Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by nick jacoby, Feb 16, 2017.
Which historians are you referring to?
I dont know but i hope he existed
I think what we can all agree on is that around that time frame there was a man who led that group of people and at some point they were probably killed by the Romans.
Now whether any miracles occurred during all that is a completely different question with zero evidence to support it. All the current evidence supports is the idea that someone was a Jesus figure, but that's it. The rest cannot be verified.
People keep saying zero evidence or no evidence. There's a difference between zero evidence, and evidence one personally finds unconvincing.
Aren't you talking about Islam?
PhD in history here, this is the general consensus among most of us.
There are still plenty of outliers though, which is a good thing. It fosters important inquiries into truth and forces us to polish our deductive reasoning skills.
Zeus was literally supposed to live on the top of mount Olympus, but the ancient Greeks were too shit at rock climbing to go up there and say hello.
A couple of thousand years later some Swiss climbers went up there, and he was nowhere to be seen. Myth busted.
It's more or less consensus among historians that there was a historical Jesus.
Yes he existed but the original story is twisted beyond anything recognizable as original, no doubt. Ashtar Command claims the return is imminent.
Stfu, jeseus wasn't even Witten about until 50 years after his "death." Which is convienently about the timespan in which no living witnesses would be there to call the writers on thier bullshit.
He may have existed, but there's no compelling evidence that he did.
And I am pretty sure those scientist can see those more subtle, more powerful and different dimensions
No one in the entire first century in Judea was written about until after their death. Does this make you doubt the existence of every single one of them? Why single out only Jesus?
It keeps being mentioned, so I keep reposting the point I made earlier regarding this criticism.
There were probably more than a few men preaching at that time. The Jesus thing lasted, and most likely is a mix and mash of a lot of different things from around that time.
Joseph Campbell informed of there being like 6 original stories. Look at Hercules or Jesus (note similarities, son god etc). Look at Superman and DBZs Goku. Its the same shit told over and over again.
Yes, there was a Jesus. Much of the bible was allegory. People are retarded and cannot pull the message from the stories.
Look, a couple of unverifiable words written down several thousand years ago doesn't constitute evidence anymore than all the photos and personal anecdotes of Bigfoot, fairies, aliens, and every other crazy thing people think they see constitutes actual evidence. The documents suggest that a man in his role probably existed, but anything further really requires an illogical leap of faith. If you want to have faith, then go ahead, but don't pretend like there's scientifically valid evidence of miracles.
I agree, and I do like the discussion. I would love to be wrong. I just don't think the facts support anything metaphysical about our history.
I agree. My personal opinion is the Bible is just a collection of myths regarding him that the people who controlled the book decided to keep. It gives authenticity to pretend he did things that aren't possible. The Christian belief system is completely dependent on accepting that wild story.
Jesus probably existed. He was the original street magician. Like David Blaine.
Pretty much. The ones who win write the history books. People could pretty much add and delete what they wanted, like a really prolonged Wikipedia page editing. What most people don't realize is that the story is filled with symbolism, not fact.
Thomas guide said there supposed to be a road here but there's not. Don't trust everything you read.
I didn't say there was "scientifically valid" evidence. Since thats nearly impossible for almost anything given the time period we're dealing with. And theres far more than a "couple words". Don't be silly.
I don't have faith in it. It doesn't persuade me, but it's not a question of whether or not the evidence exists. It does. Saying it doesn't is demonstrably false.
The case for historical Jesus is very strong. The religion created after he died is completely bogus though.