This is a subject that has cropped up in a couple threads already so I figure why not give it it's own thread.
So the questions Was the Biblical Jesus a real person? If not was there at least a historical Jesus used as a basis for the stories? Could it have been a complete fabrication?
Please provide evidence for or against your argument. If you use the Bible provide external sources to also back up your claim.
@MGM - It looks like National Geographic made the story seem bigger than it was cause there's a letter by one of the sides who was really mad at them! So here's his letter.
LETTER
1) letter was from someone who is dedicated to the Hebrew Bible -- baised 2) letter was to a blog filled with christian posts -- biased 3) the letter was regarding: how the blog portrayed the Nat'l Geographic show. the person says "I have not yet seen the NG film..." and their entire response was regarding the blog.
I dont think so I dont like religion either some people go so far with religion that they go kill for it (figurely speaking) THERE IS PROBEBLY NO GOD BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO THINK FOR YOURSELF
1) letter was from someone who is dedicated to the Hebrew Bible -- baised 2) letter was to a blog filled with christian posts -- biased 3) the letter was regarding: how the blog portrayed the Nat'l Geographic show. the person says "I have not yet seen the NG film..." and their entire response was regarding the blog.
@German3935, I guess you missed that the letter is about the media just twisting whatever evidence the scientists find into there own way to sell there program. But that was a point that was very subtle so anyone could miss that one too, so don't feel bad about that!
Also the blog's owner is this person:
April D. DeConick is the Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies. She is a historian of early Jewish and Christian thought.
She is exactly who you'd want with a unbiased opinion! But I guess that one was also easy to miss, so don't feel bad.
Oh, and NG advertised the show before so Isael Knohl didn't have to watch the show to know how they were spinning it. You watched the videos at least, and Israel Knohl's bias was the half that you were good at explaing, and even you thought that the whole show was about his story that they spun. So I thought you should have understood that part and who the author was since they said his name on the videos. Maybe you just be more careful next time??
By the way, I decided that your playing a game agianst me called being ANTAGONISTIC, so I'm just subtracting ten points from your name everytime I catch you making a stupid mistake when you antagonize me.
I decided to forgive your past mistakes on this thread, including the "indirect evidence" mistake, and also including that biggie on the marijuana thread middle page of 46, to the top of page 47, that started this all, and here I let you off 3 of 4 times just to be nice, but from now on we can both keep count and everyone else can see your losses too!
Do you have some sort of point system for rating people or something? You seem to mention subtracting points from people's names and 'erasing' people a lot . . . .
alt, this thread is about "Was Jesus Real", not about me. If you want to talk to me you need to go to click my name and do it there, cause that's what that's for!
I know. But trust me, a bit of offtopicness is forgivable in any forum, so long as it doesn't derail the thread for more than three or four posts (or you could be half-ontopic and include a random discussion on the same post with ontopic stuff, hehehe)
Like I said earlier, it's tough to determine which Jesus figure in history was the real one, because there were so many of them and it can be easily inferred that the idea of a figure like him had a real-life origin. It' quite possible that the Christian Jesus existed, and there were lost records of Roman crucifixions. Of course, it's also possible that he never exited and he was based on Horus as a way to entice Pagans to convert. WE'll never really know unless we find out how to time-travel
[/quote]@German3935, I guess you missed that the letter is about the media just twisting whatever evidence the scientists find into there own way to sell there program. But that was a point that was very subtle so anyone could miss that one too, so don't feel bad about that!
The letter is about what the blog says the movie infers. Let's take a quote, shall we?
I received this letter from Professor Knohl this morning. He asked that I post it on my blog which I do below. Just to be clear, the line Professor Knohl is referring to is this one: "When I watched one of their previews, I could not believe the nonsense that the (NGS) narrator was stating. The narration suggests (dubbed on top of some Israeli folk music) that Professor Knohl's reading and interpretation is going to revolutionize and destroy the heart of Christian belief."
But that point wasn't very subtle so don't feel bad about it. [quote]She is exactly who you'd want with a unbiased opinion! But I guess that one was also easy to miss, so don't feel bad.
yet i skimmed her blog which was filled with biased opinions.
Oh, and NG advertised the show before so Isael Knohl didn't have to watch the show to know how they were spinning it. You watched the videos at least, and Israel Knohl's bias was the half that you were good at explaing, and even you thought that the whole show was about his story that they spun. So I thought you should have understood that part and who the author was since they said his name on the videos. Maybe you just be more careful next time??
He didn't see the show. He didn't know the exact points of the show. He wasn't responding to the show in his letter. His points were directed at the blog, and he never stated he saw anything at all regarding the Nat'l Geographic film.
By the way, I decided that your playing a game agianst me called being ANTAGONISTIC, so I'm just subtracting ten points from your name everytime I catch you making a stupid mistake when you antagonize me. I decided to forgive your past mistakes on this thread, including the "indirect evidence" mistake, and also including that biggie on the marijuana thread middle page of 46, to the top of page 47, that started this all, and here I let you off 3 of 4 times just to be nice, but from now on we can both keep count and everyone else can see your losses too![quote]
this thread is about "Was Jesus Real", not about me. If you want to talk to me you need to go to click my name and do it there, cause that's what that's for! [quote] Fine, then "you need to go to click my name and do it there, cause that's what that's for!" instead of doing it on a forum in the middle of a debate.
There's better things to talk about then just the differences between MOVIES and PREVIEWS and how to use the quote button and other dumb things like that, and I'm guessing that Alt doesn't want me to be mean to others so I'm not gonna play this silly game with you because it's mean to make fun of others when we could all be nicer. But I'm still keeping track of your losses, just so you'll know.
well you said the letter was in response to the movie, whereas the writer of the letter had no knowledge of what the movie was about.
The writer of the letter even stated (and the blog stated) that the letter was about a blog post:
I received this letter from Professor Knohl this morning. He asked that I post it on my blog which I do below. Just to be clear, the line Professor Knohl is referring to is this one: "When I watched one of their previews, I could not believe the nonsense that the (NGS) narrator was stating. The narration suggests (dubbed on top of some Israeli folk music) that Professor Knohl's reading and interpretation is going to revolutionize and destroy the heart of Christian belief."
In the blog post, it has an opinionated view of the movie.
The letter was not about the movie which we were debating, it was about the blog post. The movie was what you said was the reliable source. This letter was not regarding such.
and I'm guessing that Alt doesn't want me to be mean to others so I'm not gonna play this silly game with you because it's mean to make fun of others when we could all be nicer. But I'm still keeping track of your losses, just so you'll know.
if you have a personal problem with me, deal with it somewhere other than the middle of a debate. feel free to insult me or the fact that I'm not exact with my quoting on my page.
This letter has nothing to do with any proof abiout jesus. Its about media and how they use it to be bias to whatever they want, which strangely enuf we all do to some degree.
If the texts that were written about jesus were done AFTER his death, then we can only speculate as to his existence. There is no other concrete historical proof saying that he was actually a person, in fact, I think the absence of historical writing about him firments in MY mind that he was mearly a tools, a creation for use by people that had something to gain by "knowing" the sun of god. Why would such an influential man be missed out. Because it is a story. I have seen nothing that proves otherwise.
In the blog post, it has an opinionated view of the movie.
The letter was not about the movie which we were debating, it was about the blog post. The movie was what you said was the reliable source. This letter was not regarding such.
Look, I'm fixing your mistakes, there's nothing personal. I thought you were making them on purpose but I see that you can't help it so its just mean for me to keep on about it. So I guess this will be the last time, cause your really taking up too much of discussion: If you look at the dates of the blog (14th - 16th) and the date of the NG 'movie' (21st) than you'll see wherever your making alot of your mistakes.
Look, I'm fixing your mistakes, there's nothing personal. I thought you were making them on purpose but I see that you can't help it so its just mean for me to keep on about it. So I guess this will be the last time, cause your really taking up too much of discussion: If you look at the dates of the blog (14th - 16th) and the date of the NG 'movie' (21st) than you'll see wherever your making alot of your mistakes.
I made no mistakes.
You said that the letter was a response to the movie. What I've been saying this entire time is that it was a response to the blog, which was a review of the movie and a rather biased one.
@German3825. I never wrote it was a letter in response to the movie cause I could read the dates of the blog and knew the dates of the 'movie' also the blog couldn't have been a review of the movie or a biased review of the movie cause the movie wasn't out yet. That's your second time to make those mistakes cause you did it on your last post and I tried correcting you with 14-16th, vs. 21st.
About being biased, the Jewish-Christian Historian said this on her Blog:
Whether Christianity survives or not is not my concern. But good rigorous scholarship is. The Gabriel Stone is not going to make any difference to Christianity or its central tenet the resurrection because the Gabriel Stone does not even refer to the resurrection of a messiah, suffering or otherwise. What I worry about is the media's continual cry about how this new discovery or that new discovery is going to change Christianity and it is going to destroy the faith. This sort of media sensation does nothing more than dull the ears, so when we as academics have something that is actually important to say that may indeed impact Christianity, no one is going to listen.
