Was Jesus for real?

[Straybow]

OK, Sava, I'll bite at the bait.

What makes Jesus' teachings any better than, say, Mohammed's? Why should we take anyone who lived in the benighted ignorance of ancient eras seriously?

[Spiffor]

Isn't every moral teacher a liar to some extent ?
Moral teachers can have their morality followed for long. Socrates was a moralist, Adam Smith was a moral teacher... True, Jesus being God, he has much more impact on those who follow him, but his message can be taught without the worshipping that underlies current chistianty.

[Sava]

Well, I believe Jesus said he was "a son of God". Not "The son of God". We're all the son's and daughters of God. And I don't think that Jesus, or anyone else, can claim ownership to morals. Murder is bad... don't do it. Stealing is bad... don't do it. Forgiveness, compassion, etc are good things. I don't think it's foolish or impossible to teach these things. I believe Religion should be taught to children. Every child should be taught about the Bible... and the Koran... and the Torah... and every other major religion.

I could be mistaken, but the historical Jesus never proclaimed himself to be "God". How could God give his only begotten son if he was really his son?

I may not believe in Christianity, but I was raised and taught about it.

As for your analogy to Caesar.... there are many, many, many other sources to substantiate the existence of Caesar.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Straybow
OK, Sava, I'll bite at the bait.

What makes Jesus' teachings any better than, say, Mohammed's? Why should we take anyone who lived in the benighted ignorance of ancient eras seriously?

You misinterpretted what I said. We should teach about everybody and every religion... children should be taught to believe in morality, not unsubstantiated writings that have been revised and re-written for thousands of years. And IMO, that's wrong. You should educate and then let people make up their own minds.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sava:

Christ did not claim to be a son of God, but the Son of God. Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if he merely claimed to be a son of God, as the Jews believed themselves to be?

John 8:52-59.

At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

As for your analogy to Caesar.... there are many, many, many other sources to substantiate the existence of Caesar.

Original sources? You'd be surprised at the dates of the manuscripts we have substantiating the history of Rome.

[Sava]

Since we are debating the accuracy of the bible and the fact that the bible was pieced together over hundreds of years, re-written, and possibly mistranslated... you shouldn't use it as a source.

Obiwan... focus on my point and not this diverson please.

We should teach about everybody and every religion... children should be taught to believe in morality, not unsubstantiated writings that have been revised and re-written for thousands of years. And IMO, that's wrong. You should educate and then let people make up their own minds.

Do you have anything to comment about this?

We can debated the history of Rome later.

[Spiffor]

That sure were nice times, when people stoned to death anyone they disagreed with.
I'm surprised Jesus had such a success in this environment.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
TEF pointed out a very important thing. It seems that Paul was the actual historical figure to make Christianity more than just a stream of Judaism, he was the one to make up the story of the ressurrection, and all the other supposed miracles. But yes, I believe that Jesus did exist, but so far, all we can make are educated guesses.

Azazel, "more" than just a stream of Judaism?

Does this mean that Jews "accept" the teachings of Jesus while regretting the sudden turn it took under Paul?

Also, I believe Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet.

[Az]

AT THE TIME, Christianity was probably another sect of Isayim, a stream of judaism. I don't think that the real Jesus claimed to be the son of god.

[Frogman]

from Sava
Since we are debating the accuracy of the bible and the fact that the bible was pieced together over hundreds of years, re-written, and possibly mistranslated... you shouldn't use it as a source.

I think you underestimate the historical accuracy of the new testament. Its was one of the most copied, widely distributed texts of its day and is more reliable than any secular document you want to compare it to. I don't take the Bible as infallible, but its pretty accurate.

by Azazel
TEF pointed out a very important thing. It seems that Paul was the actual historical figure to make Christianity more than just a stream of Judaism, he was the one to make up the story of the ressurrection, and all the other supposed miracles. But yes, I believe that Jesus did exist, but so far, all we can make are educated guesses.

What a load of misinformation. Paul was a persecuter of the Christians and after his conversion, he studied with the disciples for 3 years. He was a great mover of the faith to the gentiles, but he didn't "make up" the resurrection.

Jesus existed, thats more than an educated guess. There are numerous extra biblical texts though none as well authenticated as the gospels. There is the account the historian Josephus who wrote about of the Jewish uprising of 70AD with the well known though contorversial mention of Jesus but he also mentions the trial of his brother James and thats a lot harder to dispute. The first century historian Tacticus also mentions the trial of Christus. Pliney a Roman who died at Vesuvius in 79 AD also wrote concerning the Christians who "honor Christ as if to a God"

The fact is that there are numerous sources that define beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief in the diety of Christ was not an evolution over hundreds of years. By 55 AD, Pauls letters already affirmed the resurrection as an article of faith. The argument that mistranslations, and changes to the bible have distorted the message just doesn't square with the evidence. We can be much more certain that the Bible today is what the authors wrote than we can be about the writings of Plato and Socrates which are 500 years older.

If the Bible had been subject to as much doctoring as people claim, there would have been a lot more cleaning up of any difficult passages than we find. You can believe what you want about Jesus, but you can't say the Bible isn't an accurate testament of what the early Christians believed.

[Ben Kenobi]

not unsubstantiated writings that have been revised and re-written for thousands of years.

Sava:

And my previous response, before you even stated this:

"If one were to rate the Bible as a historical source, it would stand above all the others for this time period. By this reasoning, we should more readily believe in the Biblical accounts, then in any other history of these times."

1. they are not unsubstantiated accounts. They claimed eyewitnesses numbering among the 500's who have seen the risen Christ.

2. The have not been rewritten and revised. Scholars estimate that among any of the bibles we have, there is only about a 3% difference, and of those 3%, none are major teachings, or major variations.

3. Also, the dead sea scrolls have very few varients from our current bibles, where our latest bibles now take in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NIV is one of the bibles that have re-worked the few differences between their older version and the Dead Sea Scrolls, written before the time of Christ.

I don't think that the real Jesus claimed to be the son of god.

Azazel: Did you even read my earlier quote? Why does this not count?

[Sava]

obiwan, I'm sorry, but I can't believe the bible has remained accurate and intact for nearly 2 thousand years... Have you ever played the message game? You know... when somebody whispers a message into someone's ear, it goes around a circle of several people, and then the last person recites the message. Imagine this process for thousands of years. Add into this mix the change in language, culture, the rise and fall of empires, kingdoms, wars, etc. But yet... the bible is somehow immune to this process? And it's not like a large amount of people could read the bible. During the middle ages, only a small percentage of people could read and write. Are we to trust that aristocrats, corrupt religious leaders, and monarchs didn't change the bible throughout the years?

[Plan Austral]

Sava, there are biblical texts from the third century that are identical to modern bibles, and we have thausands of fragments from the second century, and even earlier quotes of the bible by church Fathers that prove that the bible nowadays is the same bible of 1900 years before.

The only important interpolation I can think of is a verse in the first epistle of John that was not present in the bibles from before the fourth century, but, the purity of the bible is accepted by everybody.

[Frogman]

aaackk.... Sava, still you persist with this baseless belief that the Bible has been changing over the years. There are too many translations, too many copies, in too many different languages to be able to make that claim.

I was just talking to my daughter and she says she learned in school that when they wrote the King James Bible, they left out entire chapters and books. How can people believe this? Do you know how many languages the Bible has been translated into? Nearly every language on earth. There is no way any one organization could control all the copies.

The parts of the Bible that are of questionable authenticity are noted, like the end of Mark. The attempts at additions or changes have been few and when they did occur they were easy to spot. We have discovered a good bit of Paul's letters written on papyrus dated roughly to 200 AD and portions of John's gospel even older than that.

Sava, you seem like an intellegent individual. You probably believe the writings of Homer, Plato, and Ptolemy to be authentic without question but doubt the Bible without really considering the evidence. Don't let your disbelief in what the Bible says let you continue with such a baseless belief about what the Bible is. It is the most widely spread document of ancient times without equal. It is the most solidly substantiated writing there is.

[PLATO]

Bravo Obiwan!