Do You Want Jesus to Have Existed? Posted: 08-10-07 15:18pm
Now, be honest.
He had an extremely tough life and death,
it was horrible.
He was persecuted throughout his life,
tortured, betrayed, stabbed with a spear,
nailed to a cross through his hands and
feet, had to witness his loved ones crying
as he hung on the cross, what else?
Is this how you would like it to be?
Are you ok with that?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-10-07 15:29pm
Once again... everything written about
Jesus in the bible isn't necessarily true.
So, his death may be one of the many
fabricated parts.
|
young Girl
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 13932 Location: everythings better in, texas USA
Posted: 08-10-07 15:56pm
to answer the original question on this
topic
do i want jesus to have existed
i believe there was a jesus and he was a
real man
but i dont believe everything the bible
says or that he was the son of god
|
agathe
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 Posts: 74
Posted: 08-10-07 16:17pm
That gives me hope eiri. Let's hope that
it wasn't.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-10-07 16:33pm
agathe
wrote:
That gives me hope eiri.
Let's hope that it
wasn't.
It's entirely possible in fact that Jesus
wasn't one person, but in fact a
collection of people with similar ideas,
and when it was written up, a man named
Jesus was invented as the figurehead.
|
amethyst eyes
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2006 Posts: 1339
Posted: 08-10-07 21:05pm
The idea of Jesus is what I want to have
existed. To know that someone can be so
selfless as to give their life, etc. It
gives hope to people who need it when
their lives are tough.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-10-07 21:07pm
iridescent_opal
wrote:
The idea of Jesus is what I
want to have existed. To know that
someone can be so selfless as to give
their life, etc. It gives hope to people
who need it when their lives are
tough.
I personally prefer modern examples of
people willing to give their lives, since
their existence is proven...
|
amethyst eyes
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2006 Posts: 1339
Posted: 08-10-07 22:10pm
For the more spiritual it works.
I prefer Ghandi and Martin Luther Kind Jr.
and people like them since I can see
documented examples of their work and the
progress they helped to achieve. I also
like the ancient idea since some people
will not use modern day references for
peace and understanding.
|
PsychMajor
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 Posts: 40 Location: New York
Posted: 08-12-07 20:52pm
no i do not want Jesus to have existed for
a number of reasons, number one being that
even if what he stood for was noble i am
sick of hearing about some outdated hippy
being hung on the cross. Ghandi stood for
peace, and can be seen, as well as
accurately documented, give me someone we
know is real, not some "mysterious figure"
from thousands of years ago.
|
milletics
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 204
Posted: 08-13-07 07:26am
PsychMajor
wrote:
no i do not want Jesus to
have existed for a number of reasons,
number one being that even if what he
stood for was noble i am sick of hearing
about some outdated hippy being hung on
the cross. Ghandi stood for peace, and can
be seen, as well as accurately documented,
give me someone we know is real, not some
"mysterious figure" from thousands of
years ago.
So in a few thousand years Ghandi will be
a mysterious madeup hippy who is
outdatted? But the fact is he still
existed. You have pretty silly logic
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-13-07 12:25pm
milletics
wrote:
PsychMajor
wrote:
no i do not want Jesus to
have existed for a number of reasons,
number one being that even if what he
stood for was noble i am sick of hearing
about some outdated hippy being hung on
the cross. Ghandi stood for peace, and can
be seen, as well as accurately documented,
give me someone we know is real, not some
"mysterious figure" from thousands of
years ago.
So in a few thousand years Ghandi will be
a mysterious madeup hippy who is
outdatted? But the fact is he still
existed. You have pretty silly logic
There are people we know existed from 2
thousand years ago... like Caesar. No
one's doubting HIS existence. Or
Constantine. Or Alexander the Great. We
have proof of all of those people.
Oh! And all of those Egyptian Pharaos from
long before Jesus!! We acknowledge their
existence too.
So no, in 1,000 years, I'm pretty sure
people will still be watching videos of
Ghandi, and knowing he existed.
|
agathe
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 Posts: 74
Posted: 08-13-07 13:46pm
My point was, I think, that people going
through horrible things for good causes or
reasons is not a good thing. It is only a
testament to what kind of world we are
living, an unjust world of lunacy and
pain, and should not inspire any kind of
hope, but anger , sadness, maybe, but not
hope.
I would rather that there be no pain, sin,
whatever, to care about. So honestly,
caring isn't a good thing either, only a
testament to a poopy world.
I suppose what I am trying to say is, the
world should be perfect, why isn't it?!
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-13-07 14:02pm
I think a perfect world would be rather
boring...
|
Gu£st
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007 Posts: 675 Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Posted: 08-13-07 21:21pm
one only need to research Jewish, Greek
and Roman history to realise that Jesus
existed as a single person and whom was
quite notorious.
The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth
as reconstructed by historians using
historical methods. These methods do not
include theological or religious axioms,
such as biblical infallibility. Though the
reconstructions vary, they generally agree
on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish
teacher who attracted a small following of
Galileans and, after a period of ministry,
was crucified by the Romans in Palestine
during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
The quest for the historical Jesus began
with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.
Historians have developed a number of
methods to critically analyze historical
sources:
Criterion of dissimilarity. (More
narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment.)
Statements contrary or dissimilar to the
author's agenda are likely to be more
reliable. For example, a Christian source
would be unlikely to claim that Jesus was
from Nazareth (rather than from
Bethlehem), unless his family was actually
from Nazareth, as this was a cause of
embarrassment.
Criterion of multiple attestation. When
two or more independent sources present
similar or consistent accounts, it is at
least certain that the tradition predates
the sources. See the Historicity of Jesus
for an example of the multiple independent
attestations of the fact that Jesus was a
real person.
Contextual and linguistic criteria. A
source is more credible when the tradition
makes sense in the context of what
historians know about the cultural
background. There are some interesting
conclusions that can be drawn from
linguistic analysis of the gospels. For
example, if a dialogue only works in Greek
(the language of its written source), it
is quite likely the author is reporting
something at least slightly different from
the original.
Author's Agenda. This criterion is the
flip side of the criterion of
dissimilarity. When material serves the
perceived purposes of the author or
redactor, it is suspect.For example,
various sections of the gospels, such as
the Massacre of the Innocents, portray
Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in
the view of many scholars, reflect the
agenda of the gospel authors rather than
historical events.
Historians have little other than
Christian accounts on which to base a
biography of Jesus. Greek accounts portray
Jesus as the son of adultery, and Jewish
accounts portray him as a magician, but
these accounts tell us virtually nothing
about Jesus as a historical figure but
they do tell us that he existed.
According to the Gospels and other early
sources, Jesus was active in Galilee and
Judea (modern day Israel, Palestine, and
Jordan) during the first half of the first
century. Following the break-down of
earlier Jewish kingdoms the
partially-Hellenized territory was under
Roman imperial rule, but there were
ongoing hopes of a revival of sovereignty.
The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome
was to maintain order, but although the
land was mostly peaceful, there was an
ongoing risk of rebellion, riots,
banditry, and violent resistance. Four
decades after Jesus’ death the tensions
caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration
of the kingdom of David culminated in the
first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn
catalysed the final break between
Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
Given the historical context in which the
Gospels took their final form and during
which Christianity first emerged,
historians have struggled to understand
Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known
about first century Judaism. According to
scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P.
Sanders, Jesus seems not to have belonged
to any particular party or movement; Jesus
was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in
combining elements of many of these
different – and for most Jews, opposing
– positions. Most critical scholars see
Jesus as healing people and performing
miracles in the prophetic tradition of the
Galilee, and preaching God's desire for
justice and righteousness in the prophetic
tradition of Judea. (According to Geza
Vermes, the fact that Jesus' followers
addressed him as "lord" indicates that
they likened him to notable miracle
workers and scribes. see Names and titles
of Jesus)
Nevertheless, Jesus reflects the cultural
milieu of his time. Many of his teachings
echo the beliefs of the Qumran community
(which was probably a branch of the
Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In
Jesus' day, the two main schools of
thought among the Pharisees were the House
of Hillel and the House of Shammai; the
accusations of hypocrisy which Jesus is
reported as levelling at Pharisees in
general may have been directed against the
stricter members of the House of Shammai,
although he also agreed with their
teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). In
general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is
stricter than the teachings of the House
of Hillel.
Finally, Jesus' repeated declarations that
the kingdom of God was at hand echoed
popular apocalyptic views and the
political views of the Zealots. Following
the failure of the Maccabean insurrection
against the Seleucids almost two centuries
previously, most Jews of Jesus' time
believed that the restoration of the
kingdom would be accomplished by God, not
by any movement of Jews. However, he did
believe that this restoration was
imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best
about his claim to actually be the
presumptive monarch. That he speaks of
twelve disciples is probably symbolic of
the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a
metaphor for "all Israel". According to
Geza Vermes and others, the use of the
terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus'
followers indicate that they believed he
would assume the monarchy upon the
restoration of the kingdom (see Names and
titles of Jesus).
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 08-13-07 21:27pm
Gu£st
wrote:
one only need to research
Jewish, Greek and Roman history to realise
that Jesus existed as a single person and
whom was quite notorious.
The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth
as reconstructed by historians using
historical methods. These methods do not
include theological or religious axioms,
such as biblical infallibility. Though the
reconstructions vary, they generally agree
on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish
teacher who attracted a small following of
Galileans and, after a period of ministry,
was crucified by the Romans in Palestine
during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
The quest for the historical Jesus began
with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.
Historians have developed a number of
methods to critically analyze historical
sources:
Criterion of dissimilarity. (More
narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment.)
Statements contrary or dissimilar to the
author's agenda are likely to be more
reliable. For example, a Christian source
would be unlikely to claim that Jesus was
from Nazareth (rather than from
Bethlehem), unless his family was actually
from Nazareth, as this was a cause of
embarrassment.
Criterion of multiple attestation. When
two or more independent sources present
similar or consistent accounts, it is at
least certain that the tradition predates
the sources. See the Historicity of Jesus
for an example of the multiple independent
attestations of the fact that Jesus was a
real person.
Contextual and linguistic criteria. A
source is more credible when the tradition
makes sense in the context of what
historians know about the cultural
background. There are some interesting
conclusions that can be drawn from
linguistic analysis of the gospels. For
example, if a dialogue only works in Greek
(the language of its written source), it
is quite likely the author is reporting
something at least slightly different from
the original.
Author's Agenda. This criterion is the
flip side of the criterion of
dissimilarity. When material serves the
perceived purposes of the author or
redactor, it is suspect.For example,
various sections of the gospels, such as
the Massacre of the Innocents, portray
Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in
the view of many scholars, reflect the
agenda of the gospel authors rather than
historical events.
Historians
have little other than Christian accounts
on which to base a biography of Jesus.
Greek accounts portray Jesus as the son of
adultery, and Jewish accounts portray him
as a magician, but these accounts tell us
virtually nothing about Jesus as a
historical figure but they do tell us that
he existed.
According to the Gospels and other early
sources, Jesus was active in Galilee and
Judea (modern day Israel, Palestine, and
Jordan) during the first half of the first
century. Following the break-down of
earlier Jewish kingdoms the
partially-Hellenized territory was under
Roman imperial rule, but there were
ongoing hopes of a revival of sovereignty.
The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome
was to maintain order, but although the
land was mostly peaceful, there was an
ongoing risk of rebellion, riots,
banditry, and violent resistance. Four
decades after Jesus’ death the tensions
caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration
of the kingdom of David culminated in the
first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn
catalysed the final break between
Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
Given the historical context in which the
Gospels took their final form and during
which Christianity first emerged,
historians have struggled to understand
Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known
about first century Judaism. According to
scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P.
Sanders, Jesus seems not to have belonged
to any particular party or movement; Jesus
was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in
combining elements of many of these
different – and for most Jews, opposing
– positions. Most critical scholars see
Jesus as healing people and performing
miracles in the prophetic tradition of the
Galilee, and preaching God's desire for
justice and righteousness in the prophetic
tradition of Judea. (According to Geza
Vermes, the fact that Jesus' followers
addressed him as "lord" indicates that
they likened him to notable miracle
workers and scribes. see Names and titles
of Jesus)
Nevertheless, Jesus reflects the cultural
milieu of his time. Many of his teachings
echo the beliefs of the Qumran community
(which was probably a branch of the
Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In
Jesus' day, the two main schools of
thought among the Pharisees were the House
of Hillel and the House of Shammai; the
accusations of hypocrisy which Jesus is
reported as levelling at Pharisees in
general may have been directed against the
stricter members of the House of Shammai,
although he also agreed with their
teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). In
general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is
stricter than the teachings of the House
of Hillel.
Finally, Jesus' repeated declarations that
the kingdom of God was at hand echoed
popular apocalyptic views and the
political views of the Zealots. Following
the failure of the Maccabean insurrection
against the Seleucids almost two centuries
previously, most Jews of Jesus' time
believed that the restoration of the
kingdom would be accomplished by God, not
by any movement of Jews. However, he did
believe that this restoration was
imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best
about his claim to actually be the
presumptive monarch. That he speaks of
twelve disciples is probably symbolic of
the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a
metaphor for "all Israel". According to
Geza Vermes and others, the use of the
terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus'
followers indicate that they believed he
would assume the monarchy upon the
restoration of the kingdom (see Names and
titles of
Jesus).
Your sources would do your claims good.
As in, the source you copied and pasted
this from (just in case you forgot, it's
wikipedia) and all the sources that claim
the validity of the historical Jesus.
Don't forget to re-read the section I have
bolded, and then go blow your nose of
snot.
And you'd probably be better posting it in
the thread "Did Jesus Exist" instead of
this one.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-14-07 00:21am
Because obviously Guest's response to this
thread is "Yes". Duh.
|
Gu£st
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007 Posts: 675 Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Posted: 08-14-07 06:47am
its not about wanting or not wanting
although I suppose that plays a large part
of faith in Christ, wanting him to be the
son of God or wanting him to be merely a
man but it can not be denied that this man
Jesus of Nazareth existed it is not a
matter of opinion but a matter of fact. I
have many non christian - anti christian
friends who willingly acknowledge the
existance of Jesus of nazareth for simple
fear of being found to be foolish or liers
- they simply deny his divinity.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 08-14-07 06:59am
Yes I do!
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 08-15-07 20:38pm
Eiri
wrote:
Once again... everything
written about Jesus in the bible isn't
necessarily true. So, his death may be one
of the many fabricated
parts.
yeah right heheeh
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-15-07 21:42pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Once again... everything
written about Jesus in the bible isn't
necessarily true. So, his death may be one
of the many fabricated
parts.
