Well, we all know the routine when it comes to these kinda threads so cut the bullshit and let's dive head first into it shall we?

But this time let's try to stay on topic.

Who's up first?

 

by the way, this isn't about him being the actual son of god and all that. It's about whether or not Jesus the flesh and blood man existed in Jerusalem 2000 years ago as told in the bible

 

Well.....let me put it this way.....

I don't think the bible is a work of fiction.

 

Who fucking cares? It doesn't matter.

It only matters to people who need him either to have existed or to not have existed.

 

Well.....it sort of does matter...at least a little bit.

I kind of like the idea of my story still being in print in 2000 years time.

 

I personally don't care, if it makes someone feel better to be religious then more power to them. As for me, I prefer to stay as far as humanly possible from churches.

 

I disagree. Historically speaking, you don't need to know whether or not Jesus existed because what's significant is not his existence but the movement centered around him, the religions that came from that, and all of the effects of those things on history.

 

I see your point but had the man never existed, there would be no-one to base the whole idea of Christianity upon.

It's probably worth remembering that the Muslim faith also acknowledges his life.

 

That's why I said that whether he existed or not is only important to those who need for him either to have existed or to not have existed.

Besides, the whole idea behind Christianity is Jesus' message and the lessons taught. You don't need for him to have existed for those to still ring true.

 

Sure, there would:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

 

The answer is yes.He is reffered to in both Roman and Jewish texts of the period.His being a real person who lived and was crucified is a known issue...the only question anybody realy has to answer is weather or not they believe who he said he was...

 

Which texts?

 

Ok.....but we are talking about a flesh and blood man.....born of a woman......not one hewn from a piece of rock.

 

WWJD...man has his own bumper sticker.

 

I am a believer, but to each their own...

 

CS Lewis said that Jesus was "myth made fact", because there are so many parallels between the Jesus story and other contemporary myths: Osiris, Mithras, Zoroaster, Baal. Lewis argued that all these other myths were false and Christ was true - but his argument was counter-intuitive. Even within the frame of Judaic myth; Jesus was just an amalgam of Old Testament stories that would be recognized by the audience it was crafted for - particularly, Elijah.

That being said, it's pretty irrelevant. Jesus is more fact to people today than Caesar.

 

by text you mean religious writings? with is equal to fish writing a book about the non existence of air.

 

ok...again..... I'm aware of Lewis and his opinions......and I loved the Narnia books too..........

There probably is merit in all of those myths you mentioned so I agree that his argument was counter-intuitive.

I'm actually quite fond of the Tantras myself.......but I digress.

It's quite probable that some bloke called Jesus did actually live......just as Ceasar did too.....

or do you think he was a fictional character also?

 

Why do you continue to speak on things you don't know about as if you're an authority?

 

the argument from antiquity is a tired fallacy