The Real face of Jesus

[ProgMatinee]

you glossed over every point I made and thus proved your here not to discuss, but simply throw your own ridicules around.

seems your just trolling not for debate, but just to insult. seems your motive is clear and even the most logicaly made assertions would be glossed over in attempts to insult "cults" and believers in "Robin Hood".

If Jesus didn't exist, then a lot of cultures OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY including the Romans have some explaining to do why they validate his existence despite heavily opposing the religious conotation that Christians placed on him. Seems the logical decision of these counter-Christian cultures would have been to cut it off at the source and dispell His very existence, but its clear through historical writings (once journalism and record keeping became more common place in the 1st and 2nd century AD) that they didn't squash this and instead nonbelievers actually validate it.

Basically your logic is that if you weren't specifically accounted for in a Roman document (with an exact date stamp ), and the document must survive over a millenia, that you must never have existed. The fact that verbal accounting by people who OPPOSED your political/religious reviews passed the history on for a century until it could be documented and vetted by multiple sources...lets disregard that.

Tell me, do you know of a document listing ALL Roman citizens of that time? I mean, one that Jesus is conspiculously absent from that would support your claim? Didn't think so. I guess we should just assume that about 100 people lived in Israel at that time because thats probably all the people listed on existing Roman documents that survived antiquity....

 

[siquisiri]

I really find it ridiculous for someone to make a claim that based soley on lack of contemporary historical evidence, Jesus did not exist. Historical standards are not a very good barometer as history is far from objective. To paraphrase Napoleon, " History is the lie agreed upon." Would I like for someone to find a hand writen note by Jesus? or his sandals with JC written on them? yes!, we all would.
You also have to remember, and I think its hard for people to contemplate this, when Jesus was executed, contemporaries did not see this as a major deal. He was a less than minor glich on the Roman Empires radar from a far away provence. Thus WHY would the Roman histories write about him? If anyone did it would be local Roman authorities. If this did occur, how much of this regional data would have survived 2000 years?

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Of course Jesus existed, of course God is real but "proving" it on a Toy Board is absurd imo.

 

[Memnoch]

For the record, I consider a primary source a document written by a person of the time period. I would not consider artifacts the same as a primary source. Artifacts have survived and been discovered that indicate a man named Jesus existed around the correct time period and in the correct place. Thus is my interest and I'm not gonna start a trolling debate.

 

[turtlepower73]

i saw that show before. Jesus looks like my cousin does who lives in israel.. darker hair ,darker complexion...black does not mean african as some would assume or get offended..why do we buy into this political correctness crap when all it does is disturb a wasp nest among men or woman..
i think Jesus looks like what you want him to look like.he will come to you in a form that make you comfortable. as i might not be religious.. i do believe in God and Jesus..

but for someone to say he does not exist is your belief and your opinion..

 

[devilof76]

I really find it ridiculous for someone to make a claim that based soley on lack of contemporary historical evidence, Jesus did not exist. Historical standards are not a very good barometer as history is far from objective. To paraphrase Napoleon, " History is the lie agreed upon."

History is a science, and that is exactly the kind of statement I'd expect from a Cro-mag like Napoleon. The fact that there are people who practice it subjectively is not an indication that the discipline is subjective; it's an indication that they are not practicing history.

You also have to remember, and I think its hard for people to contemplate this, when Jesus was executed, contemporaries did not see this as a major deal. He was a less than minor glich on the Roman Empires radar from a far away provence. Thus WHY would the Roman histories write about him? If anyone did it would be local Roman authorities. If this did occur, how much of this regional data would have survived 2000 years?

I was always under the impression that it was a big deal. Wasn't Pilate sent out there to deal with the situation because they feared revolt in the region?

Also, does anyone know what his last name was? (Big dope slap for the first person who says "Christ".)

 

[siquisiri]

History is a science, and that is exactly the kind of statement I'd expect from a Cro-mag like Napoleon. The fact that there are people who practice it subjectively is not an indication that the discipline is subjective; it's an indication that they are not practicing history.

I was always under the impression that it was a big deal. Wasn't Pilate sent out there to deal with the situation because they feared revolt in the region?

Also, does anyone know what his last name was? (Big dope slap for the first person who says "Christ".)

Then I must be part of the Cro-mag club. The fact that historians CLAIM history is objective doesnt make it so. Many aspire to this, but background, race, socio-economic factors,etc.., will ALWAYS impact the perspective presented by an Historian.

 

[jonny88]

I really find it ridiculous for someone to make a claim that based soley on lack of contemporary historical evidence, Jesus did not exist. Historical standards are not a very good barometer as history is far from objective. To paraphrase Napoleon, " History is the lie agreed upon." Would I like for someone to find a hand writen note by Jesus? or his sandals with JC written on them? yes!, we all would.
You also have to remember, and I think its hard for people to contemplate this, when Jesus was executed, contemporaries did not see this as a major deal. He was a less than minor glich on the Roman Empires radar from a far away provence. Thus WHY would the Roman histories write about him? If anyone did it would be local Roman authorities. If this did occur, how much of this regional data would have survived 2000 years?

l dont believe in religion.its all a scar tactic to scar people into being good or they will go to hell.the bible says the world is only 6000 years old and adam and eve walked together with dinosaurs.then why does science have proof the world is billions of years old.its all made up like santa or the easter bunny,wich l did not see again this weekend.l do believe in an after life tho.just none of the crap that is in the30 different kind of bibles.and remember bibles have been rewritten many times.

 

[siquisiri]

l dont believe in religion.its all a scar tactic to scar people into being good or they will go to hell.the bible says the world is only 6000 years old and adam and eve walked together with dinosaurs.then why does science have proof the world is billions of years old.its all made up like santa or the easter bunny,wich l did not see again this weekend.l do believe in an after life tho.just none of the crap that is in the30 different kind of bibles.and remember bibles have been rewritten many times.

Im not talking religion. Im focusing on the historical Jesus. The biblical Jesus? thats a ginormous can of worms i dont wanna touch

 

[darthviper107]

l dont believe in religion.its all a scar tactic to scar people into being good or they will go to hell.the bible says the world is only 6000 years old and adam and eve walked together with dinosaurs.then why does science have proof the world is billions of years old.its all made up like santa or the easter bunny,wich l did not see again this weekend.l do believe in an after life tho.just none of the crap that is in the30 different kind of bibles.and remember bibles have been rewritten many times.

1. The Bible never says the world is 6,000 years old
2. There's nothing about dinosaurs in the Bible
3. Santa and the Easter Bunny have nothing to do with The Bible
4. There is only one kind of Bible (but many translations)
5. It's spelled scare, not scar

 

[devilof76]

The same mental act is required to believe in Santa that is required to believe in God. You believe it because you want to and for no other reason.

Then I must be part of the Cro-mag club. The fact that historians CLAIM history is objective doesnt make it so. Many aspire to this, but background, race, socio-economic factors,etc.., will ALWAYS impact the perspective presented by an Historian.

Subjectivism is a patently retarded epistemological position. If a historian can't tell the difference between evidence and his sub-conscious bias, he should stop pretending to be a professional intellectual and move onto something more appropriate to his unfortunate condition, such as writing religious texts.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Why do you guys have to take shots at believers by to alluding to fictional characters? I assume you know its offensive? Are you getting your jollies off? Does it make you feel good to try to prove believers wrong or compare their God to Robin Hood or Santa Clause? And people think I'm mean and rude.

The same mental act is required to believe in Santa that is required to believe in God. You believe it because you want to and for no other reason.

Even without proof of a God, anyone that doesn't believe is doing it "because you want to and for no other reason". Are you a computer programmed to only read a script of code? Is there some higher authority your brain is answering to in which you "HAVE TO HAVE PROOF". No. So your point that people believe because they want to is silly, because YOU don't believe because YOU don't want to...we're no different.

To me, your reliance on "science" is no different than anyone's reliance on "faith". People of faith feel rewarded for their faith... good for them... I would propose that you feel rewarded for your reliance in science. We both have "gods" we're answering to.

 

[devilof76]

The difference is actually that when science produces conclusions that do not reward my prediliction, I still accept it so long as the science is valid.

I have personally always believed that the man who was called Christ existed. I do not take any pleasure in the idea that a lack of hard evidence exists to support it, so I have always given the anecdotal evidence (which is strong) the benefit of the doubt. However, if people are going to use their emotional commitment to their belief in Christ's divine origin to denigrate the very real notion of a world which is verifiable by sensory observation and rational cognition, I will not in a million years stoop to let them stake their claims unchallenged. Sorry if that offends you. History is too clear on what kind of atrocities follow in the wake of cultures where faith dominates, and I'm not about to give sanction to the advocacy that such cultures are morally equivalent to cultures where reason is king.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Right because nobody ever did anything bad for the sake of science or reason. Economics is a science and the accumulation of wealth and land to maintain and grow a societies power can be considered as virtuous ( I'm sure "reason" goes into that thought process). You're telling me no atrocities have accured there?

Gimme a break.

And I can care less if you want to tell me there is no God..am I wrong in assuming the spirit of comparing him to Santa Claus was to offend and not make a point? Cause thats what I got.

And regarding accepting conclusions that do not reward my predications, you assume this doesn't happen in faith and religion? People could simply set up Gods that told them everything they want and lust for is "good and right". But part of Christianity involves accepting "truths" (aka what God wants from me) that DON'T SATISFY my predications, desires and preferences. My faith and understanding of God is ALWAYS CHANGING. Just as someone who is changing with the breeze of scientific knowledge.

The only difference between science and faith in this regard is that with science a mob decides that day's truths where as with faith its my own perceptions.

 

[devilof76]

And, as it were, no; I am not obeying programming. It requires a volitional act of will to accept a conclusion that reason supports. Why do you think there are so few who opt to give reality the credit it's due?

 

[devilof76]

Right because nobody ever did anything bad for the sake of science or reason. Economics is a science and the accumulation of wealth and land to maintain and grow a societies power can be considered as virtuous ( I'm sure "reason" goes into that thought process). You're telling me no atrocities have accured there?

Gimme a break.

And I can care less if you want to tell me there is no God...but don't pretend that comparing Him to fictional characters serves as an intellectual point rather than a mean spirited barb to people.

Ok Dr. Zinn. You got me. Superstition is morally equivalent to rationality. Yes we can!

 

[ProgMatinee]

i have no idea what you're trying to say, is that an apology for being mean spirited?

 

[ProgMatinee]

one quick comment then I'm pretty much done with this conversation. I tire of the argument that "religion is bad because it causes war" particularly when the people making that argument doesn't even believe in a god.

If religion and god is man made and wars are created by religion...couldn't you conclude therefore that WAR IS CREATED BY MAN? Therefore if man didn't have religion wouldn't they still create something by which to war over? IE money, land, family lineage, culture, color of skin, and 1000 other things?

For someone that doesn't believe in a god, you spend time blaming him for ruining the planet! That makes a lot of sense...might as well blame Santa Claus.

 

[devilof76]

I don't blame God. I blame humans who failed to live up to the title of Man.

And no. It's the post where my mean spiritedness became overt. Howard Zinn wrote the book that popularized the notion that America was morally equivalent to every other group of evil bastards in history (A People's History of the United States). I had always been under the impression that you were above that kind of demagoguery.

 

[ProgMatinee]

No. It's the post where my mean spiritedness became overt. Howard Zinn wrote the book that popularized the notion that America was morally equivalent to every other group of evil bastards in history (A People's History of the United States). I had always been under the impression that you were above that kind of demagoguery.

sorry big words...what you're now disappointed I was offended that you call me a superstitious nut?

Sorry, thats not fair. I never said I have a problem with your belief. I simply have a problem with you stooping to comparing something I believe to an obvious fictional character.

Me not rolling over and allowing you to insult me is morally evil? Wow. I have a hard time reconciling that you were offended that I criticized someone's work ethic, but you feel its not offensive to insult my sanity and now I'm "evil" because of it? Come on.