Where is Jesus?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Rightly so, it was over the line and I apologize, I was completely exhausted and should have at least reread my post. It was obviously about atheists... and I know you're a Muslim and it was a rough night. T'wont happen anytime soon.

@Irh9- Then please continue and explain why asking a theist wouldn't be the best way to get an answer to the question "Where is Jesus?" seeing as very few if any actually believe he existed?

I think that Jesus probably existed, just that he wasn't divine, and probably wasn't the source of many moral teachings that we attribute to him.

[tackattack]

And that's absolutely fine OO, but Irh9 made a positive claim about theism not being the best source to find Jesus (completely illogical to me) and he still has to substantiate it.

[Captain Scarlet]

Rightly so, it was over the line and I apologize, I was completely exhausted and should have at least reread my post. It was obviously about atheists... and I know you're a Muslim and it was a rough night. T'wont happen anytime soon.

@Irh9- Then please continue and explain why asking a theist wouldn't be the best way to get an answer to the question "Where is Jesus?" seeing as very few if any actually believe he existed?

I think that Jesus probably existed, just that he wasn't divine, and probably wasn't the source of many moral teachings that we attribute to him.

I agree OO we can never know, but the balance of argument would lend itself to the existence of the Jesus chr in the NT. The gospels and other writings (most if not all are xtian interpolations) provide a foundational claim for the chr. But what swings it for me is the fanaticism associated with trying to retrofit the chr into the promised messiah. There would seem no point in, for example, trying to force the birth myth on people if the actual person didn't exist as well as the census.

[Minimalist]

I think that Jesus probably existed, just that he wasn't divine, and probably wasn't the source of many moral teachings that we attribute to him.

Then how the hell can you say he "existed?" Seriously, its like if I hold up an old stone axe and say "this axe is 5,000 years old..... of course, the handle broke a few years back and I had to replace that and then the head broke and I had to replace it as well. But the AXE is 5,000 years old."

[Quest of knowledge]

And that's absolutely fine OO, but Irh9 made a positive claim about theism not being the best source to find Jesus (completely illogical to me) and he still has to substantiate it.

Tackattack,

You appear not to be fanatical, and that is a good thing, but then I see some of the illogical conclusions you draw to justify your faith, and I am left wondering.

You start from the premise that there is a god and that it is Jesus. Then you try to cast doubt on the evidence that he does not, never did, and never will exist outside of people’s imaginations.

Try to imagine for one second how a non-believer of Greek Mythology must have felt about all the believers in ancient Greece. He must have felt like a sane person in a nut house. Could you not imagine that a Roman citizen who did not believe in the pre-Christian religion of Rome would have felt the same emotion as the non-believing Greek? (You belong to the “newer” official religion of Rome, Christianity)

How would you feel if you lived in a Muslin country, where they blare the loudspeakers to call to prey 5 times a day ?

If you can imagine those three scenarios, you might start to understand how an intelligent atheist must feel around so many believers.

The reason Irh9 made a positive claim about theism not being the best source to find Jesus is for the same reason that a person who believes Superman is real is not the best source to ask if Superman exists. We already know the answer by definition. By the way, I want you to know that believers and non-believers have more in common than you might think. The true and original meaning of the word atheist means “without god”. That makes all of us atheist because god does not exist and, therefore, none of us have one.

[tackattack]

---

And that's absolutely fine OO, but Irh9 made a positive claim about theism not being the best source to find Jesus (completely illogical to me) and he still has to substantiate it.

Tackattack,

You appear not to be fanatical, and that is a good thing, but then I see some of the illogical conclusions you draw to justify your faith, and I am left wondering.

You start from the premise that there is a god and that it is Jesus. Then you try to cast doubt on the evidence that he does not, never did, and never will exist outside of people’s imaginations.

Try to imagine for one second how a non-believer of Greek Mythology must have felt about all the believers in ancient Greece. He must have felt like a sane person in a nut house. Could you not imagine that a Roman citizen who did not believe in the pre-Christian religion of Rome would have felt the same emotion as the non-believing Greek? (You belong to the “newer” official religion of Rome, Christianity)

How would you feel if you lived in a Muslin country, where they blare the loudspeakers to call to prey 5 times a day ?

If you can imagine those three scenarios, you might start to understand how an intelligent atheist must feel around so many believers.

The reason Irh9 made a positive claim about theism not being the best source to find Jesus is for the same reason that a person who believes Superman is real is not the best source to ask if Superman exists. We already know the answer by definition. By the way, I want you to know that believers and non-believers have more in common than you might think. The true and original meaning of the word atheist means “without god”. That makes all of us atheist because god does not exist and, therefore, none of us have one.

---

Well firstly IrH9 is a Muslim, therefore I do presume he acknowledges Jesus' existence, it's a matter of tautology whether he's the son of God or simply a man. At the very basest he is presumed to be at least a man with insight into God's nature, from a theist standpoint. From the atheist standpoint you're talking about he is purely fictional, and I can understand that. That is the very reason why, if you are looking for Jesus, it's illogical that you don't at least start your search with theism, because some atheists don't even believe he existed. I have been to a Muslim country and can envision the other 2 scenarios quite easily. But I see no flaw in the logic that to find something you must start looking where that thing is, not where it isn't. If you disagree then please explain so I can understand your views better.

[HeyItsZeus]

Crucified criminals were left to hang on the cross until they rotted off....what was left was dumped on a garbage pile. That was the point of crucifixion.

The whole idea of the Romans granting a funeral to someone they bothered to crucify is almost laughable.

If there were a jesus, he rotted away long ago.

But the story is so preposterous that it is safe to say it never happened.

Clearly you dont know the story.

57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

Mathew 27.

---

*Six feet under*

was six feet under.

Clearly your misguided and you think the story is real I hate to break it to you but people don't rise from the dead.

[RachelSkates]

There are a few mentions of some guy names Christus in a few Roman writings like Tacitus. Big Whoop.

And there are loads of scholars (Bart Erhamn is one) who have written about false beliefs about the when the Gospels were written. Check out "Misquoting Jesus." Mathew, Mark , Luke., and John did NOT in fact write their gospels but others many years later.

As far as there being no records of ancient world? Have you ever read Tacitus? Suetonius? Livy? Livy has written almost 137 books of the history of Rome. about 45 survive and I have read every scrap. No mention.

Suetonius mentions that Vespasian healed a man using spit. Hmmmmm. So the xers swiped it? Suetonius also mentions a comet at Augustus's birth heralding the birth of a King, the senators deciding to kill all the male babies, but THEY decide not to because each thought, "Hey could be mine!"

Livy mentions Romulus getting caught up into a wind, ascending into Heaven, being seen three days later walking along a road, and giving a commission to his friends before ascending.

These were common myths. The Bible writers just took themand said it was Jesus. Everyone knew these stories.

Oh,and Paul plagerized Plato: Almost word for word:"We see through a glass darkly." Right out of Phaedrus.

You can't say, "BUT THE BIBLE SAYS."No, Plato, etc. said it first. If you argue from the Bible, it's an errant argument.

So where is Jesus? He is wherever you want him to be because he is no more a real person after all the common myths suddenly attributed to him than Santa Claus resembled St Nicholas.

[Minimalist]

There are a few mentions of some guy names Christus in a few Roman writings like Tacitus.

Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[23].

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[24] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.[25] "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[26]

Suetonius, a contemporary of Tacitus, wrote of a riot led by one Chrestus in the reign of Claudius. Even though Claudius is far too late to have had anything to do with their god boy xtians instantly snapped this up as "evidence" of their godboy in Roman texts. Still, the ultraviolet test on the manuscript shows that Tacitus also wrote about "Chrestianos" (followers of Chrestus) rather than "Christianos" (followers of Christ) and this brings Tacitus into agreement with Suetonius and leaves xtians with their asses hanging out in the cold....again.

[RachelSkates]

Minimalist:

EXACTLY!! ('Maybe"). And most likely.....NOT.

He is a creation of many myths and stories. Like if we mixed Santa Claus, Eater Bunny, and Tooth Fairy -------and people believed the final product!

It seems bizarre to me that there is no clear cut mention of Jesus by even his relatives.

Are we to believe some guy raised from the dead in the middle of a VERY literate Roman society and it is not till a couple hundred of years later (yes it was....not 70) that someone finally says, "Oh that guy that raised from the dead really did.......it was not just a story. Oh, and he's god."

Please.