What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Historical Jesus debate (1 Viewer)

M

mitchh1124

Footballguy
Do you think jesus really existed? Why or why not?

Where was jesus born?

who were his parents?

I personally do not think he was real based on the fact that the bible cant seem to get any of it right either. 

 
Joseph never exited as a person. he is only there for the birth of jesus and then disappears. he is not real either.

I am glad you got his birthplace right though. Certainly was not Bethlehem 

Also, mary was not a virgin mother either. It seems Matthew liked to cherry pick and make things sound better than they were.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mitchh1124 said:
Joseph never exited as a person. he is only there for the birth of jesus and then disappears.
Click to expand...
This is rather pedestrian fishing trip even by religious fishing trip standards, but see Luke 2:41-51 for this.  You're right that Joseph isn't a major figure in the NT, but it's factually wrong to say that he disappears after the birth.  

 
Historically, there was likely more than one person who's life has been retold as the life as the Jesus we know.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is rather pedestrian fishing trip even by religious fishing trip standards, but see Luke 2:41-51 for this.  You're right that Joseph isn't a major figure in the NT, but it's factually wrong to say that he disappears after the birth.  
Click to expand...
Even if he did disappear, that doesnt mean he didnt exist. 

 
To prove Joseph was made up in Matthew. In mark when jesus is surrouned by a crowd of people and someone says "this is the carpenter, is not the son of mary?" something along those lines. Matthew already with mark infront of him created this earthly father figure named Joseph..so he changed that quote to "This is the carpenter's son, is not the son of mary?" to insert the imaginary father. 

Mark has no mention of jesus's father. Mark says he had a mother, 4 brothers ( James, Joses, Simon and Judas) and 2 unnamed sisters. 

What is makes it more made up by matthew is learning jewish history. Joseph has a father named Jacob. He has dreams where god speaks to him. He most save the child and bring him to the promise land. This story is familiar because it has already been used before. In genesis Patriarch Joseph has a father named Jacob, who also has dreams with god and most save the people in the promise land. Matthew rehashed this story to fit the wonderful life of jesus.  

 
After reading the works of Dr. Carrier, Price and others I quickly came to conclusion that the odds that Jesus was an actual historical figure are well south of 50%. It will take some time, but much like Moses, the majority of historians will eventually come to the same conclusion.

 
Scoresman said:
God must have a tiny penis to be able to inseminate Mary without de-virginizing her.
Click to expand...
lol, there is no mention of mary being a virgin until 9 decades later. Mark never mentioned her being a virgin. He said "she was with child under jewish law". Its odd for his family to hate him so much yet god told mary he was my son and holy. He was nearly exiled from his family.. and thought to be possed by demons.

Matthew mistranslated the hebrew text to greek using the word virgin. This never happened. It came along very late in the christian religion. It was a cover up for her being pregnant out of wedlock. "Child was born of fornication" so they need to use a "virgin mother" to make it seem plausible. 

 
TheAristocrat said:
Yup, the gospels were written differently for different audiences.  Glad you caught that.
Click to expand...
Doesnt make any sense. Whats the purpose? To make stories sound better than they really are? Matthew assumed mary and jospeh lived in bethlehem at the time of the birth.

Mark says he was born in nazareth.

luke says they traveled from nazareth to bethlehem for ceasar augustus census count and she gave birth there.

Matthew says the wise man followed the magical star to jesus house. and king herod wanted to kill all male babies.

Luke doesnt mention that story. 

so you are telling me they are talking about someone being born and giving different reasons for why to appeal to different audiences? thats funny, because every story of george washington is going to be very similar all the way around. 

 
Full disclosure - I am an evangelical Christian. I also attended 3 years of seminary so learned a bit of Greek, textual criticism, historical context of the ANE/Roman world etc...

Taking my faith glasses off, it's still hard to believe that there wasn't a person named Jesus, from Nazareth, who was around during that time who claimed messianic authority. Why?  Because we know he wasn't the only one to claim to be the messiah, we know there are Roman and Jewish references to him (outside the NT) and by all accounts there was a rapid spread of the community very soon after his supposed crucifixion. IOW if he never existed and/or existed but he himself never claimed messianic identity, I think the gig would have been up and the church wouldn't have spread. 

 
mr roboto said:
Full disclosure - I am an evangelical Christian. I also attended 3 years of seminary so learned a bit of Greek, textual criticism, historical context of the ANE/Roman world etc...

Taking my faith glasses off, it's still hard to believe that there wasn't a person named Jesus, from Nazareth, who was around during that time who claimed messianic authority. Why? Because we know he wasn't the only one to claim to be the messiah, we know there are Roman and Jewish references to him (outside the NT) and by all accounts there was a rapid spread of the community very soon after his supposed crucifixion. IOW if he never existed and/or existed but he himself never claimed messianic identity, I think the gig would have been up and the church wouldn't have spread.
Click to expand...
Can you reference them please.

 
I have an uncle Jesus but he's Spanish, so I call him Tio Jesus (pronounced he-suse) or Tio Chus for short.

 
Real, I know bc I saw the movie. His parents were Jake and Martha Shuttlesworth and he was born in Coney Island. In an unfortunate accident, his father killed his mother. His father was sent away to jail, but let out on a temporary release to convince Jesus of Coney Island to attend a certain university.

 
mr roboto said:
Full disclosure - I am an evangelical Christian. I also attended 3 years of seminary so learned a bit of Greek, textual criticism, historical context of the ANE/Roman world etc...

Taking my faith glasses off, it's still hard to believe that there wasn't a person named Jesus, from Nazareth, who was around during that time who claimed messianic authority. Why?  Because we know he wasn't the only one to claim to be the messiah, we know there are Roman and Jewish references to him (outside the NT) and by all accounts there was a rapid spread of the community very soon after his supposed crucifixion. IOW if he never existed and/or existed but he himself never claimed messianic identity, I think the gig would have been up and the church wouldn't have spread. 
Click to expand...
So you're a believer in Noah's ark then?

 
Try refuting my posts that cant be refuted. The question is..is your avi real? as in did you really take another nude man's photo and use it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mitchh1124 said:
Do you think jesus really existed? Why or why not?

Where was jesus born?

who were his parents?

I personally do not think he was real based on the fact that the bible cant seem to get any of it right either. 
Click to expand...
Seems like a silly thing to say.  What does "the bible can't seem to get any of it right" mean?  The bible is pretty clear on where he was born and who his parents were.  Why do you assume that the bible didn't get that right?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is rather pedestrian fishing trip even by religious fishing trip standards, but see Luke 2:41-51 for this.  You're right that Joseph isn't a major figure in the NT, but it's factually wrong to say that he disappears after the birth.  
Click to expand...
Kind of comical to cite the bible in a debate about the historical Jesus imo. If both sides agree the bible is accurate, there's no debate.

 
shader said:
Seems like a silly thing to say.  What does "the bible can't seem to get any of it right" mean?  The bible is pretty clear on where he was born and who his parents were.  Why do you assume that the bible didn't get that right?
Click to expand...
what do you mean clear on where he was born?

Mark speaks first never mentioned Bethlehem as the birth of the lord.

Matthew takes a story about moses and prophet micah, uses it for the birth of jesus in Bethlehem.

Luke makes up his own story -- about traveling 100 miles with a pregnant wife to the house of David

EDIT - what makes luke story even more historically inaccurate. He said Quirinius was governor of syria at the time of jesus birth. This doesnt add up because he wasnt governor until 6-7 BCE( jesus would have been 10-12 years old), king herod died in 4 BCE and we know jesus was born when king herod was alive. 

John doesnt say much.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto said:
Off the top of my head, Tacitus, Jospehus, Babylonian Talmud. I think Pliny referenced the early community of Christians. 
Click to expand...
Plus all the apocrypha that Christians didn't include in the Bible. Like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc, etc.

Doubtful this goes anywhere other than heaping conspiracy theory upon conspiracy theory trying to explain away what a simple "well, Jesus probably existed" would also answer in a more satisfactory (and simple) way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McGarnicle said:
Kind of comical to cite the bible in a debate about the historical Jesus imo. If both sides agree the bible is accurate, there's no debate.
Click to expand...
Ordinarily, I would agree with you on this.  But mitch is -- for some reason - saying that the Bible itself has Joseph disappearing right after Jesus's birth.  That just isn't true.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This Jospeh person is from Genesis. He has already been talked about in jewish history. Matthew fabricated this story to fit the father of jesus. 

 
mitchh1124 said:
This Jospeh person is from Genesis. He has already been talked about in jewish history. Matthew fabricated this story to fit the father of jesus. 
Click to expand...
McGarnicle -- See what I mean?  This is an argument about Joseph as portrayed by the Bible.  You can't correct this without referencing the Bible itself.  

 
How come we know Baby Jesus' actual birthday (Dec. 25th)......but we don't know (or celebrate) the actual day he rose from the tomb?  Wouldn't it be cooler to figure out on which actual date he came back and then just celebrate it....instead of this lame "30 days after whatever" bull #### we're currently doing?

 
Thunderlips said:
How come we know Baby Jesus' actual birthday (Dec. 25th)......but we don't know (or celebrate) the actual day he rose from the tomb?  Wouldn't it be cooler to figure out on which actual date he came back and then just celebrate it....instead of this lame "30 days after whatever" bull #### we're currently doing?
Click to expand...
We don't know his birthday either.  Nobody claims it's actually December 25.  That was just a convenient date because it coincided with already-existing Roman celebrations of the winter solstice.  

 
Thunderlips said:
How come we know Baby Jesus' actual birthday (Dec. 25th)......but we don't know (or celebrate) the actual day he rose from the tomb?  Wouldn't it be cooler to figure out on which actual date he came back and then just celebrate it....instead of this lame "30 days after whatever" bull #### we're currently doing?
Click to expand...
Actually, the bible does mention the day he rose from the tomb, but it doesn't mention the day he was born.    

 
IvanKaramazov said:
We don't know his birthday either.  Nobody claims it's actually December 25.  That was just a convenient date because it coincided with already-existing Roman celebrations of the winter solstice.  
Click to expand...
I dig that.  Why don't the extend that same convenience to him rising from the dead?  Wouldn't it be relatively easy to figure it out and just go with that date?  When was the first full moon after Passover in 0?

 
McGarnicle said:
Kind of comical to cite the bible in a debate about the historical Jesus imo. If both sides agree the bible is accurate, there's no debate.
Click to expand...
So why would we take four books written in the first century and assume they are blatant forgeries?  I get that you may not believe in the miracles or the resurrection, but why must we act as if those writings don't exist when discussing whether Jesus was real?  You can't just shake your head and make the bible go away.  It's a real set of writings.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
McGarnicle -- See what I mean?  This is an argument about Joseph as portrayed by the Bible.  You can't correct this without referencing the Bible itself.  
Click to expand...
Genesis 35:24 "Jacob had twelve sons while living in northern Syria. His first-born Reuben was the son of Leah, who later gave birth to Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Leah’s servant Zilpah had two sons: Gad and Asher. Jacob and his wife Rachel had Joseph and Benjamin. Rachel’s servant woman Bilhah had two more sons: Dan and Naphtali."

Genesis 37:5 "5 Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more."

9 "9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

40:5 5 each of the two men—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in prison—had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own."

41:38 "38 So Pharaoh asked them, “Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of God[a]?”"

45:1-15 He talks about saving the people of th epromise from death by taking them to egypt.

edit just in case you are confused by son of david....

Matthew 1:16 "16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah."

now here is jesus father.

matthew 1:20 "20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

matthew 2:13 "13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”"

He had 4 dreams and like above he too had to take the child of promise to the holy land of Egypt.

its the same story man. it cannot be any clearer?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Box said:
Plus all the apocrypha that Christians didn't include in the Bible. Like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc, etc.

Doubtful this goes anywhere other than heaping conspiracy theory upon conspiracy theory trying to explain away what a simple "well, Jesus probably existed" would also answer in a more satisfactory (and simple) way.
Click to expand...
I've never understood why some people are so quick to jump on the "he didn't exist" bandwagon. It's rather silly.

We have many writings from the early church period and whether you agree with them or not, these seem like good people.  Not the kind of people to manipulate the masses in a grand hoax that brought no benefits.  

 
To me, if I was running the whole thing and held any sway when they did the whole council thing.......I would have been like "OK....the day that he comes back changes with calendar...we know that he came back on Sun., March 30, 0000.  So March 30th is the day we will forever celebrate his Ressurection.....and whenever that falls on a Sunday.....that's like a "Super-Special" Easter."  That makes more sense that moving the thing around. 

 
mark 6:3

3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

doesnt sound like mary was a virgin after all...

edit look at the above verse and now look at this verse..

look how matthew had to change it for the insertion of Josepeh as the father of jesus.

Matthew 13:55

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
So why would we take four books written in the first century and assume they are blatant forgeries?  I get that you may not believe in the miracles or the resurrection, but why must we act as if those writings don't exist when discussing whether Jesus was real?  You can't just shake your head and make the bible go away.  It's a real set of writings.  
Click to expand...
I'm sure you've read/heard all the usual complaints...the writers of the gospels lived decades after Jesus died, and things like Christmas, virgin birth, etc. were lifted from earlier religious mythologies. That's why I'm an agnostic, I've heard both sides and there's massive room for doubt imo. Best not to pretend you know with any level of certainty what is accurate and what is bogus.

 
A historical person named Jesus who was a religious leader in the area that that time is an overwhelmingly accepted historical fact.  Who he was and what he said and what he did is up for debate.

 
mitchh1124 said:
mark 6:3

3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

doesnt sound like mary was a virgin after all...
Click to expand...
The only virgin claim I'm aware of is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus. Do some claim she was a virgin her entire life?

 
dgreen said:
The only virgin claim I'm aware of is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus. Do some claim she was a virgin her entire life?
Click to expand...
Mary was pregnant from a one night stand or rape.... Joseph was in love with her prior to that...He comes up with the immaculate conception to keep her from getting stoned to death.....and the rest is history

 
Mark never claimed her to be virgin it was not until the 9th and 10th decade that Matthew and Luke make this claim.

Mark just said she was pregnant basically. 

As I continue to read the bible...here is another MOSES story inside LUKE's family of jesus. 

Elisheba is the wife of Aaron, the brother of moses. 

Luke introduces Elizabeth( Elisheba) as the DAUGHTER of Aaron. Moses also had a sister named Miriam.here role was to protect moses guarding him from birth. Miriam in english is trasnlated to Mary.  

 
The problem with the historical Jesus question is it's not a simple yes or no.

The Jesus in the gospels almost certainly has some basis in at least one real historical person. But it's possible he's based partly on one guy, partly on another, and then some of the story is myth. In that case, is there a historical Jesus?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Locked
Christians And Mocking - How To Handle?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
BobbyLayne
  • Poll Poll
FBGs Bible Study
Replies
41
Views
1K
Gatorade
Gatorade
Joe Bryant
Parenting Tips
Replies
30
Views
756
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top