[Gmac]

(07-03-2013 12:21 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 07:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 12:04 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 01:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 04:18 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

@speakeasy: Interesting view.

Just out of curiosity, as I am developing a series of posts on Christianity, but what are your thoughts on Jesus & Christianity?

I am currently writing a piece about Tolstoy's Ivan Ilyich for the forum, but that is a prelude to thoughts on Christianity.

Any ideas/thoughts/etc?

From what I've read there have been many Jesus-like legends that predated Jesus. Stories of a son of God being born from a virgin. Jesus wasn't the first person this was attributed to. Here is a link to peruse if you are interested in the topic:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

After reading that site, I really had to question whether a Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Thanks for sharing that article. I just read the whole thing. I've been an atheist all my life. You just supplied me with more argument ammo

Hate to burst your bubble, but Jesus was real and it's pretty much indisputable. He is mentioned by both Christians, Jews, and Romans independently of each other.

Quote:

Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels to determine the historicity of Jesus. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

Reading the mentioned article in the link might change your mind on that.
The existence of Jesus is first mentioned 70 years after his supposed death. There are no eye witness accounts. It's all hearsay of hearsay.

While there was an abundance of scribes, poets,philosophers, free writers and governmental writers during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, no one mentioned him anywhere during that time perod.

You would think that a miracle performing prophet who regularly gathered large crowds of followers and who was feared by the Romans, would be mentioned by some one, just anyone who could hold a pen or carve a stone.

There are no records or evidence of his existence, the infanticide by the Romans or his death on the cross. There are also no records of the existence of Nazareth.

Besides that, the story of Jesus was already told in dozens of different versions even before Jesus even supposed to have existed. I'm talking thousands of years before him. All the same characteristics.

Read the article. It's a long read but it might change your thoughts on this.

Didn't figure this would become a religious thread... but eh you never know with the "Wheel of RVF topics". I studied roman history and early Christianity in college, and Neil is right. There are no "secular" references to anyone named Jesus (or having to do with Christianity at all) until nearly a century after he supposedly lived. If I recall correctly there was a letter written after 100 AD by the emperor or someone in government that mentioned "Christians".

The ironic thing is that what the Christians did (create Jesus and other stories out of thin air, or adaptations of half-truths) is exactly what Mormons are criticized for today with the whole "John Smith revelations" BS.