful powerful tool to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated. Just convince them that you are the divinely empowered great leader [see royalty since time immemorial] or that God wants you to reclaim the 'holy land,' see the crusades or possibly the establishment of the Ummayad Caliphate, or that it is God's will that you force your religion upon the native people of a place so that they might be turned into loyal colonists.

More recent examples are the creation of secular religion like environmentalism. Those folks are just as easily manipulated and are just as dependably blindly loyal. Folks like Al Gore get this concept -- and they have exploited these people to the tune of huge political power and billions of dollars spent/consumed.

Take Christianity. At least to the Protestants, the Bible is seen as the 'truth and evidence.' But what about that? It wasn't actually put together until about 400 years after Jesus was allegedly born.

Let's talk about this.

I believe the Bible is true because there is evidence.

If you're referring to the Council of Nicea, they didn't decide what was put in the Bible any more than the Declaration of Independence tells me that all men are created equal. The Founders didn't grant that, it was a given.

Likewise, classical masterpieces aren't given that designation in board room meetings or council assemblies. Works of art don't become genius beauty after a delegation votes on it. No, it is only after those master works move their viewers and their hearers to a place very few pieces tread that they are recognized and validated for the unique expression of the human spirit.

In that same vein, the New Testament is not the New Testament because a bunch of guys voted on it. It is what it is because of the Truth and accuracy of it.

A list of New Testament books are documented as early as 140 (70 years after the completion of the New Testament and hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are recognized as a collection as early as 115 AD. There are several more historical references to the New Testament well before any council delegated it as such.

Shortly after the events of the Bible took place, people wrote about it. Those writings were copied and passed on not linearly (single file) but geometrically (one copy birthed multiples and those multiples birthed multiple more), that's why there are so many manuscripts so early on.

It would be terribly difficult for so many individuals to create so many manuscripts so close to the actual events and those events be documented so uniformly wrong. Because most people don't pass things on as Truth if they know it to be false. Also, if there were many (or any) lies or errors within the text, there were thousands of people still alive that could have and would have documented otherwise. Further, if the New Testament was inaccurate or outright fabricated, there would be no incentive to keep copying it and it would have fizzled into the dustbins of history.

As it is, claims within the text of Scripture, history, geography, anthropology, linguistics and many other fields of study have always confirmed what the Bible has to say.


The conclusion here is that there really is no truth or evidence. Just faith. That's fine, but call it what it is.

I disagree. My faith is not a faith based on faith. My faith is based on evidence.

While there may not be any autographs (originals) of the New Testament, there are over 5,000 of copies of the originally written Greek New Testament. Further, the majority of the New Testament has been found on manuscripts dating from 100 to 150 years after the events took place. A complete New Testament manuscript is dated a mere 100 years after that. Even more impressive is that of the 20,000 lines written in the New Testament, only forty lines are significantly different between them (and those 40 bear no significance on doctrine).


There is no evidence. Just magical thinking and invented proof.

For comparison...

There have been fewer than ten manuscripts found from the writings of historical figures like Tacitus, Josephus, Plato, Caesar and Thucydides. And when these manuscripts are found, they are dated from 800 to 2,000 years after the events were documented. A much larger gap than the 100 years or so of the New Testament. Yet, these manuscripts are confidently touted by scholars to be accurate reconstructions of the original text, and rightfully so. In fact, pretty much all of our knowledge regarding ancient history is based on evidence like this.

Why is so much confidence given to historians with so few manuscripts so far from the time of the events when so much doubt is cast upon the historicity of the myriad of New Testament manuscripts barely a century after the events?


But you have to admit that religion is a powerful powerful tool to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated.

The distortion of religion, yes.

Midtowner wrote:

"But you have to admit that religion is a powerful powerful tool to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated."

Would this include those that are Doctors, Professors, Teachers, Scientist, Judges, or even Lawyers...just to name a few professions?

Let's talk about this.

I believe the Bible is true because there is evidence.

There is evidence that the Quran is true. There is evidence that Roman mythology is true. There is evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. All religions are tailored to historical or arguably historical events in order to prop them up. Jesus may have even existed. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was the son [an interesting concept for an asexual being to be able to reproduce] of God.


If you're referring to the Council of Nicea, they didn't decide what was put in the Bible any more than the Declaration of Independence tells me that all men are created equal. The Founders didn't grant that, it was a given.

On the contrary, they accepted some books and left others out based on what they believed was an adequate description of their theology and an adequate description of accounts they deemed historic.


Likewise, classical masterpieces aren't given that designation in board room meetings or council assemblies. Works of art don't become genius beauty after a delegation votes on it. No, it is only after those master works move their viewers and their hearers to a place very few pieces tread that they are recognized and validated for the unique expression of the human spirit.

No one is saying the Bible wasn't an amazing creation for its time. In fact, it was pretty much unprecedented.


In that same vein, the New Testament is not the New Testament because a bunch of guys voted on it. It is what it is because of the Truth and accuracy of it.

And if the guys who voted on it didn't vote on it as is, then there'd be a different version of the truth today, true or false?


It would be terribly difficult for so many individuals to create so many manuscripts so close to the actual events and those events be documented so uniformly wrong. Because most people don't pass things on as Truth if they know it to be false. Also, if there were many (or any) lies or errors within the text, there were thousands of people still alive that could have and would have documented otherwise. Further, if the New Testament was inaccurate or outright fabricated, there would be no incentive to keep copying it and it would have fizzled into the dustbins of history.

Actually, rote was a very well-practiced way of handing down information. The Old Testament, similarly, at one time, was an oral tradition. After some time though, professional scribes would copy holy texts. Nothing really amazing about it. Just people doing their jobs.


As it is, claims within the text of Scripture, history, geography, anthropology, linguistics and many other fields of study have always confirmed what the Bible has to say.

How do you "confirm" someone is the son of God? DNA test?


I disagree. My faith is not a faith based on faith. My faith is based on evidence.

The Bible is not evidence. It is a circular argument at best -- it is x because it says it is X is not valid. Any extrinsic evidence is merely collateral and not probative of the ultimate truth. It's ultimate truth -- that Jesus was the son of God and he died for our sins is not proven by the existence of a text. It's something which must be taken on naught more than faith.


While there may not be any autographs (originals) of the New Testament, there are over 5,000 of copies of the originally written Greek New Testament. Further, the majority of the New Testament has been found on manuscripts dating from 100 to 150 years after the events took place. A complete New Testament manuscript is dated a mere 100 years after that. Even more impressive is that of the 20,000 lines written in the New Testament, only forty lines are significantly different between them (and those 40 bear no significance on doctrine).

Of those "5,000" copies, which you say are "manuscripts," I think I found the article you're referring to and the term "manuscript" is misleading. All that means is that it was written by hand. Indeed, anything up to Gutenberg's Bible would be a "manuscript." That old books exist is not probative of any important point. The earliest of them, a scrap of the Gospel of John, dating back to the 2nd century -- quite some time after the events it describes.

Taking those manuscripts though, one will find that they are far from being facsimiles. Among them are a great many differences, copying errors, complete omissions, annexations, etc. It's all very well documented.

That aside, back to the original point. The Council of Nicea was convened in 325 A.D. at the behest of Emperor Constantine so that he'd have a uniform religion with which to keep the plebs in check. He got to reboot the religious establishment while producing something FAR more adaptable for adoption in the colonies. In short, Christianity was a political stroke of genius, and it has been a source of tremendous political power ever since.


For comparison...

There have been fewer than ten manuscripts found from the writings of historical figures like Tacitus, Josephus, Plato, Caesar and Thucydides. And when these manuscripts are found, they are dated from 800 to 2,000 years after the events were documented. A much larger gap than the 100 years or so of the New Testament. Yet, these manuscripts are confidently touted by scholars to be accurate reconstructions of the original text, and rightfully so. In fact, pretty much all of our knowledge regarding ancient history is based on evidence like this.

Why is so much confidence given to historians with so few manuscripts so far from the time of the events when so much doubt is cast upon the historicity of the myriad of New Testament manuscripts barely a century after the events?

Because aside from their philosophical reasons, no one is saying that because of Plato's words, Bill and Steve can't get married. The Cave Analogy is really neat and all, but it has yet to be used to confer power on anyone or take it away from someone else.

Midtowner wrote:

"But you have to admit that religion is a powerful powerful tool to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated."

Would this include those that are Doctors, Professors, Teachers, Scientist, Judges, or even Lawyers...just to name a few professions?

Absolutely. That is what makes it so powerful. I think it has changed a bit in the post-enlightenment, post-Protestant/counter-reformation era as far as its utter power, but remember -- the Pope once kept Kings and Emperors on short leashes with his power of excommunication. He commanded his own army and had some of the richest lands in Europe.

And you can bet the most enlightened people for hundreds of years towed the Papal line and today, while they might not be kow-towing to the Pope, many brilliant people buy into religion, choosing to follow people like Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts. In the alternative, those politically motivated people tend to ally with these religious figureheads because to do so enhances political power.

Non-belief is becoming it's own religion. Dissenters are weak and must rely on this biblical "opiate"...that's the only plausible reason for said belief.

Non-belief is becoming it's own religion. Dissenters are weak and must rely on this biblical "opiate"...that's the only plausible reason for said belief.

Hmmm, I don't quite grasp the thrust of your statement.

To the original poster: Thunder, I'd go with the Laughing Jesus picture. Especially after wading thru all the posts here....

Hmmm, I don't quite grasp the thrust of your statement.

My argument would be that non-believers are quick to point a finger at religion and it's intolerance of other viewpoints, when athiests do the same thing.

My argument would be that non-believers are quick to point a finger at religion and it's intolerance of other viewpoints, when athiests do the same thing.

That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with there.

As far as I can tell though, atheists generally don't care or haven't been convinced of the existence of a God. It would seem if a burden to prove one's case should fairly exist, that burden ought to be on the group trying to assert the existence of God rather than the group which isn't asserting the existence of anything.

No one is stating that Christianity should be banned or laughed at or whatnot. I have the luxury or pointing out that there are extremely viable alternatives to the basis of your theology. Alternatives which, all things considered, are much much more probable than the orthodox view taken by most Christians.

Christ may have existed (not proven) and he might have had a dynamite message. What that message was is probably anybody's guess because I sure doubt that organized religion today and since the time of Christ's alleged death and resurrection even remotely resembles something Christ would have approved of.

You have a lot of hoops to jump through before you can say your views on religion are based on anything but faith. 1) There's a God -- prove it; 2) Jesus was his son -- prove it; 3) If your religion is based on the Bible, the book is presently as God intended it to be rather than being manipulated to serve the purposes of its custodians; 4) That assuming 1, 2 and 3 are correct, your particular sect [one of thousands] is the one which assigns the Bible its proper import and interpretation.

Faith is fine and dandy. No one can argue against faith because it's not logical, it's the absence of logic and that's perfectly good. But when you start to claim your religious beliefs are based on 'evidence,' good luck with that. I'm not being intolerant though. You should be able to distinguish between criticism and intolerance. When I start calling for religion to be done away with, then you can call me intolerant. Until then, we're just having a civilized discussion.

I've found that agnostics are pretty laid back but someone willing to risk the wrath of god :) by announcing that they are atheists tend to be pretty in your face.

You have a lot of hoops to jump through before you can say your views on religion are based on anything but faith. 1) There's a God -- prove it; 2) Jesus was his son -- prove it; 3) If your religion is based on the Bible, the book is presently as God intended it to be rather than being manipulated to serve the purposes of its custodians; 4) That assuming 1, 2 and 3 are correct, your particular sect [one of thousands] is the one which assigns the Bible its proper import and interpretation.

Faith is fine and dandy. No one can argue against faith because it's not logical, it's the absence of logic and that's perfectly good. But when you start to claim your religious beliefs are based on 'evidence,' good luck with that. I'm not being intolerant though. You should be able to distinguish between criticism and intolerance. When I start calling for religion to be done away with, then you can call me intolerant. Until then, we're just having a civilized discussion.



Uh oh, Jewish girl posting on the Jesus board...lookout...no worries! Couldn't help but say thanks for this post, Midtowner, sort of having this debate with someone at work (I know, baaaaddd) and this is exactly my viewpoint, and its just so well stated. I may have to borrow it ;-).