nonchristian christ

[randomnessqueen]

this is for all the nonchristians. though christians are more than welcome to weigh in.

so, for those of you from other faiths, agnostic, atheist or anything else, what are your thoughts on jesus christ?

obviously most of you dont believe he was christ, but was he divine? was he just a good person? did he even exist? what are your beliefs surrounding him?

[Gigablue]

I'm not sure he even existed. The description of his birth is historically inaccurate and the gospels contradict each other in many cases. There is no record of his birth or his execution by the Romans. All mention of him came well after his supposed death. If he did exist, he was probably just an influential person who the Romans didn't like. There is no evidence to suggest he was divine.

[Neptune]

I'm not sure he even existed. The description of his birth is historically inaccurate and the gospels contradict each other in many cases. There is no record of his birth or his execution by the Romans. All mention of him came well after his supposed death. If he did exist, he was probably just an influential person who the Romans didn't like. There is no evidence to suggest he was divine.

Is there any evidence to suggest that he wasn't divine, either?

[Sudds3]

Is there any evidence to suggest that he wasn't divine, either?

No....so no evidence=never existed? Probably! I'm catholic, but I seriously don't agree with most of the Catholic church

[Mortal Coil]

I believe that he existed and was a great guy, but... not the Savior.

[FreeFall]

I think he existed, but I think he was a normal guy. I do believe he was born to a young Mary. Mary had sex with another, feared repercussions, so she turned to her faith and wove the tale of what we know and Joseph believed it. Then word got out, and the people did go see him and give gifts. Mary's starting to get herself in too deep so she's really going to raise Jesus thinking he's the son of God. People know the story, Jesus knows the story and is living it and doing good for people and people are in awe. Romans get pissed, they kill Jesus. Someone hears the tale of Jesus and paints it a pretty picture with the divinity added in. It's a 'Rebecca cries witch' sort of story with how people truly came to believe things in my mind.
Sorry if I managed to offend anyone, I really do not mean to. I'm just posting what I think.

[Azunite]

He was no different then Muhammed, though things didn't turn out good for Jesus, so unlike Muhammed he could only convert 12 people and his work was done.

[Gigablue]

Is there any evidence to suggest that he wasn't divine, either?

No, but the burden of proof rests on those claiming he was divine. I'm not saying that he absolutely wasn't divine. I'm just saying that there's no evidence to support it. It's unreasonable to assume he was divine just because no one can prove he wasn't.

[Jess]

If he did exist (I don't think he did but who knows), he wasn't the "Savior"...and of course I highly doubt he came back from the dead (like a *cough* zombie)

[Cicero]

There is much evidence that he's existed, it even spoke of him and Mother Mary in the Koran. There's no doubt that he existed, the doubt is, is whether he was the Son of God. Actually, saying Jesus Christ is his name. The word Christ doesn't mean anything, but more of a last name. Jesus of Nazareth is the name he was given cause that's where he was from, so Jesus Christ is like saying Jesus of Nazareth, it's just another name. But saying Christ doesn't show his divinity. There has been many accounts that can prove he existed, ancient documents can prove that, the Shroud of Turin can prove that, other religions can prove that (the Koran). The Mormons believe he was just a good man, but don't doubt that he ever existed.

He was no different then Muhammed, though things didn't turn out good for Jesus, so unlike Muhammed he could only convert 12 people and his work was done.


Wrong. He converted thousands. The 12 people were his disciples, which helped to make and write the bible. Disciple means follower or student of a teacher, and that's exactly what they were, they followed Christ everywhere he went, to learn from him, so that when he died, they could help spread the Word of God.

[Gigablue]

There is much evidence that he's existed, it even spoke of him and Mother Mary in the Koran.

The Koran does mention him, though that doesn't prove he exists. They could just have copied from the bible or both taken the story from the same place. The Koran also has a different opinion on Jesus. It says that he was just another messenger from god, but not that he was the son of god. The Koran also rejects the crucifixion and resurrection, saying instead that he simply rose up to heaven.

There's no doubt that he existed, the doubt is, is whether he was the Son of God.

There is doubt as to whether he existed. The account of his birth in the bible doesn't make sense historically and the gospels contradict each other.

Actually, saying Jesus Christ is his name. The word Christ doesn't mean anything, but more of a last name. Jesus of Nazareth is the name he was given cause that's where he was from, so Jesus Christ is like saying Jesus of Nazareth, it's just another name.

Actually, Christ means the messiah or the anointed one. It's not a last name, since they didn't have last names at that time.

But saying Christ doesn't show his divinity. There has been many accounts that can prove he existed, ancient documents can prove that, the Shroud of Turin can prove that, other religions can prove that (the Koran). The Mormons believe he was just a good man, but don't doubt that he ever existed.

The shroud of Turin doesn't prove anything. It's just the shroud of someone who was crucified. Just because other religions believe he existed doesn't prove it either.

There are also problems with the gospels describing his birth. For example, Matthew claims he was born during the reign of Herod the great, who died in 4 B.C., while luke says he was born under the rule of Quirinius, who took power in 6 A.D. Also, there is no record of a census around that time, and if there was, it wouldn't apply to Joseph, who wasn't a roman citizen.

Matthew says Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, while luke says they lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census. Even it there had been a census, they wouldn't have had to go so far. The only reason luke said they want to Bethlehem was because Joseph's ancestors came from Bethlehem. There is no record of the Romans making people go to where their ancestors lived.

There are many more inaccuracies, which you can find here : http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

[Cicero]

The Koran does mention him, though that doesn't prove he exists. They could just have copied from the bible or both taken the story from the same place. The Koran also has a different opinion on Jesus. It says that he was just another messenger from god, but not that he was the son of god. The Koran also rejects the crucifixion and resurrection, saying instead that he simply rose up to heaven.



There is doubt as to whether he existed. The account of his birth in the bible doesn't make sense historically and the gospels contradict each other.



Actually, Christ means the messiah or the anointed one. It's not a last name, since they didn't have last names at that time.



The shroud of Turin doesn't prove anything. It's just the shroud of someone who was crucified. Just because other religions believe he existed doesn't prove it either.

There are also problems with the gospels describing his birth. For example, Matthew claims he was born during the reign of Herod the great, who died in 4 B.C., while luke says he was born under the rule of Quirinius, who took power in 6 A.D. Also, there is no record of a census around that time, and if there was, it wouldn't apply to Joseph, who wasn't a roman citizen.

Matthew says Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, while luke says they lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census. Even it there had been a census, they wouldn't have had to go so far. The only reason luke said they want to Bethlehem was because Joseph's ancestors came from Bethlehem. There is no record of the Romans making people go to where their ancestors lived.

There are many more inaccuracies, which you can find here : http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

I just said that even the Koran says that he existed.

His resurrection:

Why would thousands of people immediately convert if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead? Think about it. History records that thousands upon thousands were instantly and immediately mass converting to be followers of Jesus, as many as 3000 in a day. It is recorded that after the crucifixion, Jesus appeared alive over a span of 40 days and to “500 brethren”. (Back then, only men were counted in crowd totals, so factoring in women and children, Jesus most likely appeared to safely 1500 to 2000 people over 40 days). If that many people saw Jesus alive, it would explain how so many were converting because even the most hardened skeptics would have crowds and crowds of former skeptics saying “yes, it’s true, we all have seen him too”, but if no one saw him alive and the crowds had only the words of the disciples to go by, why would thousands convert? Remember, the disciples were preaching to many who didn’t want to believe Jesus was the Messiah, so what words could they speak to hostile crowds to convince them Jesus really did rise from the dead? “Trust us”? That might convince some of the disciple’s closest friends, but not thousands upon thousands of skeptics. So why did thousands convert? Answer: Crowds must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
Why did the disciples make themselves look bad in the Gospels? Think about it, if you were going to make up a story, wouldn’t you present yourself in somewhat of a positive light? The disciples painted themselves as sniveling cowards lacking in faith. Why? Answer: They must have been telling the truth.


His existence:

Strong evidence for authenticity
Yet fraud seems rather unlikely. Before the announcement of the discovery, the limestone box was subjected to rigorous scientific tests to rule out the possibility. A team of experts from the Geological Survey of Israel examined the box and the inscription under a microscope and found no evidence of modern tools or tampering. Like the rest of the box, the inscription, though wiped clean in parts, has a thin sheen of particulate matter formed on it called a patina. This particular patina shows that it developed in a cave environment and that it is consistent with an age of 2,000 years.
By its very nature the artifact can be dated to within a few decades. Such bone boxes were in use from about 20 B.C. to A.D. 70, when according to Jewish custom the dead were first sealed in caves or rock-cut tombs, then their bones later transferred to a limestone bone box after the body had decayed.
Professor Lemaire further narrowed the dating by verifying that the inscription was in a cursive style used only in the few decades before A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Thus the inscription fits the style used around A.D. 62, when James, Jesus' half brother, died.
Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review , which announced the discovery, explained that the inscription was reviewed by Joseph Fitzmyer, one of the world's foremost experts on first-century Aramaic and a preeminent Dead Sea Scrolls editor. Professor Fitzmyer was at first troubled by the spelling of the word for brother, because it was a plural form used centuries later. But further research yielded the same form in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls and on another first-century ossuary. "I stand corrected," Professor Fitzmyer said.
A putative forger would have to know Aramaic better than Professor Fitzmyer, which seems rather unlikely. "To my mind," wrote Mr. Shanks, "this is one of the strongest arguments for the authenticity of the James inscription" ( Biblical Archaeology Review , November-December 2002, p. 33).
Many factors pointing in one direction
"It seems very probable," Professor Lemaire concludes, "that this is the ossuary of the James in the New Testament" (ibid.).
What makes the case that this is indeed the ossuary of Jesus' half brother so convincing is the combination of factors that point in the same direction. Dr. Lemaire notes that Joseph (Hebrew Yosef ) and Jesus ( Yeshua , or Joshua) were common names in the A.D. 60s and James (Ya'akov or Jacob) less so, but a brother would not ordinarily be named in an inscription unless he were prominent.
Dr. Lemaire says the likelihood of more than one person named James with a father named Joseph and a prominent brother named Jesus in that precise time period is minuscule.
"It is one thing to have scattered probabilities," explains John Meier, professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and an authority on first-century Palestinian Judaism; "it's another thing to have lines of probabilities all converging at one point" (UPI report, Oct. 25).
Mr. Shanks stated that the "clincher" for him was the naming of the brother of the deceased. Of some 800 bone boxes discovered, 233 have inscriptions on the outside. Of these, few are inscribed with the name of a brother—only one other in Aramaic. Mr. Shanks said if one accepts the theory that the deceased was a prominent person associated with him—rather than simply associated because the brother presided over the secondary interment—the probability that the inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth seems overwhelming.

Roman historians account:

Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.

He mistakenly refers to Jesus as "Christus", however this was a common practice among the pagan writers at that time.
He supports the fact that Christ existed, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate - agreeing with the Christian scriptures.
He alludes to "the pernicious superstition" which broke out, was repressed, but then spread even more - even throughout the city of Rome itself. This may indeed be referring to the core belief which caused the early church to explode and "turn the world upside down" -- that Jesus had died indeed, but that He had also risen from the grave.


The gospels do not come close to contradicting each other.

[Liam-O]

I believe in him but I am non-christian. Don;t know why I believe in him but I just do.

[randomnessqueen]

he is also mentioned in hindu and yogic scripture

[Cicero]

he is also mentioned in hindu and yogic scripture

That too haha

I honestly do not see how people think he hasn't existed. Their is so much evidence. They even know what he looks like, due to the shroud of Turin.

[Gigablue]

The gospels do not come close to contradicting each other.

In my earlier post, I gave some examples of contradictions in the gospels. See this website for more examples. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

[Cicero]

In my earlier post, I gave some examples of contradictions in the gospels. See this website for more examples. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

That article has many, many flaws. They twisted many things in that article.

[havingfun]

A couple of points for me to make-

-Only one of the 12 apostles died a natural death, and one killed himself out of guilt. The other 10 were martyred. Why would those 10 be willing to give up their lives for something that is false? The middle east was no less dangerous back then as it is today.


-The gospels were written while those people who witnessed the resurrection and miracles were still alive. The apostles scattered after the ascension, so how come all of the accounts are alike? A little too much to be just a coincidence.

-The oldest copies of the New testament that are in existence come from the second century, no more than 50-60 years after everything was done. There was no "Whisper Down the Alley". The oldest existing copies of ancient Greek literature are from 1300 years after they were first written, yet accepted as truth. Hmmmm.....

-Read the book "Heaven is For Real" the story of a kid, I think about 3-4 years old who tells of Jesus and Heaven. There were way too many things in there that a kid that age would know about. There is no way he could have made that stuff up.

-I have had many prayers answered, and that is firsthand. Again, if you knew some of the prayers that I had answered, the odds of it all being a coinidence would be beyond comprehension.

So, yes Jesus was real and he is my Lord and Savior!

[Gaybaby94]

I'm not sure he even existed. The description of his birth is historically inaccurate and the gospels contradict each other in many cases. There is no record of his birth or his execution by the Romans. All mention of him came well after his supposed death. If he did exist, he was probably just an influential person who the Romans didn't like. There is no evidence to suggest he was divine.

This, basically, sums up my opinions.

[havingfun]

In my earlier post, I gave some examples of contradictions in the gospels. See this website for more examples. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html


The person who wrote the stuff on that link has no clue what he is talking about.

The biggest things that stands out:
-Since when was Paul an apostle? He was a disciple-not one of the 12, a big difference. And he also calls the apostles disciples, athough technically correct in a way, it makes more sense to call the 12 apostles. Somebody who knows anything about the bible who know this.

-The dates of the census, due to changes in calendars over the centuries, the years in which they took place would differ by several years (hence the reason that the year attributed to the birth of Jesus was few years before the year "0")

[Gigablue]

That article has many, many flaws. They twisted many things in that article.

Such as?

-Only one of the 12 apostles died a natural death, and one killed himself out of guilt. The other 10 were martyred. Why would those 10 be willing to give up their lives for something that is false? The middle east was no less dangerous back then as it is today.

Lots of people die every day for things that are false. They might have thought it was right, but that doesn't matter.

-The gospels were written while those people who witnessed the resurrection and miracles were still alive. The apostles scattered after the ascension, so how come all of the accounts are alike? A little too much to be just a coincidence.

How are the gospels alike? Look at my previous posts talking about the accounts of jesus' birth.

-Read the book "Heaven is For Real" the story of a kid, I think about 3-4 years old who tells of Jesus and Heaven. There were way too many things in there that a kid that age would know about. There is no way he could have made that stuff up.

The child in this book was getting surgery. It is highly likely that he was hallucinating. He could know all the biblical knowledge from his parents.

-I have had many prayers answered, and that is firsthand. Again, if you knew some of the prayers that I had answered, the odds of it all being a coinidence would be beyond comprehension.

Your person anecdote isn't relevant and doesn't prove anything. There is no good evidence that prayer is effective for anything. This website does a good job of describing why. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

-The dates of the census, due to changes in calendars over the centuries, the years in which they took place would differ by several years (hence the reason that the year attributed to the birth of Jesus was few years before the year "0")

Even then, it makes no sense that there would be a census in which Joseph would have to participate, since he wasn't a roman. It also doesn't explain why he would have to travel so far, just because of where his ancestors were from.

[havingfun]

Lots of people die every day for things that are false. They might have thought it was right, but that doesn't matter.

That argument would make sense if it was just one or two of the apostles, but 10?



How are the gospels alike? Look at my previous posts talking about the accounts of jesus' birth.

The gospels are slightly different, especially the Gospel of John, but even to that point it is still the same general message. Semantics



The child in this book was getting surgery. It is highly likely that he was hallucinating. He could know all the biblical knowledge from his parents.

How many 3 year olds know that much about the bible? My youngest sister is 4 and she doesn't know much about that much about the bible even with going to Sunday school every week. What he saw could not be explained by hallucination. If you read the book you would know this.



Your person anecdote isn't relevant and doesn't prove anything. There is no good evidence that prayer is effective for anything. This website does a good job of describing why. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

It does to me, and you cannot speak for me.



Even then, it makes no sense that there would be a census in which Joseph would have to participate, since he wasn't a roman. It also doesn't explain why he would have to travel so far, just because of where his ancestors were from.

Are you aware of any historians that are well versed in the knowlegde of early censuses? They do not know exactly how the censuses were done.

[Gigablue]

That argument would make sense if it was just one or two of the apostles, but 10?

They all thought that they were right and were willing to die for it. It doesn't matter if one died or ten died. Also, ten isn't very many people.

The gospels are slightly different, especially the Gospel of John, but even to that point it is still the same general message. Semantics

The message is similar, but all the details are different. Some of the details are mutually exclusive, therefore they contradict each other. How do you know which, if any, is correct.


How many 3 year olds know that much about the bible? My youngest sister is 4 and she doesn't know much about that much about the bible even with going to Sunday school every week. What he saw could not be explained by hallucination. If you read the book you would know this.

I'm not going to spend money and buy the book, and I can't find more than a summary online. Which parts of it can't be explained as hallucinations?


It does to me, and you cannot speak for me.

Anecdotes are very unreliable. Human memory is bad and selective. There is also a significant likelihood of confirmation bias. I have no doubt that you prayed for some things which came true. The question is did prayer increase their likelihood. What have you prayed for that came true? Is it likely that it would have happened anyway?

Are you aware of any historians that are well versed in the knowledge of early censuses? They do not know exactly how the censuses were done.

While no one knows the exact details of early censuses, it is well known that only roman citizens participated. Joseph wasn't a roman.

[havingfun]

They all thought that they were right and were willing to die for it. It doesn't matter if one died or ten died. Also, ten isn't very many people.

10 out of thousands, yes. But 10 out of 12 that is different.



The message is similar, but all the details are different. Some of the details are mutually exclusive, therefore they contradict each other. How do you know which, if any, is correct.

The contradictions are made up too. Just how the writer of the site keep calling Paul an Apostle show he doesn't know what he is tlakking about.




I'm not going to spend money and buy the book, and I can't find more than a summary online. Which parts of it can't be explained as hallucinations?


Too much to be merely a hallucination. If you don't want to buy then go to the library and check it out.




Anecdotes are very unreliable. Human memory is bad and selective. There is also a significant likelihood of confirmation bias. I have no doubt that you prayed for some things which came true. The question is did prayer increase their likelihood. What have you prayed for that came true? Is it likely that it would have happened anyway?


You opinion, and nothing more.



While no one knows the exact details of early censuses, it is well known that only roman citizens participated. Joseph wasn't a Roman.

So if you don't know the details, then how does one know how to refute it?