Where do you draw the fact that he never exsisted when there are multiple recordings of him in history text books?
By history text books do you mean actual text books? Most historical texts have some form of bias and so with reference to something like the existence of Jesus, what are these texts relying on for information and validation? I've read about lots of archaeological "roof" of his existence, but nothing that is conclusive (at least that I've run across). But archaeologists that are out there trying to prove Jesus' existence are already biased and I am skeptical of any interpretations of findings they might have.
He is recorded in history books multiple times by multiple countries...Romans, Jews, etc..etc..
The Jewish people during the supposed time of Christ were controlled by the Romans. And to what historical texts are you referring? If we're counting the Bible, that's fine, but that's still only one text and you have to admit, it's pretty circular logic. I mean, the Old Testament was around well before Jesus was, and everything after that (the New Testament) is seriously compromised in its accuracy. Now, the Islamic faith mentions Jesus as a prophet but they don't do so for historical reasons or even in a historical context. Their objective is to show that Mohammad's teaching were the legitimate teachings of God. Their faith was invented several hundred years after Christianity was invented, so again the actual objective historical truths aren't reliable as conclusive evidence. What's interesting is the number of histories and cultures that make no reference to Jesus at all. What's also interesting is that people reject Mormonism because of the story that Jesus visited America to reveal further teachings. This prophecy is completely ignored by virtually anyone who isn't a Mormon... but why?? What sort of epistemic position are we in to determine who is actually speaking with god and who isn't?? But again, the most compelling counterexample to the existence of Jesus is the rise and dominance of Mithraism and its remarkable similarity to what later became known as Christianity. It's far more interesting if you just google Mithra and read as much as you can about it. Unfortunately, there are many biased sites out there on both sides of the fence. But once you get at the core of the story, the similarities simply can't be avoided.
By history text books do you mean actual text books? Most historical texts have some form of bias and so with reference to something like the existence of Jesus, what are these texts relying on for information and validation? I've read about lots of archaeological "roof" of his existence, but nothing that is conclusive (at least that I've run across). But archaeologists that are out there trying to prove Jesus' existence are already biased and I am skeptical of any interpretations of findings they might have.
Haha, buddy sounds liek your pretty biased to me. And im preeeeeeety sure that if the Jew or Romans were biased...You know the people that killed Jesus an recorded it down...They wouldnt be on the side of proving a fake man is real.
~~~
This prophecy is completely ignored by virtually anyone who isn't a Mormon... but why?? What sort of epistemic position are we in to determine who is actually speaking with god and who isn't??
I definitly don't believe Angels had the skin color of indians and that Joesph Smith(sp?) was walking in the woods one day an found a slab of rock that only he could read. but then again all religions including evolution are based upon faith. If it was a proven fact...It would no longer be a religion. ~~~
But again, the most compelling counterexample to the existence of Jesus is the rise and dominance of Mithraism and its remarkable similarity to what later became known as Christianity. It's far more interesting if you just google Mithra and read as much as you can about it. Unfortunately, there are many biased sites out there on both sides of the fence. But once you get at the core of the story, the similarities simply can't be avoided.
Thanks, i'll check that out sounds intresting. Haha, i'll try to avoid the "biased sites".
Haha, buddy sounds liek your pretty biased to me. And im preeeeeeety sure that if the Jew or Romans were biased...You know the people that killed Jesus an recorded it down...They wouldnt be on the side of proving a fake man is real.
Of course I'm biased, but I'm not the one writing the history books, nor am I conducting archaeological studies. Now, while the Romans did facilitate Jesus' killing, they didn't just go out and kill them because they wanted to. You should really read your Bible. You know the part where Jesus wrecks a Jewish Synagogue because they had become regularly used as marketplaces? Yeah, that didn't earn old J.C. too many Hebrew friends. The Romans didn't really care one way or the other, but they had to govern these people and didn't want any hints of trouble brewing. But what history texts are we talking about that the Romans had that would verify anything about Jesus' existence? In their vast empire, this was a ridiculously minor incident (even if it did happen) that certainly wouldn't be worthy of record. Anything officially Roman that was even remotely Christian would've been during the time of Constantine... I don't the dates, like maybe 300 A.D. or so?
I definitly don't believe Angels had the skin color of indians and that Joesph Smith(sp?) was walking in the woods one day an found a slab of rock that only he could read. but then again all religions including evolution are based upon faith. If it was a proven fact...It would no longer be a religion.
I don't think so either, but why are you able to apply good ol' fashioned common sense in this situation but not in reference to your own god? I ask again, what gives you any epistemic authority at all to question Jesus' coming to Earth a second time to deliver another message during a time of great peril? That makes as much sense as anything else in Christianity, so why is it not valid? Also, saying that evolution is based on faith is simply fallacious. I think you probably realize that, so we'll just pretend you never said that.
Maybe Jesus had a twin named Mithra lol
Only if this twin was born hundreds of years before Jesus was...
Well to most he is a 'divine' human, or not even human. Maybe a sub-god because he is the son of god, right? Supposedly? Anyway, Jesus was a Jew, well started out as one anyway. But he disliked or didn't "agree" with some of the Jewish beliefs. He then created something of the lines of Christianity. But what made him what he is today, is the fact he took no value of his life before this 'god' that supposedly exists. And was nailed up to a cross. He stayed there for a few days, maybe to a week. And to make sure he was dead, the Romans sent a few Guards who excoriated him. Or made a gash to which his bowels fell out. So to Christians he was a 'divine' human/ pre-god. To me he was worm food. And now he is a legend, and nothing. Just another impermanent object in this world.
The Father- Jesus's father The lord and ruler of heaven the highest one Jesus- The creater and the ultimate sacriface Holy Spirit- The ghost part of God that protects us and stays with us on earth.
Jesus was the Son of God, one in being with his Father. He was divine and human at the same time; mortal enough to be tempted, but divine enough to resist all temptations and face death on the cross. In short, Jesus rox!
There are many views of Jesus. Let us look back along the lines of religious history. The Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., happened to "define God for all Christianity and eliminate controversy." Really, they were having problems deciding if Jesus was God or man. The Council decided that Jesus was God, thus making Trinitarians, the people who believe in the holy trinity, father, son and holy spirit, already previously mentioned in this discussion. But there were people who didn't believe that, and weren't going to let the Council of Nicea determine what they were to believe. So these people split off, and chose differently. This is heresy, actually, where you choose. These people were Unitarians. Unitarians eventually split off again and later joined with the Universalist denomination, but that is a different conversation.
So (if you excuse my long paragraph), this conversation we're having is one that has been continued for a REALLY LONG TIME. And has resulted in splits between churches. It is the main difference between some churches actually.
It is a 'what if' indeed. Who knows. It is even possible that he existed, but didn't do the things the bible says he did. Maybe he was just a prophet, no miricles. Or an ordinary guy. Be carefull with your 'what if's' though, they could go anywhere. I could just, "what if he was a clown?" What if's are tricky.
Ya, when he was tempted in the dessert he had to go 40 days and night being tempted by satan. He was telling Jesus he would give him all the castless and money if he would bow down to satan. Of course he didn't do it!
