If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Evidence of Jesus' existence found   (dsc.discovery.com) divider line 567
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

142 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2002 at 2:50 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



567 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-21 05:35:11 PM
Don't you hate when people dont' read ANY OTHER posts, then they post the same comment. So you have like 280 posts, and about 4 points.
 
2002-10-21 05:39:59 PM
Eli

How about Mithraism (which New Testament christianity was almost wholly lifted from)?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html

NorthVentricle

Despite the plethora of historical data, not a single written word has been found that is attributed to Jesus himself. He didn't do his own writing. He had others do it for him. So although I fully respect your faith and personal peace, I must diverge to the road of the sceptic. A peaceful difference of opinion.

Why do you find this significant? Have you read Socrates?

Superoogie

We're talking about historical evidence for Jesus of Nazarath, not a poorly translated book of myths. I can see how you'd be easily confused.

It is an honor to bask in your intellectual superiority.
 
2002-10-21 05:41:43 PM
Unknown_Poltroon said

"Lalalala: THats wht i find amusing when talking about the Miracle that someone survived" Some farking miracle, 3000+ poor dead farks, women and children, and its a farking miracle that some survived? What miracle? Why thank god? hes the one who killed them 3000 dead people. Either there isnt a god, he dosent give a shiat, or hes a real bastard. Thats why i think cithulu is the one true god, cause hes the only one who fits all three of those criteria."

I'm sorry but I was actually being sarcastic. That's a point that irritates me because if there is a God (I believe there is so), why should he save our asses everytime we do something stupid? We, as a species, do stupid things everyday! If you were God, wouldn't you get tired of it and say, "Screw you all, you can sort it out." I don't think there are any places in the Bible that says God would come down every couple of days and clean up our mistakes. Yes, our mistakes. He didn't "kill 3000 dead people". People kill people. People make their decisions. Being brainwashed by religion is on the same par as Judas Priest telling you to kill yourself. Guess what, knucklehead, we are all responsible for own actions. I'm not calling you a knucklehead, just the people who try to say "God/Satan/videogames told me to kill!". Whatever.

Big Al:

Judaism has taken no official stance on whether Jesus existed or not so I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2002-10-21 05:44:12 PM
Really, Who Gives A Flying FARK!!!

Religion will kill us all, it's too late...

Emperor George and his christian advisor Ashcroft will end the world domination by humans...
 
2002-10-21 05:45:32 PM
Funny Farking stuff guys... ahh good times good times..

like the time that Jesus and his bro James adopted an elephant named Stamppy. hmmm... or was that Bart and Lisa? oh well, i'm sure Jesus and james adopted something and hilarity ensued. Hot damn that Jesus is funny... i love his spiky hard and skateboard!
 
2002-10-21 05:47:44 PM
Guy Innagorillasuit:

I'm still 50/50 on that. Yeah if you call bs on the content of teachings and miracles, I'll be a healthy sceptic right alongside. Like it or not however, it's a widely held belief among many millions, on a level of faith, which is something that I for one don't understand. I'm not going to contradict something that another has faith in, unless of course contrary proof is provided. I would also not go so far as to doubt your faith in the opposite...unless contrary proof is provided.
 
2002-10-21 05:49:05 PM
Orifice:
"Since there exists other contemporary evidence that corroborates him, he is believable on this point."

There is no other contemporary historical evidence that corroborates him. None, nada, zip, zilch.

I am not familiar with the mentions of Jesus by Tacitus, in any case he is NOT contemporary, since he was born about 20 or more years AFTER Christ allegedly was put to death, and based his history on what he gathered from oral accounts many years later. The gospels were already being composed by the time Tacitus began his works, and early Christianity was already a notable cult.
 
2002-10-21 05:49:29 PM
All the answers to god and life are in this picture:
 
2002-10-21 05:50:50 PM
Bevets: I've read Plato. You're not going to catch me up in that one.
 
2002-10-21 05:53:09 PM
the under education of this population cracks me up.

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God did come to earth and die for ya'll.

anyways, back to work. too much flame here.
 
2002-10-21 05:53:55 PM
First off,

Would you really put the name of your brother on your tombstone if he had been convicted by both the rabbitic and secular courts of the day?

Second,

[i]There is more documented proof that JC existed than Plato or Socrates did, and no one doubts them.[/i]

Umm I thought Socrates didn't exist. Wasn't the idea of him a teaching tool used by Plato?
 
2002-10-21 05:55:39 PM
My personal thoughts are that Jesus was actually a Jedi. I mean, born to a virgin? Just Like Anakin! Wether or not mumsie Vader was a virgin is not important, but she said there was no father right? Parting the red sea? Hey, using the force can have intresting effects. Turning water into wine? ::waves hand:: This glass is now whine. Jedi Mind Trick!
 
2002-10-21 06:00:44 PM
NathanAllen

Socrates was indeed as historical a figure as Jesus, and like him, did no writing of his own. That comment was a subtle attempt to test a sceptic.

"A census taker tried to test me once..."
 
2002-10-21 06:02:41 PM
Evidence of Jesus' existence can be found in my life almost every day. For instance, the incredible flood of guilt I feel when I have an orgasm in another man's mouth. Also the sting of shame that comes with the taste of semen in my own mouth. Jesus is everywhere! Take my anus, for instance, please!
 
2002-10-21 06:04:08 PM
Yawn. Of course Jesus existed. Josephus wouldn't lie to me, would he?
 
2002-10-21 06:04:57 PM
Korzeniowski:

Contemporary with Josephus, not Jesus. I meant that a lot of guys, Christian and otherwise, around 100 CE were talking about this guy Jesus who was killed. This is good enough evidence to me that Jesus was a real person.
 
2002-10-21 06:06:47 PM
Jesus mows my lawn.

And his brother, Javier, I think, does the line trimming.
 
2002-10-21 06:11:00 PM
Bevets:
It is an honor to bask in your intellectual superiority.

It must have stunned you stupid(er), as you have yet to post any historical evidence besides the aforementioned, poorly translated book of myths.

On a related note, have you both obeyed and disobeyed your parents today, as the myths demand?
 
2002-10-21 06:11:52 PM
Evank-

You are correct, the term "immaculate conception" refers to Mary's birth, not Christ's. It's the Catholic belief that in order for the Son of God to be born, he could only be carried in the most pure of flesh... thus, Mary escaped the stain of original sin. Where Jesus is seen at the New Covenant, Mary is seen as the Ark of that New Covenant. You can find some interesting reading about this if you compare Luke 1 with 2nd Samuel 6; the description of Mary in Luke and the description of the Ark in 2 Samuel share uncanny parallels with one another, and you get the sense that Luke wrote his description with this specific intent in mind.
Parallels can also be drawn by what the "contents" of each represented Ark were. In the old Ark, there laid Aaron's staff, the 10 commanment tablets, and manna. Contrast this to what was beheld in Mary, Jesus: Aaron's Staff represents the high priest of old, and Jesus is the new High Priest. 10 commandments were the Word of God, and Jesus is the Living Word of God ("Word became flesh"). Manna was bread that came from heaven, and Jesus is the new bread from heaven ("I am the bread of life").


And as far as the arguments about Jesus having siblings or not goes, sheesh, earn some Hebrew language, guys. There was no word in the Hebrew culture to describe a near relative. Words like cousin, nephew, and niece did not exist, therefore defaulting a description of such a relative to brother or sister, depending on the gender of the person described. Many examples of this can be found at this link. This guy goes through some incredible detail to show that the brother/sister link is not used to describe siblings. I suggest those who have been saying otherwise go and read it, it's quite interesting.

http://www.idir.net/~sgraessle/locala1/brother.htm
 
2002-10-21 06:14:20 PM
Although in Hebrew and Aramaic they may have used the same word for brothers and cousins; the Septuagint uses the word adelphoi in Mark 13.55 meaning sons of the same mother and then uses it again in John 2.12.
 
2002-10-21 06:17:34 PM
Big Al: Jesus didn't exist in the Old Testament BECAUSE HE WASN'T BORN YET.

Jesus you're stupid.
 
2002-10-21 06:20:43 PM
Contemporary with Josephus, not Jesus

Ah, I apologise for the misunderstanding. I agree that Jesus existed, there is little doubt of that (unless one accepts the crazy Jesus-magic-mushroom theory propounded by one of the original Qumran scholars..). I was merely taking issue with the Josephus text issue.
 
2002-10-21 06:23:23 PM
Sorry that is adelphoi in Matthew 13.55 not Mark. My bad.
 
2002-10-21 06:23:23 PM
Korzeniowski-

"I am not familiar with the mentions of Jesus by Tacitus, in any case he is NOT contemporary, since he was born about 20 or more years AFTER Christ allegedly was put to death, and based his history on what he gathered from oral accounts many years later."

You're forgetting some key information here. Tacitus wasn't just some bloke writing on tablets in his spare time. He was a historian. Not only a historian, but a Roman historian. Not only a Roman historian, but one of the greatest historians of that time period. Not only one of the greatest historians of that time period, but a hater of Christianity. Remember, he worked for the royalty of the Roman Empire... the accuracy of his work was his life. Do you not find it strange that someone who despised Christianity would recognize its fabricated Savior as a real person who was executed under Pontius Pilate? If there was any doubt that this Christ man actually existed, you can be damn sure that Tacitus, a respected Roman historian, would have pounced on the opportunity to prove Christ's existence a fib.

Yet, here we have the most respectable and most accurate historian for the Roman Empire agreeing that Christ was indeed a real person. Hmmmm.
 
2002-10-21 06:23:25 PM
Kpar90 :

but they didnt throw in any of those stupid stories because they didnt believe in them. The jews think jesus is a fake. And please, dont call someone "stupid" just because they dont know every part of the bible. Youre the "stupid" one for buying into this religion crap to begin with
 
2002-10-21 06:30:11 PM
You will all figure out whether Jesus is God's son or not, and that may be a sad day for many of you.
 
2002-10-21 06:31:18 PM
I studied ancient Greek in college and I translated big chunks of Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, and New Testament. I don't know Hebrew.

The words used in Matthew, which was originally written in Greek, are "adelphoi" and "adelphai", which are the plural forms of "brother" and "sister" respectively. "anepsios" is "first cousin".

In this case, it is obvious that Matthew meant "brother" as in "this is another male son of my flesh-and-blood mommy and daddy". Unless, of course, you want to torture this obvious meaning into a metaphor. Like I said, I don't know Hebrew, so I defer to the learned in that language, but I do know Greek, and the meaning in Matthew is clear.
 
2002-10-21 06:31:41 PM
So you just mocked or discredited something which you haven't studied?

Hmmm, and yet you call him "stupid."
 
2002-10-21 06:33:44 PM
I wonder which crackpot Chistians stayed up late making it? Shroud of Turin anyone? I've got genuine pieces of Noah's Ark, too. Even if this "Jesus" character existed, that still is no excuse to get ones panties in a knot and make some crazebo logical leap to the validity of Christianity. I'm sure ancient history had it's con artists too. We just don't worship Nostradamus, Uri Geller, or L. Ron Hubbard.

But xtians are stupid and gullible, and anything could be the sign they want. Just pay your taxes you frauds!
 
2002-10-21 06:35:27 PM
I think we should end this debate with an epic battle of the worlds relegious people versus the atheists [a lord of the rings war where the humans (relegious) battle the orcs(atheists/non-relegious)]. Since there's so few of you, you'd get creamed and then we wouldn't debate this on fark anymore. Looking at research for world relegion for 2000, approxiamately 14.9% of the worlds population considers themselves non-relegious or atheist (only 2.2% are atheist). Not everyone that isn't relegious is ignorant though. I have no qualms with anyone talking about why they live the way the do, but rather, i have a great problem with those people who criticize and mock the way other people live (relegious or not).
 
2002-10-21 06:35:44 PM
*10-21-02 06:23:25 PM Big Al
Kpar90 :

but they didnt throw in any of those stupid stories because they didnt believe in them. The jews think jesus is a fake. And please, dont call someone "stupid" just because they dont know every part of the bible. Youre the "stupid" one for buying into this religion crap to begin with*


Big Al - If you make a statement about a subject, and are plainly ignorant, that does make you stupid in that respect. If you have an opinion, justify it, don't call names. It does nothing for your credibility to whine.
 
2002-10-21 06:39:56 PM
Al: dont call someone "stupid" just because they dont know every part of the bible.

Geez, how much of the bible do you have to know to be familiar with the concept of the Messiah? "Not knowing every part of the bible" must be the same thing as "not knowing a goddamned thing about the bible", huh?

Just FYI, you aren't being called stupid because you don't know the bible; you're being called stupid because you are spouting off clueless opinions about something you don't know anything about. That, and your assumption that anyone more informed about religion than you must be "buying into" that religion.
 
2002-10-21 06:41:08 PM
JQPublic - *But xtians are stupid and gullible, and anything could be the sign they want.*

Blanket statements about intelligence notwithstanding, I fail to see your point. You sound in this regard like the poor fools who insist landing on the moon was a fake. ANYTHING can be doubted if you lend enough credability to being overly skeptical. If the experts in the field testafy that the artifact appears to be an original, I am inclined to believe them, until other evidence to the contrary comes up.
 
2002-10-21 06:42:05 PM


Sounds like God came on her more than once, since she had more than one kid. Maybe Jack Chick needs to update his information.
 
2002-10-21 06:45:33 PM
JQP: We just don't worship Nostradamus, Uri Geller, or L. Ron Hubbard.

Well, maybe you've never run into these people... :^)

Greek: Why do the rational thinkers have to be the orcs? And besides, aren't the violence-inclined religious people already too busy killing each other?
 
2002-10-21 06:46:27 PM
Wasntme:

Sad day for which side of the argument? Please do tell. The way I see it as an atheist, if Jesus is the son of a deity, then at least I'll get to spend eternity away from jackasses like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan.
 
2002-10-21 06:47:57 PM
LogicsFist:

i did justify it, to which he had no response except to insult me. The jews only took the books created before Jesus was born, and he said "well the NT was writen after his birth" which doesnt matter. If this event occured in the jews' mind, they would have writen about it, and it would have been in the Old Testiment.
 
2002-10-21 06:48:50 PM
Next they'll want us to believe in "George Washington"!
 
2002-10-21 06:50:10 PM
Jesus' existence has been proven. He was an ACTUAL historical person. But, how he came to be and what he did are what's in controversy.
 
2002-10-21 06:50:14 PM
You will all figure out whether Jesus is God's son or not, and that may be a sad day for many of you.

Because Jesus, the man that said to love your enemy more than you love yourself, is going to throw all the non-believers into a lake of fire, forever!


I don't know if their is a God, but I do know if Jesus is God, he sure as hell isn't going to send anyone to hell for the victimless belief that he wasn't the son of God. If he is God, why isn't his story any more convincing than any other mythical story? Tell me one good reason that I should have faith in this story, and not another.
 
2002-10-21 06:52:01 PM
Wow! A find like this would make Indiana Jones fill his shorts! Neat-o, keen-o!
 
2002-10-21 06:52:23 PM
their - there
 
2002-10-21 06:57:06 PM
Hazed,
thanks for the confirm.
 
2002-10-21 07:07:02 PM
DhaliClone:


i love it how people cant wait to post "its proven he existed" but none can come up with links to "prove" it
 
2002-10-21 07:08:15 PM
What is faith? Faith is the belief in something regardless whether it has been proven or not.

Today, in the Western world, two worldviews are fighting for control of the thoughts and minds of an entire society.

One is the secular, naturalistic worldview - using cause and effect, rationalism, and empherical methods to justify its reasoning.

The other is the theistic, supernatural worldview - using Godly decree, trust, faith, and miracles to justify its reasoning.

Now from our lofty viewpoint over all of humanity here, we can see two diverging paths. What has yet to be proven however, is which one is right. Both sides have scored exactly the same number of points so far. Secularism enjoys the hometeam advantage, but historically, theism has won in the past.

Now I ask you: which one is right by empherical proof? Neither.

The same brutal logic dictated by the secularists defeats its own purpose when applied to its own ideas of creation. There is no empherical proof for the metaphysical creation exposed by the neo-Darwin systhesis in the modern day theory of naturalistic creation with genetics. (For a more indepth response to this claim I have made, consult the excellent book "Darwin on Trial" I would post the more relevant parts here, but I do not wish to type for the rest of the evening.)

Likewise, the faith claims given by religion are tattered and torn. Many people have twisted religion down skewed paths that its creators would never have imagined and would never have allowed. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Daoism, Hinduism...all have been used to justify violence to the fellow man, all have been the root cause of many of the inequities found in society today.

So...which way is right? Since neither side can prove its point from a scientific point of view, the people involved must be believing on faith.

One last point. I hate the "intellectual superiority" complex that the rational darwinists often use. Their own ego comes on the line in a rational discourse, so they refuse to consider evidence to the contrary. (This is a blanket statement, however I have seen the tactic often enough to safely employ this statement. However, I do not wish to imply that everyone believing in a naturalistic point of origin is like this...only many)

I likewise hate the religious fundamentalists who refuse to even consider the words coming out of the mouths of some people. They often quote scripture to justify their point, while forgetting that to a layman, the scripture means nothing - and whatever wisdom lies within becomes nonsense. They tie their entire worldview around their religion and lose their sense of place in the society around them. As they do that, they lose credibility because they cannot readily relate to the questions asked of them.

That is the end of my little speech. For those who are interested, I am a practicing Christian. I believe through faith, that Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth to build a bridge back to the creator of the universe. Again, I believe this by faith, my own experiences, and my own ideals and thoughts. I cannot logically justify my belief, but many people cannot either - regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
 
2002-10-21 07:08:22 PM
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

And the first few hundred years of transcription of the texts weren't very good. One scribe would read from the text to be transcriped and a group of scribes would write as he spoke. It could possibly lead to errors, but it did allow for alot of texts to be written. This was before they were cannonized, so messing up wouldn't have been as big a deal.

And once someone owned a copy of the text, they owned that copy. No copywrite laws, obviously. It's not strange to look through very old texts and see the man who purchased the text written in at the crucifixation as an observer. In paintings involving religious figures, the people who payed from the work to be done would be painted into the painting, it's not unusual at all.

Eisenman is an awesome scholar, his book "James, the brother of Jesus" is very insightful, even if it is a long read.
 
2002-10-21 07:13:48 PM
Big Al
i did justify it, to which he had no response except to insult me. The jews only took the books created before Jesus was born, and he said "well the NT was writen after his birth" which doesnt matter. If this event occured in the jews' mind, they would have writen about it, and it would have been in the Old Testiment.

The Jews did write the New Testament, as the Apostles etc who wrote them were Jewish. And the Jews certainly don't deny that Jesus existed either.

But Jesus did claim to be the Messiah ( saviour ) of the Jews as well as the rest of the world. The Jews that don't agree with Jesus claim are therefore ( as far as I understand it ) still waiting for the Messiah and thus don't use the New Testament as they don't agree with it's premise as opposed to the Jews that did agree with Jesus claims.
 
2002-10-21 07:16:50 PM
And here we thought this wouldn't turn out to be a flamewar.

Hooray for Bevets.

(/sarcasm)
 
2002-10-21 07:20:58 PM
Jesus is OK by me, but his farking fan club includes a lot of whack-os. Them I can do without. Where the heck are the lions now that we really need them?
 
2002-10-21 07:29:53 PM
has anyone ever read 'another roadside attraction'? it is one crazy, fantastic book.
 
Displayed 50 of 567 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report