Jesus had a wife

[D1B]

CID,

Still curious, what's your basis for a historical Jesus?

There are a number of things that point to a man having existed roughly 2000 years ago in what is now Israel who developed a significant messianic following- there is nothing concrete, but his proximity and relation to several documented characters- such as Pontius Pilate- suggests to
me that there WAS a man. There were just too many diverse people who were willing to give an account of him. Many of those were certainly charlatans- but there was something "profitable" about this Jesus- and that would have been much easier to pull off if he actually was a real dude.

I am also open to the possibility that "Jesus" might have been more than one person- there were many prophets and "messiahs" in those days. John the Baptist was considered by some to be one of them- that things that may have been said by someone else was attributed to Jesus by a follower. Sort of the George Washington slept here effect.

But all that said, I think it is more likely than not that the man did exist, that he was one of a herd of prophets and "holy" men of that time- and that his own charisma combined with happenstance elevated him and his memory to the religion we saw emerging in Rome just a few hundred years later.

I like to think he did in fact say some of the things attributed to him- but if he didn't... so what? SOMEBODY (probably Paul) wrote the 1st epistle to the church in Corinth Greece- and that somebody attributed a message of love to a Jesus. Personally, I don't think this man was the son of any god because I dont have the belief that there is a god (at least nit the kind that turns his progeny into a human and teleports the poor bastard into the womb of a smelly Jordanian capenters wife). But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist. Do as Clitzang suggests and throw out the whole son of god thing and all the miracles- Jesus might be nothing more than an idea. But regardless of my lack of faith I have always regarded this idea to be a noble one.

I would agree with you that whatever or whoever Jesus was- there is no way that the dogma we see today- or even the bible itself- can be a fully accurate depiction of the man- it has been filtered and modified for 2000 years

Only 4 poorly written third, fourth or worse hand gospels describe Jesus. Their authorship is unknown and undated and the accounts are grossly exaggerated and unoriginal. Every aspect of his supposed life was lifted from a preexisting pagan god or myth-virgin birth, miracles, resurrection. So your point about him being novel is unfounded.

You, like the billions of idiot Christians give way too much credit to Jesus and fail to acknowledge how this poorly conceived ruse was the perfect tool for charlatans and tyrants. Salvation ONLY through him? There you go-2000 years of brutality including 1000 years of the dark ages that stunted man beyond belief.

SMFH at JSO1990

[D1B]

212-693-6933

Tonight on Fantasy Island ....

Joe, with his tail between his legs, tries to mend relationships on other threads. Lulled in to a false sense of accomplishment, he comes back to the origin of his demise and makes yet another futile and pathetic attempt to save face. LMAO!

212-693-6933

[JoltinJoe]

There are a number of things that point to a man having existed roughly 2000 years ago in what is now Israel who developed a significant messianic following- there is nothing concrete, but his proximity and relation to several documented characters- such as Pontius Pilate- suggests to
me that there WAS a man. There were just too many diverse people who were willing to give an account of him. Many of those were certainly charlatans- but there was something "profitable" about this Jesus- and that would have been much easier to pull off if he actually was a real dude.

I am also open to the possibility that "Jesus" might have been more than one person- there were many prophets and "messiahs" in those days. John the Baptist was considered by some to be one of them- that things that may have been said by someone else was attributed to Jesus by a follower. Sort of the George Washington slept here effect.

But all that said, I think it is more likely than not that the man did exist, that he was one of a herd of prophets and "holy" men of that time- and that his own charisma combined with happenstance elevated him and his memory to the religion we saw emerging in Rome just a few hundred years later.

I like to think he did in fact say some of the things attributed to him- but if he didn't... so what? SOMEBODY (probably Paul) wrote the 1st epistle to the church in Corinth Greece- and that somebody attributed a message of love to a Jesus. Personally, I don't think this man was the son of any god because I dont have the belief that there is a god (at least nit the kind that turns his progeny into a human and teleports the poor bastard into the womb of a smelly Jordanian capenters wife). But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist. Do as Clitzang suggests and throw out the whole son of god thing and all the miracles- Jesus might be nothing more than an idea. But regardless of my lack of faith I have always regarded this idea to be a noble one.

I would agree with you that whatever or whoever Jesus was- there is no way that the dogma we see today- or even the bible itself- can be a fully accurate depiction of the man- it has been filtered and modified for 2000 years

Only 4 poorly written third, fourth or worse hand gospels describe Jesus. Their authorship is unknown and undated and the accounts are grossly exaggerated and unoriginal. Every aspect of his supposed life was lifted from a preexisting pagan god or myth-virgin birth, miracles, resurrection. So your point about him being novel is unfounded.

You, like the billions of idiot Christians give way too much credit to Jesus and fail to acknowledge how this poorly conceived ruse was the perfect tool for charlatans and tyrants. Salvation ONLY through him? There you go-2000 years of brutality including 1000 years of the dark ages that stunted man beyond belief.

SMFH at JSO1990

More frivolity from the King of Dumb.

Given the chance to exit from your disgrace quietly, you decided to double down on your lunacy.

You seek out abuse like you're addicted to it.

[D1B]

Joe, the precocious, spoiled child repeatedly told by his parents he's the smartest kid in school, gets embarrassed publicly at the science fair by one of the cool kids. Rather than admit that real volcanoes are not actually caused by the reaction of vinegar and baking soda, he breaks into said cool (and smarter) kids' locker and vandalizes by hanging crucifixes and photocopies of his report card, name redacted.

[CID1990]

There are a number of things that point to a man having existed roughly 2000 years ago in what is now Israel who developed a significant messianic following- there is nothing concrete, but his proximity and relation to several documented characters- such as Pontius Pilate- suggests to
me that there WAS a man. There were just too many diverse people who were willing to give an account of him. Many of those were certainly charlatans- but there was something "profitable" about this Jesus- and that would have been much easier to pull off if he actually was a real dude.

I am also open to the possibility that "Jesus" might have been more than one person- there were many prophets and "messiahs" in those days. John the Baptist was considered by some to be one of them- that things that may have been said by someone else was attributed to Jesus by a follower. Sort of the George Washington slept here effect.

But all that said, I think it is more likely than not that the man did exist, that he was one of a herd of prophets and "holy" men of that time- and that his own charisma combined with happenstance elevated him and his memory to the religion we saw emerging in Rome just a few hundred years later.

I like to think he did in fact say some of the things attributed to him- but if he didn't... so what? SOMEBODY (probably Paul) wrote the 1st epistle to the church in Corinth Greece- and that somebody attributed a message of love to a Jesus. Personally, I don't think this man was the son of any god because I dont have the belief that there is a god (at least nit the kind that turns his progeny into a human and teleports the poor bastard into the womb of a smelly Jordanian capenters wife). But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist. Do as Clitzang suggests and throw out the whole son of god thing and all the miracles- Jesus might be nothing more than an idea. But regardless of my lack of faith I have always regarded this idea to be a noble one.

I would agree with you that whatever or whoever Jesus was- there is no way that the dogma we see today- or even the bible itself- can be a fully accurate depiction of the man- it has been filtered and modified for 2000 years

Only 4 poorly written third, fourth or worse hand gospels describe Jesus. Their authorship is unknown and undated and the accounts are grossly exaggerated and unoriginal. Every aspect of his supposed life was lifted from a preexisting pagan god or myth-virgin birth, miracles, resurrection. So your point about him being novel is unfounded.

You, like the billions of idiot Christians give way too much credit to Jesus and fail to acknowledge how this poorly conceived ruse was the perfect tool for charlatans and tyrants. Salvation ONLY through him? There you go-2000 years of brutality including 1000 years of the dark ages that stunted man beyond belief.

SMFH at JSO1990

I dont think you read what I wrote. I never said the image or idea of the man wasnt corrupted. Just because it was corrupted is not evidence that he didnt exist.

[D1B]

[D1B]

Only 4 poorly written third, fourth or worse hand gospels describe Jesus. Their authorship is unknown and undated and the accounts are grossly exaggerated and unoriginal. Every aspect of his supposed life was lifted from a preexisting pagan god or myth-virgin birth, miracles, resurrection. So your point about him being novel is unfounded.

You, like the billions of idiot Christians give way too much credit to Jesus and fail to acknowledge how this poorly conceived ruse was the perfect tool for charlatans and tyrants. Salvation ONLY through him? There you go-2000 years of brutality including 1000 years of the dark ages that stunted man beyond belief.

SMFH at JSO1990

I dont think you read what I wrote. I never said the image or idea of the man wasnt corrupted. Just because it was corrupted is not evidence that he didnt exist.

But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist.

This is what I was referring to. Christianity/catholocism was a scourge till atheists made it behave.

You fell for the BS, albeit mildly.

[D1B]

Joe, the precocious, spoiled child repeatedly told by his parents he's the smartest kid in school, gets embarrassed publicly at the science fair by one of the cool kids. Rather than admit that real volcanoes are not actually caused by the reaction of vinegar and baking soda, he breaks into said cool (and smarter) kids' locker and vandalizes by hanging crucifixes and photocopies of his report card, name redacted.

"Jesus saved 2 people from deadly vinegar flows from Space Mountain volcano eruption. It's in the bible."

[kalm]

I dont think you read what I wrote. I never said the image or idea of the man wasnt corrupted. Just because it was corrupted is not evidence that he didnt exist.

But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist.

This is what I was referring to. Christianity/catholocism was a scourge till atheists made it behave.

You fell for the BS, albeit mildly.

That's a far more likely story and probably the one most historians subscribe too.

[CID1990]

But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist.

This is what I was referring to. Christianity/catholocism was a scourge till atheists made it behave.

You fell for the BS, albeit mildly.

That's a far more likely story and probably the one most historians subscribe too.

Kalm- D1B was quoting what I wrote, look back at my post.

And D- I see no logical connection between what I was saying and how "Christianity was a scourge till atheists made it behave." Two separate, unrelated issues.

[Ibanez]

End of thread fact check.

(1) 99.99% of historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed; claims that he never existed are frivolous.
(2) The use of "cult" as a pejorative is inappropriate to characterize a world-wide belief system with over 1.2 billion adherents.
(3) Most atheists do not engage in abstract or intuitive reasoning and consequently they are left behind when the discussion becomes challenging. At this point, they resort to mocking belief systems by calling them "fairy tales" or "toys."

Checkmate.

/thread

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

[D1B]

That's a far more likely story and probably the one most historians subscribe too.

Kalm- D1B was quoting what I wrote, look back at my post.

And D- I see no logical connection between what I was saying and how "Christianity was a scourge till atheists made it behave." Two separate, unrelated issues.

You're being too kind to it.

[D1B]

But I think the IDEA- the idea behind what was attributed to Jesus was, at the time, revolutionary. It actually signified a desire to BREAK with the traditional functions of religions as they were known at the time. I think that "Jesus"- whatever he or they were- was the first character of the Enlightenment- the first real humanist.

This is what I was referring to. Christianity/catholocism was a scourge till atheists made it behave.

You fell for the BS, albeit mildly.

That's a far more likely story and probably the one most historians subscribe too.

Still don't mean he ain't mythical, like Apollo or other, better, gods.

[Ibanez]

That's a far more likely story and probably the one most historians subscribe too.

Still don't mean he ain't mythical, like Apollo or other, better, gods.

You better not let Odin hear you talk like that.

[clenz]

End of thread fact check.

(1) 99.99% of historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed; claims that he never existed are frivolous.
(2) The use of "cult" as a pejorative is inappropriate to characterize a world-wide belief system with over 1.2 billion adherents.
(3) Most atheists do not engage in abstract or intuitive reasoning and consequently they are left behind when the discussion becomes challenging. At this point, they resort to mocking belief systems by calling them "fairy tales" or "toys."

Checkmate.

/thread

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

I'll see if I can find the link but someone did some real digging into the story of Easter and found that Jesus likely died April 3, 33 AD

[clenz]

Turns out it was some Catholic guy...so take it FWIW

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-ak ... r-revealed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Discovery covered the topic as well...

http://news.discovery.com/history/relig ... 120524.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Turns out it was some Catholic guy...so take it FWIW

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-ak ... r-revealed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Discovery covered the topic as well...

http://news.discovery.com/history/relig ... 120524.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of the credible historians Joe speaks of are catholic or christian.

[JoltinJoe]

End of thread fact check.

(1) 99.99% of historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed; claims that he never existed are frivolous.
(2) The use of "cult" as a pejorative is inappropriate to characterize a world-wide belief system with over 1.2 billion adherents.
(3) Most atheists do not engage in abstract or intuitive reasoning and consequently they are left behind when the discussion becomes challenging. At this point, they resort to mocking belief systems by calling them "fairy tales" or "toys."

Checkmate.

/thread

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

The first point is all I asserted in this thread. Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and historians nearly universally agree that there are three aspects of his story which are no doubt historically accurate: (i) Jesus of Nazareth lived in the First Century in the Roman province of Judaea; (ii) that he gained a reputation as a preacher, healer and miracle worker in the Jewish tradition; and (iii) that he was crucified at the direction of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect for Judaea, under the charge that he was an insurrectionist.

The "divinity" aspect of Jesus' story is not a historical fact; it is a theological assertion.

[Ibanez]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

The first point is all I asserted in this thread. Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and historians nearly universally agree that there are three aspects of his story which are no doubt historically accurate: (i) Jesus of Nazareth lived in the First Century in the Roman province of Judaea; (ii) that he gained a reputation as a preacher, healer and miracle worker in the Jewish tradition; and (iii) that he was crucified at the direction of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect for Judaea, under the charge that he was an insurrectionist.

The "divinity" aspect of Jesus' story is not a historical fact; it is a theological assertion.

It's my experience is that people, mostly your average Christian, doesn't realize there is a difference between the two.

[CID1990]

Kalm- D1B was quoting what I wrote, look back at my post.

And D- I see no logical connection between what I was saying and how "Christianity was a scourge till atheists made it behave." Two separate, unrelated issues.

You're being too kind to it.

I'm not making any judgments about Christianity- good or bad. The religion that arose in Jesus' name may be completely divergent from what Jesus was all about. Or, it might be fairly close (which I doubt).

You asked me about the existence of Jesus the man, and I gave you my own opinion on it, based on the evidence I have to work with.

[D1B]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

The first point is all I asserted in this thread. Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and historians nearly universally agree that there are three aspects of his story which are no doubt historically accurate: (i) Jesus of Nazareth lived in the First Century in the Roman province of Judaea; (ii) that he gained a reputation as a preacher, healer and miracle worker in the Jewish tradition; and (iii) that he was crucified at the direction of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect for Judaea, under the charge that he was an insurrectionist.

The "divinity" aspect of Jesus' story is not a historical fact; it is a theological assertion.

Source?

[houndawg]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There is a compelling case for it, the bible has a great number of historical truths in it (census, Pilate, Herod, etc...) but I'd be willing to bet the Jesus that existed between 7 b.c. and 33 a.d., +/- a few years, has been exaggerated. In all, Jesus as we know him is probably way different than the Jesus that actually existed. It happens.

The first point is all I asserted in this thread. Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and historians nearly universally agree that there are three aspects of his story which are no doubt historically accurate: (i) Jesus of Nazareth lived in the First Century in the Roman province of Judaea; (ii) that he gained a reputation as a preacher, healer and miracle worker in the Jewish tradition; and (iii) that he was crucified at the direction of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect for Judaea, under the charge that he was an insurrectionist.

The "divinity" aspect of Jesus' story is not a historical fact; it is a theological assertion.

Translation: An opinion.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I make more than three of you combined.

Nice.

Jesus was all about the money.

[houndawg]

I make more than three of you combined.

Nice.

Jesus was all about the money.

[kalm]

Nice.

Jesus was all about the money.