Jesus

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Did Jesus exist as a man, or was he just made up?

I say he existed, the amount of evidence for him existing is too strong to say otherwise, but i know of a few atheists who say otherwise

[Sage]

I don't really care anyway. As a philosopher, real or not, I don't see much of value that you can take away from his teachings.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Show me your evidence. solid facts now keep in mind please that jesus existed ever in any way

[Insanity Fair]

Show me your evidence. solid facts now keep in mind please that jesus existed ever in any way

Despite the fact that the gospel was written by four different people who had absolutely nothing to gain, no motive whatsoever, and only persecution would greet them for it. There are also several secular ancient documents that back up substantial claims in the Bible.

The pagan documents play an eminent role in the story of the crucifixion, primarily because the authors do not belong to any Christian sect and do not take its side. The relevant passages quoted from such literature are more in contempt of Christianity rather than in praise, especially in the first era of church history. Most pagan documents available to us are the product of the first two Christian centuries. They attest to events that took place in the life of Christ and during His time.

Among those outstanding authors who documented and shed light on the crucifixion of Jesus are:

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55--120), a Roman historian famous for his integrity and goodness. He outlived six emperors and was called the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His best known books are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals is composed of 18 books and the Histories of 12 books. Tacitus held the offices of Praetor in A.D. 88, Consul in 97 and Proconsul in 122. F.F. Bruce indicates that Tacitus might have received his information about Christ and Christians from the official records to which he had access. In his two major historical works, Tacitus recorded three references to Christ and Christianity. The most important one is found in his Annals:

Consequently to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populous. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. It is obvious from this historical document that Christianity derived its name from Christ, and that the procurator Pontius Pilate is the one who sentenced Jesus to death. The mischievous superstition or the evil rumour to which Tacitus alluded was doubtless the resurrection.


Thallus (ca. A.D. 52) was also one of the great ancient Roman chroniclers who reported the death of Christ. This author wrote a book about the history of the eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Only a few fragments of this historical work are preserved in the quotations of other authors, among them Julius Africanus. It seems that Julius was familiar with Thallus' work. In the context of his report about Christ's crucifixion and the darkness that enveloped the land when Jesus entrusted his spirit to the hands of his Father, Julius referred to a statement made by Thallus concerning this incident. He said:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun---unreasonably, as it seems to me.

Julius rejected this explanation in A.D. 221 on the basis that a solar eclipse ``could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Pascal [Easter] full moon that Jesus [was crucified].''

Thallus was not the only one who mentioned this darkness. Several other ancient authors also reported it. Dionysius the Areopagite said when he saw this darkness, ``Either the god of nature is meditating now, or he is lamenting someone dying.'' In the second century, Philophone, the astrologer, pointed to it, saying, ``The darkness that occurred when Jesus was crucified, nothing like it happened before....'' The Muslim chronicler al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir referred to it in his book al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya [Vol. 1, p. 182]. In his Annals, Ibn al-Athir recorded it on the authority of the narrators and expositors.

Lucian the Greek, a prominent Greek satirist of the second century, commented derisively on Christ and Christians. Since he followed the Epicurean philosophy, he failed to comprehend the true nature of the Christian faith. He could not understand the readiness of Christians to die for the sake of their beliefs. He regarded them as deluded people who yearned for the hereafter instead of enjoying the pleasures of the present world. He said:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day---the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...and then it was impressed on them by their original law-giver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

It is evident from the above quotation that the crucifixion of Christ was not a disputable issue even among the heathens who ridiculed the Christian faith. To them it was an historical event and not a myth. They never had a trace of doubt as to who the crucified one was.

There are also ancient Jewish texts attacking Christianity such as the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)

Source (http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/answer/a4360et2.htm)

Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_%28historian%29)

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Despite the fact that the gospel was written by four different people who had absolutely nothing to gain, no motive whatsoever, and only persecution would greet them for it. There are also several secular ancient documents that back up substantial claims in the Bible.

People do not need a reason to do things and by co-writing their books they would not have a problem. The documents of which you speak I am not sure if i have heard of though, I would wish to see them

The pagan documents play an eminent role in the story of the crucifixion, primarily because the authors do not belong to any Christian sect and do not take its side. The relevant passages quoted from such literature are more in contempt of Christianity rather than in praise, especially in the first era of church history. Most pagan documents available to us are the product of the first two Christian centuries. They attest to events that took place in the life of Christ and during His time.

Whether or not they take the side of Christianity does not mean they are correct. Like any good story a certain amount of fabrication is needed as the fabrication develops so too does the story.

Among those outstanding authors who documented and shed light on the crucifixion of Jesus are:

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55--120), a Roman historian famous for his integrity and goodness. He outlived six emperors and was called the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His best known books are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals is composed of 18 books and the Histories of 12 books. Tacitus held the offices of Praetor in A.D. 88, Consul in 97 and Proconsul in 122. F.F. Bruce indicates that Tacitus might have received his information about Christ and Christians from the official records to which he had access. In his two major historical works, Tacitus recorded three references to Christ and Christianity. The most important one is found in his Annals:

Consequently to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populous. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. It is obvious from this historical document that Christianity derived its name from Christ, and that the procurator Pontius Pilate is the one who sentenced Jesus to death. The mischievous superstition or the evil rumour to which Tacitus alluded was doubtless the resurrection.

Yet all this is indicated or "obvious" I would like to see the sources of how all this indicated here is undeniable truth. Otherwise it is an indication which does not equal fact. His writings may be real but indications are not.


Thallus (ca. A.D. 52) was also one of the great ancient Roman chroniclers who reported the death of Christ. This author wrote a book about the history of the eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Only a few fragments of this historical work are preserved in the quotations of other authors, among them Julius Africanus. It seems that Julius was familiar with Thallus' work. In the context of his report about Christ's crucifixion and the darkness that enveloped the land when Jesus entrusted his spirit to the hands of his Father, Julius referred to a statement made by Thallus concerning this incident. He said:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun---unreasonably, as it seems to me.

Julius rejected this explanation in A.D. 221 on the basis that a solar eclipse ``could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Pascal [Easter] full moon that Jesus [was crucified].''

Thallus was not the only one who mentioned this darkness. Several other ancient authors also reported it. Dionysius the Areopagite said when he saw this darkness, ``Either the god of nature is meditating now, or he is lamenting someone dying.'' In the second century, Philophone, the astrologer, pointed to it, saying, ``The darkness that occurred when Jesus was crucified, nothing like it happened before....'' The Muslim chronicler al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir referred to it in his book al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya [Vol. 1, p. 182]. In his Annals, Ibn al-Athir recorded it on the authority of the narrators and expositors.

Synchronized stories do not always mean it is correct.

Lucian the Greek, a prominent Greek satirist of the second century, commented derisively on Christ and Christians. Since he followed the Epicurean philosophy, he failed to comprehend the true nature of the Christian faith. He could not understand the readiness of Christians to die for the sake of their beliefs. He regarded them as deluded people who yearned for the hereafter instead of enjoying the pleasures of the present world. He said:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day---the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...and then it was impressed on them by their original law-giver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

It is evident from the above quotation that the crucifixion of Christ was not a disputable issue even among the heathens who ridiculed the Christian faith. To them it was an historical event and not a myth. They never had a trace of doubt as to who the crucified one was.

Where is the irrefutable truth in such an age news was what was gone on what was heard and if a man was crucified how can someone truly say he was jesus Gods son

There are also ancient Jewish texts attacking Christianity such as the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)

Source (http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/answer/a4360et2.htm)

Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_%28historian%29)[/QUOTE]

[Insanity Fair]

People do not need a reason to do things and by co-writing their books they would not have a problem.

If it is written without a clear motive then the trustworthiness of the document increases.


Synchronized stories do not always mean it is correct.

Not necessarily, no. But the more authors write about the same occurances the more trustworthy a source of that event occuring is.


Where is the irrefutable truth in such an age news was what was gone on what was heard and if a man was crucified how can someone truly say he was jesus Gods son


I do not believe in a god. Hence, I do not believe Jesus was God's son. However, I can't deny that he existed.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

If it is written without a clear motive then the trustworthiness of the document increases.

While I agree with you it still does not make it a fact which is what I wished for. While it may be more trustworthy it still does not prove it is the turth

Not necessarily, no. But the more authors write about the same occurances the more trustworthy a source of that event occuring is.

While in one respect you are right, in another you must take into consideration what most people would write about would be influenced by their immediate environment and their own opinion on what occurred. It becomes colored if surrounded by similar influences then similar conclusions would occur with few differences, maybe even insignificant variants.

I do not believe in a god. Hence, I do not believe Jesus was God's son. However, I can't deny that he existed.

Biblical prophecy specialists Peter and Paul LaLonde have noted that:

The Old Testament includes about sixty different prophecies, with more than 300 references, of the coming of the Messiah. It was through the fulfillment of these prophecies that Israel was told she would be able to recognize the true Messiah when He came. The four gospels record several times when Jesus said that He was fulfilling a prophecy of the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ himself said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46, NKJV). Likewise, Christ's disciples taught that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Acts 3:18; 17:2-3; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

When one is aware of what they need to do to become something they do it. They speak that which is needed and convince others of such, if a man did exist and they called him Jesus then in such an instance you would be right, but to be Jesus the Messiah, Jesus that is believed within religions one must have evidence to show he did what he did

[Insanity Fair]

While I agree with you it still does not make it a fact which is what I wished for. While it may be more trustworthy it still does not prove it is the turth



While in one respect you are right, in another you must take into consideration what most people would write about would be influenced by their immediate environment and their own opinion on what occurred. It becomes colored if surrounded by similar influences then similar conclusions would occur with few differences, maybe even insignificant variants.



Biblical prophecy specialists Peter and Paul LaLonde have noted that:

The Old Testament includes about sixty different prophecies, with more than 300 references, of the coming of the Messiah. It was through the fulfillment of these prophecies that Israel was told she would be able to recognize the true Messiah when He came. The four gospels record several times when Jesus said that He was fulfilling a prophecy of the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ himself said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46, NKJV). Likewise, Christ's disciples taught that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Acts 3:18; 17:2-3; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

When one is aware of what they need to do to become something they do it. They speak that which is needed and convince others of such, if a man did exist and they called him Jesus then in such an instance you would be right, but to be Jesus the Messiah, Jesus that is believed within religions one must have evidence to show he did what he did

So we are in agreement that the man called Jesus existed? Regardless of any of the religious drivel?

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Yes i do believe we are. A long time since a debate ended in such a way around here.

[Insanity Fair]

Yes i do believe we are. A long time since a debate ended in such a way around here.

I have to thank you. I really didn't feel like arguing more about it after I typed up that big long reply.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

I have to thank you. I really didn't feel like arguing more about it after I typed up that big long reply.

When i was speaking of jesus at first i was speaking from a religious stand point as the op mentioned atheism and was asking about jesus i believe in a religious sense. I do believe that there may have existed a man named jesus but not a messiah. That big long reply took a long time to read but its nice to see genuine thought and research put in to cover many angles rather then one. +rep when I can rep you

[Continuum]

Jesus exists, hands down. It doesn't really matter because faith does not require proof. Faith is believing on what you think is true and sticking to that belief.

[Sordid Saint]

It doesn't matter if you have faith or not. Just because one or two groups of people think that he existed and is the messiah doesn't mean that it's true. Of course if an Atheist said that they don't think that he is the messiah, they are wrong though (sarcasm)

[INFERNO]

There's historical documents of a wandering man named Jesus who did help some people out. That's about all of the evidence. Him being god's son is only from the bible and from people claiming Jesus did "miracles" and fulfilled some prophecies.

[The Ninja]

Jesus exists, hands down. It doesn't really matter because faith does not require proof. Faith is believing on what you think is true and sticking to that belief.

couldnt have said it better.

It doesn't matter if you have faith or not. Just because one or two groups of people think that he existed and is the messiah doesn't mean that it's true. Of course if an Atheist said that they don't think that he is the messiah, they are wrong though (sarcasm)

your right it doesnt mean its true but like just like what Gaul said "faith does not require proof."

[Joey15]

He clearly existed there is enough evidence that supports that. Whether he is truly the son of god is for everyone else to decide

[Jenna.]

Jesus exists, hands down. It doesn't really matter because faith does not require proof. Faith is believing on what you think is true and sticking to that belief.

I agree. I think he exists.