Okay, it's in a home, in a bible, in a car, in a church, in a wedding chapel, in a hospital, in an office, on a gravestone, and basically just anywhere it can be. A picture of Jesus.

How did a picture of Jesus came to be? How do we know if this is his actual face, body, and clothing? What if it is all wrong? What if Jesus look down on us in shame? Mistaken identity? Have we ever given thoughts on this? Discuss with others? Any concrete proof?

I have an empty space on the wall and I was thinking that a picture of Jesus can be a nice addition. The thoughts come flooding in....should I? Will it be right or wrong? What kind of picture is appropriate?

Thunder, don't sweat the petty things and versa vicey.

Some basic presumptions
God made Man in his own image
God put Jesus in the form of baby man inside Mary
jesus walked earth as God in a manbag

So, given the above, Put a picture of yourself on the wall, and add a lil' nametag on the bottom that says Jesus - Thunder Style

Have some fun with this. For Ms.Alba, God can looks striking in a bikini, or chubby in fishnets if ECo goes to visit

Makes ya wonder ....
Do pictures of Jesus at Graceland portray jesus in Rinestone Jumpsuits?
Do Elvis impersonators have pictures of Ted Neeley or James Caviezel?

More importantly, as man is made in God's image, I suddenly am curious to go see the Jesus pic at Don Knotts' place.

God put Jesus in the form of baby man inside Mary


I learned that God brought himself into Mary and born to be human man, Jesus.

Here is a pix I found.

http://s7d4.scene7.com/is/image/CollectiblesToday/pdtl-103457001?$pdtl610$

It looks peaceful to me. It shows him in a prayer, tending to the flock in need, and watching over us. I don't want a pix of him in pain.

I think that European artists decided a few hundred years ago how Jesus "should" look. I have heard it posited that he was more likely short, chubby and bald but it was difficult to "worship" a guy that looks like that so they gave him that tender studmuffin look. Buddhists disagreed.

..oh for christ's sake!

This is my fav pic of Jesus...

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c293/Neverthelesss/laughing_jesus.jpg

Never seen that one before. LIKE IT!

I'm surprised the lack of discussion on this topic. I figured since this is Oklahoma, there is a bunch of Christians on here attending to some sort of services regularly and have some sort of knowledge on the image of Jesus Christ.

Kevin, there is another pix of Jesus laughing (a tattoo), but it has certain wording under it that I do not think it is allowed on here, but I could crop the image.

I'm sure he looked like an Israelite.

I think the answer is that there is no known record of what Jesus actually looked like. Like a previous poster said, the Jesus we see in pics is just a composite of what early Christians thought he should look like.

There was a special on the History channel a few years back that took on this subject, and tried to give more accurate rednition of what jesus would have looked like taking into account his bloodline, place and time, etc.

It was significantly different than what is currently presented.

No one really knows. The Bible says he was unremarkable in appearance, and that is about it. From what I understand, for centuries the way Jesus was depicted changed based on what ethnicity was doing the depicting.

The current depiction that we all know is based upon the Shroud of Turin image. I think this started because the Vatican recognized the Shroud as a true icon, which would mean the Jesus face contained on it is His literal appearance. Since the Catholic Church endorsed it, that is the image we see the most of.

I really like that image of a laughing Jesus. Any idea where that comes from?

Here is another one I've found.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FdEdvFQfwAU/SeIOk4QfJoI/AAAAAAAAK80/Swl5PHSlv6w/s400/laughing+Jesus.jpg

And the extra to the posted pix.

http://purefnevyl.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/laughing-jesus.jpg

http://r.ompo.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/raptor-jesusthumbnail.jpg

(for you Biblical literalists)

I like Florida's professional wrestler, body waxed, beefcake version:
http://blogs.tampabay.com/.a/6a00d83451b05569e201156f63403f970c-pi

The FL plate makes me think of a peroxide deprived Terry Bollea

Okay, it's in a home, in a bible, in a car, in a church, in a wedding chapel, in a hospital, in an office, on a gravestone, and basically just anywhere it can be. A picture of Jesus.

How did a picture of Jesus came to be? How do we know if this is his actual face, body, and clothing? What if it is all wrong? What if Jesus look down on us in shame? Mistaken identity? Have we ever given thoughts on this? Discuss with others? Any concrete proof?

I have an empty space on the wall and I was thinking that a picture of Jesus can be a nice addition. The thoughts come flooding in....should I? Will it be right or wrong? What kind of picture is appropriate?

Probably looked quite Egyptian. Well, the original Jesus anyway.

Well, since there was no pix of him, is there any other proof that he existed?

Well, since there was no pix of him, is there any other proof that he existed?

No. There is no good reason to believe he existed. The story of Jesus is just a retelling of the same Messiah myths that most of the other cultures in the region had been telling for hundreds of years. There is nothing original about it.

There is no proof for a reason. If there was proof then there would be no faith involved. So, whether you believe or don't, don't try to find scientific proof because you won't.

I don't think Jesus really cares what our pictures of him look like. To have a picture that you recognize as Jesus is probably more important than if it's really what he looked like or not.

There is no proof for a reason. If there was proof then there would be no faith involved. So, whether you believe or don't, don't try to find scientific proof because you won't.

I don't think Jesus really cares what our pictures of him look like. To have a picture that you recognize as Jesus is probably more important than if it's really what he looked like or not.

Quite a caricature of a deity you folks have created there.

Imagine a god who eternally punishes and rewards his creations based on the circumstances of their brief time on Earth. Imagine now that these rewards and punishments are determined based on whether or not his creations believe some arbitrary matter of history or another, rather than by the works of the creations. Imagine even further a god that rewards and punishes his creations for thinking (or not thinking) thoughts that He Himself hardwired them to think (or not think).

I would have to imagine that if there is a God, he must be pretty annoyed at how petty, vindictive, and absurdly irrational that Christians (and other religious folks) make him out to be.

no. there is no good reason to believe he existed.

actually, that's not entirely accurate. whether or not jesus was divine is obviously a debatable subject. however, there is historical evidence that suggests that the guy existed.

-M

actually, that's not entirely accurate. whether or not jesus was divine is obviously a debatable subject. however, there is historical evidence that suggests that the guy existed.

-M

Like what?

for example, josephus. -M

for example, josephus. -M

um.... hasn't that text pretty well been found to be at best altered by early Christian apologists/scribes if not flat out forgery? Also, Josephus did not have first hand knowledge of the people or events described in the Gospels.

Do you not find the silence from the countless historians who lived in the region at the same time Jesus supposedly did to be more compelling?

This may seem archaic to some, but so be it; it's just what I believe. I've never been one to have "pictures" of Jesus because of the law not to make any graven images of god(s). You may not agree with it, but I figure a picture of the G-d I believe in would still fall under that, so I prefer symbols like the fish, cross or geometric symbols rather than images.

This may seem archaic to some, but so be it; it's just what I believe. I've never been one to have "pictures" of Jesus because of the law not to make any graven images of god(s). You may not agree with it, but I figure a picture of the G-d I believe in would still fall under that, so I prefer symbols like the fish, cross or geometric symbols rather than images.

You think an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely wise and good God would give a rat's ass about such a thing?

um.... hasn't that text pretty well been found to be at best altered by early christian apologists/scribes if not flat out forgery?

wrong again. actually josephus doesn't paint a flattering picture in his passing mention of jesus and christians. kinda hard to believe that early christian apologists would forge or alter a document in a way that is critical of their faith.

-M

uggggh... i just realized that i got my wires crossed. i was thinking of suetonius.

i still dispute the assertion that joesephus is a complete forgery, though.

-M

Whatever else Jesus was, he was one inspired son of a carpenter. Eons later, his followers namesakes continued to speak higher of the trade
YouTube - if i had a hammer - peter paul and mary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No)

uggggh... i just realized that i got my wires crossed. i was thinking of suetonius.

i still dispute the assertion that joesephus is a complete forgery, though.

-M

Suetonius makes a vague reference to a "Chrestus", an agitator whose followers were expelled from Rome. Chrestus was a common name at the time, not a misspelling of "Christ". Not to mention the fact that this happened well after the death of Jesus, so it was not a reference to Jesus. Also, the followers were referred to by Suetonius as Jews, not Christians or Nazarenes, as the followers of Jesus would have been called.

...so it was not a reference to jesus

well... no. one could say that it's not conclusive proof and i'd agree with that but one can't say that the arguments you bring up entirely rule out the conclusion, either. even then there's also records from other sources... i think tacitus also makes mention of jesus and christians.

you can make arguments against the divinity of jesus all you like and that's completely understandable, but there's plenty of secondary information that suggests that some guy named jesus existed roughly 2000 years ago and claimed to be the jewish messiah.

-M

well... no. one could say that it's not conclusive proof and i'd agree with that but one can't say that the arguments you bring up entirely rule out the conclusion, either. even then there's also records from other sources... i think tacitus also makes mention of jesus and christians.

you can make arguments against the divinity of jesus all you like and that's completely understandable, but there's plenty of secondary information that suggests that some guy named jesus existed roughly 2000 years ago and claimed to be the jewish messiah.

-M

mmm, tacitus was writing some 100+ years after the supposed death of Christ.

No, there simply is not "plenty of secondary information that suggests that some guy named jesus existed roughly 2000 years ago and claimed to be the jewish messiah."

There are a mere hadful of historians that reference Jesus and the are all second hand, years after his supposed death, and dubious at best.

Again, there were dozens upon dozens of meticulous historians that lived in the same place and time that the gospels supposedly took place... amazing events that countless witnesses purportedly saw... yet NONE of the historians made even a single passing mention of it. Does that not strike you as somewhat implausible?

We know that every aspect of the gospels was a retelling of a standard god-man myth that had been regurgitated by nearly every culture in that region. There is nothing original about the circumstances of the supposed life of Jesus. That story had already been told dozens of times. Horus, Bacchus, Dionysus, etc. These mythical god-men had already lived the exact life that Jesus supposedly lived hundreds of years earlier. The people of that time understood that it was just a story.

mmm, tacitus was writing some 100+ years after the supposed death of christ.

your point being? if you exclude any source that was written within a few hundred years after the fact then you'd be excluding much of what we routinely consider to be history. if a present-day historian writes about the american revolutionary war, then that can't be used as evidence that it existed? puh-lease.


again, there were dozens upon dozens of meticulous historians that lived in the same place and time that the gospels supposedly took place... amazing events that countless witnesses purportedly saw... yet none of the historians made even a single passing mention of it. does that not strike you as somewhat implausible?

as for the rest of what you wrote in your reply, you're getting your wires crossed. i'm not arguing that history confirms any of the miraculous events purported in the bible. i'm just saying that history isn't totally devoid of evidence that a real guy named jesus claimed to be the messiah around 2000 years ago.

what it seems as if you're arguing is something along the lines of... david koresh wasn't the messiah and didn't do anything miraculous therefore he didn't exist.

one more thing on this... i can't think of dozens of prominent historians hanging out in first century judaea, meticulously reporting the day-to-day goings on.


the people of that time understood that it was just a story.
that is patently false. whether or not they were correct is another issue, but christians within a generation of jesus' death completely believed that he was a real person.

-M

your point being? if you exclude any source that was written within a few hundred years after the fact then you'd be excluding much of what we routinely consider to be history. if a present-day historian writes about the american revolutionary war, then that can't be used as evidence that it existed? puh-lease.

as for the rest of what you wrote in your reply, you're getting your wires crossed. i'm not arguing that history confirms any of the miraculous events purported in the bible. i'm just saying that history isn't totally devoid of evidence that a real guy named jesus claimed to be the messiah around 2000 years ago.

what it seems as if you're arguing is something along the lines of... david koresh wasn't the messiah and didn't do anything miraculous therefore he didn't exist.




Present day historians reference documented accounts of the past. The sources you have attempted to cite reference dubious hearsay, sometimes not even of Jesus. The point being, no one who actually saw Jesus or the events of the gospels bothered writing it down, despite the fact that dozens upon dozens of historians would have had the opportunity.

And no, I am not arguing along the lines of your Koresh anology. I am simply saying that if 50 or 100 years from now someone finds a program from the Lion King musical, that would not be a good reason for them to think that the events from the Lion King actually took place or that Simba was a real talking lion in Oklahoma City in 2009. The people here in 2009 understand that it was just a story. If someone in the future makes the mistake of taking it literally it doesn't somehow make it true. Consider, in THAT analogy, the finder of the program would at least have a written document from 2009 as their reference, even though they completely misunderstood it. Contrast that to the case of Jesus where there is NO written record of his existence. Even the gospels themselves were written at the earliest two generations after the supposed life of Jesus based on hearsay by people who never met him. They were repeating the story of Horus, Bacchus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, Zoroaster. Somewhere along the way someone got their wires crossed and started thinking it was a literal account of actual events and an actual person.


that is patently false. whether or not they were correct is another issue, but christians within a generation of jesus' death completely believed that he was a real person.

-M

Yes, but people who lived at the time he supposedly lived did NOT. Why do you think that is? Are you asserting that just because 50 years later people erroneously decided to take the story literally that it means some one named Jesus actually existed? While it is certainly possible, there is no good reason to believe it.

present day historians reference documented accounts of the past.
correct... however, most historians of antiquity did not. if you were to use the same standard you apply here, then you discount most all of the corpus of history from 2000 years ago and further. still... you fail to cite any of the 'dozens' of historians who were hanging out in first century judaea, 'diligently' reporting every little thing that was going on.

you have no way of refuting that within 50-100 years of the time of jesus that most people acquainted with him and his story believed in him as a real, historical figure rather than just a myth. show to me even one ancient source that suggests that he was just a story rather than real.


the sources you have attempted to cite reference dubious hearsayreally? dubious only because you claim it as such. obviously, you have an axe to grind with religion. i get it... and that's fine. however, it's irresponsible to bend history to claim that a historical figure didn't exist just because you have issues with the theology attached to that figure.

-M

http://scrapetv.com/The%20Visual/Choose%20your/Jesus/buddy_christ-3.jpg

correct... however, most historians of antiquity did not. if you were to use the same standard you apply here, then you discount most all of the corpus of history from 2000 years ago and further. still... you fail to cite any of the 'dozens' of historians who were hanging out in first century judaea, 'diligently' reporting every little thing that was going on.

you have no way of refuting that within 50-100 years of the time of jesus that most people acquainted with him and his story believed in him as a real, historical figure rather than just a myth. show to me even one ancient source that suggests that he was just a story rather than real.

really? dubious only because you claim it as such. obviously, you have an axe to grind with religion. i get it... and that's fine. however, it's irresponsible to bend history to claim that a historical figure didn't exist just because you have issues with the theology attached to that figure.

-M

Oh please, I now have an "axe to grind" with religion just because the historical record does not support the existence of Jesus. Give me a break. You cited freakin Josephus, Suetonis, and Tacitus... some of the most vague and specious examples and you accuse ME of bending history.

Find me ONE historical reference written by someone who actually saw Jesus alive and we will have a start.


wrong again. actually josephus doesn't paint a flattering picture in his passing mention of jesus and christians. kinda hard to believe that early christian apologists would forge or alter a document in a way that is critical of their faith.

And I just saw this post up above. You couldn't be MORE wrong. The fact that Josephus, a jew, made such a flattering statement about Jesus is one of the main reasons it has drawn scrutiny and has been judged by historians to be an interpolation.

oh please, i now have an "axe to grind" with religion just because the historical record...of course not... unless i'm mistaken, in previous posts and in other threads you've boiled down all religions to having imaginary friends... sounds like you've got an axe to grind to me... just seems that your general distaste for religion could be getting in the way of your objectivity. i'm not making the case for any of the supernatural things that are attributed to jesus... just saying that the guy probably existed and there's nothing that proves otherwise.


and i just saw this post up above. you couldn't be more wrong... true... and if you read further, i did correct myself. i was thinking more along the lines of suetonius' account but mistakenly attributed it to josephus.


find me one historical reference written by someone who actually saw jesus alive and we will have a start.


actually, you don't get to do that... i asked the question first... so you have to answer or abandon your position. hey... this is your own game and you've played it on other posters. show to me even one ancient source that suggests that jesus was just a story rather than a real person... then we'll start.

-M

of course not... unless i'm mistaken, in previous posts and in other threads you've boiled down all religions to having imaginary friends... sounds like you've got an axe to grind to me... just seems that your general distaste for religion could be getting in the way of your objectivity.

No, that is not how it works. I don't believe Santa Claus or pixies either, but that doesn't mean I have an axe to grind with them.



i'm not making the case for any of the supernatural things that are attributed to jesus... just saying that the guy probably existed and there's nothing that proves otherwise.

Again, not how it works. We don't just assume someone probably existed because we can't definitively prove otherwise. If that is the case you must also accept that every other mythical god-man existed as well.



true... and if you read further, i did correct myself. i was thinking more along the lines of suetonius' account but mistakenly attributed it to josephus.

Gotcha, my bad.




actually, you don't get to do that... i asked the question first... so you have to answer or abandon your position. hey... this is your own game and you've played it on other posters. show to me even one ancient source that suggests that jesus was just a story rather than a real person... then we'll start.

-M

The gospels themselves don't just suggest it, they SCREAM it. Do you understand that they are not original in any way whatsoever?

My position is there is no good reason to believe that Jesus existed and I have demonstrated ample reasons for this.

A. There is no historical record of his existence.
B. The gospels were written two generations afer his supposed existence by people who had no first hand knowledge of him.
C. The gospels were not even original stories. They are bastardized retelling of the same god-man story that was originally told about Horus hundreds (if not thousands) of years earlier. They just changed some names and locations to make the story relevant to their region.

If there was some guy named Jesus who coincidentally was walking around the area at that time, who cares? Jesus was a common name at the time and "messiahs" were a dime a dozen. There was a messiah and prophet on every corner. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus as described in the gospels ever existed.

a. there is no historical record of his existence.
false. there is no historical record that you accept. big difference.


b. the gospels were written two generations afer his supposed existence by people who had no first hand knowledge of him.
false. the gospels were written within a generation of christ since they were quoted within the two generation timeframe you propose.


c. the gospels were not even original stories...so what? whether or not the gospel accounts are accurate is not the issue here. i'm not arguing the accuracy of the theology... doesn't make sense why you keep trying to.


if there was some guy named jesus who coincidentally was walking around the area at that time, who cares? jesus was a common name at the time and "messiahs" were a dime a dozen.
so you accept that there was an actual guy named jesus that walked around claiming that he was the messiah. that's all i'm saying. looks like we agree. i'm just adding that the christian religion is centered around that guy.



fact remains, though... you haven't answered my question. here it is again...


show to me even one ancient source that suggests that jesus was just a story rather than a real person

-M

false. there is no historical record that you accept. big difference.

False, there is no historical record that secular scholars accept. There are four or five examples typically cited, all of them are dubious at best. All of them hearsay. None of them first hand accounts.




false. the gospels were written within a generation of christ since they were quoted within the two generation timeframe you propose.

The first gospel was written about 65 years after the death of Christ. To me, a generation is about 30 years. Sure, I guess some (likely)illiterate 95-100 year old contemporary of Jesus could have been writing, but that is pretty unlikely.


so what? whether or not the gospel accounts are accurate is not the issue here. i'm not arguing the accuracy of the theology... doesn't make sense why you keep trying to.

If the gospels arent accurate then SO WHAT if there was some unremarkable irrelevant peasant named Jesus walking around, which there undoubtably was? If we aren't talking about the Jesus that was depicted in the gospels, then why are we talking about it? Who cares?



so you accept that there was an actual guy named jesus that walked around claiming that he was the messiah. that's all i'm saying. looks like we agree. i'm just adding that the christian religion is centered around that guy.

No, I am saying there could have been. And there could have been a guy named Habib walking around doing the same thing. NEITHER of those guys are who we are talking about and NEITHER of them are who the Christian religion is centered around. The Christian religion is centered around a specific guy who did specific things and I am telling you there is no good reason to think that guy ever existed.




fact remains, though... you haven't answered my question. here it is again...

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.

We already know Jesus was just a story by the mere fact that the "story" had already been told dozens of times with dozens of other leading characters.

Whoever wrote the gospels were not writing about something they actually saw or someone they actually knew. They were plagiarizing another story that was older than dirt and inserting regionally relevant names and places.

Why is historical proof so important to you? Isn't religion mostly about faith anyway?

Why is historical proof so important to you? Isn't religion mostly about faith anyway?

If I were a religious person that would be fine.

Then answer my 1st question.

Then answer my 1st question.

Either we know things or we don't. I guess I don't really get your question.

You think an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely wise and good God would give a rat's ass about such a thing?

Yup. That's why it's in there.

You don't have to believe it, but I do. So what?

My question is why do you care if there is historical proof of Jesus or not?

Then answer my 1st question.

I don't want to speak for Caboose, but I think he stands on the position that faith in religious icons is about as irrational as faith in unicorns. To answer your question, religion does seem to be based on faith, which is defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Given the definition of faith, I often question why people so proudly brag about theirs. I'd be embarrassed to publicly proclaim my belief in the tooth fairy and I'd expect others of reason to doubt my beliefs.

My question is why do you care if there is historical proof of Jesus or not?

I don't think he cares; rather, he cites the lack of historical evidence as a reason for not accepting the existence of such a figure.

My question is why do you care if there is historical proof of Jesus or not?

The same reason I care if there is historical proof of anything else.

I don't want to speak for Caboose, but I think he stands on the position that faith in religious icons is about as irrational as faith in unicorns. To answer your question, religion does seem to be based on faith, which is defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Given the definition of faith, I often question why people so proudly brag about theirs. I'd be embarrassed to publicly proclaim my belief in the tooth fairy and I'd expect others of reason to doubt my beliefs.

Yes, this is accurate. I would also like to add that I am also quite puzzled by believers who seek out proof or evidence that support their faith. They state that their faith is the key to their salvation then they attempt to destroy that faith by proving their position. Every piece of evidence that you could gather erodes your faith in the premise. If you could conclusively prove that your premise were correct it would then be impossible to have faith in it.
If I were a faith based Christian I would be quite content knowing that there was no evidence to support my beliefs.

I don't want to speak for Caboose, but I think he stands on the position that faith in religious icons is about as irrational as faith in unicorns. To answer your question, religion does seem to be based on faith, which is defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Given the definition of faith, I often question why people so proudly brag about theirs. I'd be embarrassed to publicly proclaim my belief in the tooth fairy and I'd expect others of reason to doubt my beliefs.

As someone that has run the spectrum from not believing in a high power to someone that actual believes the Bible is fairly accurate........I see your take.

I would disagree that someone having faith that there is more to this world than what we see and attaching a belief system to it...is somehow embarrassing. I do think the Bible has principles and ideas in it that have helped people countless, countless times to live a better and happier life. I believe that record of "success" if you will is what makes the Bible a fairy significant step up from the tooth fairy.

I do think the Bible has principles and ideas in it that have helped people countless, countless times to live a better and happier life. I believe that record of "success" if you will is what makes the Bible a fairy significant step up from the tooth fairy.

Other religious texts have similar principles and ideas. Does this mean everything written in those texts are accurate? Additionally, for every nice thing you might find in the Bible, I can cite the bad: slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape, slaughter, unjust retaliation, etc.

A lot of people find meaning in the philosophical phrase, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", but one should not infer that the depictions of Star Trek are real simply because a teaching might be welcomed by society.

Don't get wrapped up in this 'debate'. Please watch this from start to finish and try to view things from a non-theists' perspective. Also, please check out the rest of this guy's video collection if you get the chance. (Can anyone embed this for me?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE&feature=channel_page

Interesting posts to read.

AFCM, on the YouTube page of the video's there is the Embed link.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/95VTh4FA_gE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/95VTh4FA_gE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Interesting posts to read.

AFCM, on the YouTube page of the video's there is the Embed link.


Thanks Thunder! How have you been lately?

there are four or five examples typically cited, all of them are dubious at best. all of them hearsay. none of them first hand accounts.


and again, i suppose you reject the majority of ancient history since it's not based on first-hand accounts, either.


the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.

exactly. you claim that the common first century person would have thought that jesus was just another mythic character instead of a real person. you've been tasked with backing that claim up by citing a historian living in that era... and you have failed to do so.

-M

and again, i suppose you reject the majority of ancient history since it's not based on first-hand accounts, either.



exactly. you claim that the common first century person would have thought that jesus was just another mythic character instead of a real person. you've been tasked with backing that claim up by citing a historian living in that era... and you have failed to do so.

-M

Can you cite a historian from the era in which Moby Dick was written that would back up a claim that Captain Ahab didn't exist? If not are you willing to concede that Captain Ahab was a real person and start speculating on what he looked like? Modern historians don't write about whether or not I believe there is a unicorn in my garage, but that says nothing about whether or not there actually is a unicorn in my garage, does it?

Why would a living historian write about a mythical character? Do modern historians write about Simba after they catch the Lion King musical? It's just a story! What a weird illogical task.

But hey, what kind of things would historians write about if they were going on in their town... Oh I don't know, things like the people and events depicted in the gospels? So where are the historical accounts of these people and events?

What is more likely, that these people existed and these events took place and NO ONE bothered to document it? Or it was just a story?


Again, let me ask you this for the umpteenth time. Do you understand that the events depicted in the gospels are not original? Do you understand that all of the supposed circumstances and events of the life Jesus were plagiarized from other god-man myths from other cultures in that region that were hundreds of years older?

Surely you dont think it likely that Culture A made up some god-man myth, Culture B adopted it with a few minor detail changes (names, locations), Culture C followed, then Culture D, etc, all the way down to like Culture M.... and when Culture M came along 2000 years later all of the events that took place in Culture A's story just magically and coincidentally ACTUALLY happened? Do you?

It was just a story. Without the magic and the miracles it doesn't matter if some illiterate peasant from Gallalee existed or not. So who cares what he looked like? Regardless he isn't the basis for the entire religion of Christianity, as you say, the Egyptian man-god Horus is since the earliest known version of the story is about him.

so it takes you six paragraphs to say that you can't answer a simple question?

sure... historians don't typically write about mythic characters... but they do write about the people that believe in mythic characters. if a bunch of people believed in this mythic character called jesus that nobody considered to be a real guy, somebody would have written about it. some bit of evidence would exist to support your claim. given your own standard of proof, you need to find that historian or concede your point. i'm waiting.

-M

so it takes you six paragraphs to say that you can't answer a simple question?

sure... historians don't typically write about mythic characters... but they do write about the people that believe in mythic characters. if a bunch of people believed in this mythic character called jesus that nobody considered to be a real guy, somebody would have written about it. some bit of evidence would exist to support your claim. given your own standard of proof, you need to find that historian or concede your point. i'm waiting.

-M

So you are now tasking me with finding the proof for YOUR side of the debate? I am not at all sure you understand how this works.

I asked YOU for historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, you attempted to provide some but it failed to hold up to casual scrutiny. If YOU can find evidence of the writings you are seeking then YOU find them. It is YOUR job to support YOUR claim, not mine.