Theories about Jesus?

[Drich]

Although I have chosen to create this thread in the Christian section, the question I am posing is primarily directed toward non-Christians. Christians have an obligation to believe that Jesus was either god himself or god's son.

For anyone else, that claim is probably absurd. With that, I'd like to get some theories about who Jesus was exactly.

As I see it, there are two basic possibilties:

1. He very well could have been a real person who created a new religious movement. This may or may not have been his intent. Perhaps he was merely a man who tired of the Jewish religion, and felt compelled to introduce some new ideas about heaven, hell, and salvation.

2. He may not have existed at all. There certainly isn't any compelling evidence to support a real historical figure matching the description of the character of Jesus Christ. If he didn't exist, which is a very real possibility, how did such a character come to be invented?

As I said, these are the two basic ideas, but I'm introducing this subject to further explore these ideas or introduce other possibiltiies.

Thoughts?

In the end of the second century leading into the third the 'church' compiled all of the writings on Christ to create the bible. They did not stop at just 'religious texts.' They Annexed everything they could get their hands on. (The book of Luke and the Book of Acts are prime examples of a non-jew/apstole/christian who's writtings were put into the bible.Once they finished they built libraries to keep these letters, books and various writings in. The Vatican library is the end point of a long secession of library's built to house these various texts. For some reason main stream 'proof seekers' don't know about, or rather dont want to know about the books the Vatican contains.

To say there is no historical proof of Christ is foolishness. The most document man in the First century is 'Tiberius ceasar.' IF you counted the bible but left out Christ. Otherwise Christ and Tiberius come in together at 9 pagan accounts each. Yet there is no doubt Tiberius ceasar was a real man. Which means there is more documentation on Christ (including the bible) than any other document person in that time period. To say there is not enough documentation for Christ casts a doubt one every other 'known' person who lived in the first century.

If you want to do some reading this would be a good place to start.
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/a...t-century/

[Bad Writer]

And we'll be happy to review those books that the Vatican has locked away. However, we cannot presume to know an unknown. To say that there is for a certainty a library of writings concerning Christ is fallacious, as you don't know exactly what those texts talk about. All you can do is speculate, and it's getting you no further than you were a few moments ago.

[Minimalist]

To say there is no historical proof of Christ is foolishness.

Foolish believers making shit up about a mythic person is not history. No one in the first century heard of the fucker. In the early second century tales started spreading about a Christos and only later did someone attach the name "Iesou" to it. Why? Who knows. We'd all be better off if they hadn't.

But your stories are the rankest fiction.

[Sword of Christ]

Foolish believers making shit up about a mythic person is not history. No one in the first century heard of the fucker. In the early second century tales started spreading about a Christos and only later did someone attach the name "Iesou" to it. Why? Who knows. We'd all be better off if they hadn't.

Actually no the first letters written by Saint Paul were written around 50 AD and there was already a Jewish/Christian community established there. Non-Christian sources don't try to deny that Jesus ever existed either they just claim that he was a charlatan and black magic user. You can say he existed but deny him as a fool if you like you have that option certainly.

[themonkeyman]

@Drippy the arguement that you used here is flaky logic! You say that the Vatican has the information that proves Jesus exists but does it?! How do you know that the Vatican Library does not have documents that just show how the masses were manipulated for centuries and that there is a Technique.

When the Pope who is to a Catholic (Gods Right-hand Man) says that Atheists can get to heaven by being Good, Then the Vatican comes out and says that's not what he meant. How can we say that the Pope did not just let the cat out of the bag? How do we know that he wasent telling the truth except the Vatican feared of a mass exodus from its control?!

Look there are only two people who speak of Jesus outside of the bible from that Era and one was Josephus and he only made a passing statement as that was the story going around! Its much the same as someone 1,000 years from now saying people thought the world was going to end on Dec 21 it did not mean that by any extent it was going to happen just that it its what people were saying.

Yes you can say the Bible contains numerous references to Jesus etc but the bible itself is like a Romance novel with Jesus err well the New Testament is. Its a bit like saying that if someone believes in something enough they will make ridiculous remarks and claims to keep it true.

What we need is hard evidence outside of the Bible from a Skeptics point of view. If a 'Guy' named Jesus existed then it should be easily provable but we read that Jesus ascended into heaven which is very convenient! So the only proof we have of God is that he came to earth and left without leaving anything?

Surely your God would know that people now a day would look for evidence? So why did he not leave some discernible proof - I put it to you that its God's fault if we don't believe in him?!

Jesus comming to earth as God?! Oh please - The question we gotta ask is Why?! And why the fuck did he take so long from the time of the flood?! Or why the hell didnt he die the day adam and eve ate the apple?!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Jesus comming to earth as God?! Oh please - The question we gotta ask is Why?! And why the fuck did he take so long from the time of the flood?! Or why the hell didnt he die the day adam and eve ate the apple?!

One has to wonder if he had to die for that as well. I mean it was just an apple, when he came down 2000 years ago it was a lot of "sin". Hmmm, but agreed, bad planning all around.

[Sword of Christ]

This is the thing you see, atheists/non-Christians are challenged to find an alternative explanation for Jesus. No-one is challenged to find an alternative explanation for Mohammed or Joesph Smith.

[Bad Wolf]

This is the thing you see, atheists/non-Christians are challenged to find an alternative explanation for Jesus. No-one is challenged to find an alternative explanation for Mohammed or Joesph Smith.

Well i don't know enough about Mohammed to comment but I can be pretty certain when I say joseph smith was a liar, plain and simple. He translated tablets which no one ever saw into 17th century English when he lived in the 19th century. All it takes is a bit of critical thinking to debunk Joseph smith

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This is the thing you see, atheists/non-Christians are challenged to find an alternative explanation for Jesus. No-one is challenged to find an alternative explanation for Mohammed or Joesph Smith.

No we're not. Keep repeating yourself though, see if it has an effect on reality like you think.

[Captain Colostomy]

This is the thing you see, atheists/non-Christians are challenged to find an alternative explanation for Jesus. No-one is challenged to find an alternative explanation for Mohammed or Joesph Smith.

Puh-leez.

An alternate explanation for Jesus isn't a challenge. A challenge is getting through to closed minded assholes that their explanation is bollocks.

Funny how you have an easy time dismissing other prophets' accounts. Their believers in turn no doubt feel the same about your accounting. No worries, though, you're surely right.

Surely.