The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Kieran. 6,317]

It's very likely that Jesus existed, but it's not 100%.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I get your point, but there are testaments of the same period naming Jesus. You are correct, If you would take extremely serious you can not make such statement.

People get caught up with the religious stuff, though. It is the same process that defines all the personalities from long ago (Kings, Pharaohs, Popes, etc). You would not be able to prove most of these people with this line of thought. Even though, we all study them in school and no one constest, it is just because his personality involves so many things. Putting all that aside, you just look for the facts (that is what experts do) and realise he did exist.

It's very different with other major historical figures. You usually have documentation that talk about them in some detail from multiple sources writing at that time and later, you have statues made of them, or had buildings and streets named after them, and they are often even mentioned in other cultures. The references to Jesus are almost all fleeting and made decades after his death. The other issue is that there were contemporary historians who wrote about Jewish life in Judea and never mentioned Jesus at all. You would never find a historian writing about a slightly earlier period and not referencing Herod for example, Now, this could easily be (likely) because Jesus was a very minor figure when he was alive, but it does raise questions. I do believe that Jesus existed as a historical figure and that there is very strong evidence for it, but it's also possible he didn't exist (or that he was someone who was created off of multiple people). The majority of historians certainly believe that Jesus existed, but it isn't unanimous (and the dissenters are generally serious historians, not conspiracy theorists).

[manpe 10,861]

I don't know what to believe, but I'm happy people believe these sort of things, as it's changed really bad people into good people.

Sam Childers for instance, if anyone has seen the movie Machine Gun Preacher, he was once a badman, taking drugs, robbing drug deals, killed people supposedly. Now he's in Northern Sudan and Uganda building orphaniges and fighting Joseph Kony. He gave up a lot for those people, and that's because of what he believed in.

Can't say there's much proof to go on, and I'm not concerned if he exists or not to be honest, but I'm glad people believe it for that reason.

There are also many psychopaths who justify their deeds with God or whatnot. We can't also ignore that religion is one of the biggest if not the biggest divider of people, reason for mindless killings, discrimination and wars (some of which nearly wiped out my entire nation). I strongly oppose religious fanatism, people can believe what they want as long as they don't come preaching behind my door or start killing us for not believing. I can't start beginning to understand them as I live in the most secular country in Europe (yeah christian crusaders, bastards, you failed miserably).

[Amblève. 4,995]

I think you are dumb.

There are scientific proof Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, etc, existed. You just need to do a little research about it.

I am in no way talking about their divinity. You need to study just a little bit about the subject when you enter a discussion.

I think you should stop being insulting.

Actually there are evidence that a man named Jesus did exist at that time. Whether he had superhuman abilities is something that is up for debate. Same with Muhammad, except he is seen only as an Islam missionary who claimed to have been following orders from God himself.

Obviously I'm talking about the "holy" Jesus.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I rarely discuss religion with anyone but prefer to do research on my own. I find that much more productive. The reason behind that is summed up by this comic:

[Rmpr 8,977]

It's very different with other major historical figures. You usually have documentation that talk about them in some detail from multiple sources writing at that time and later, you have statues made of them, or had buildings and streets named after them, and they are often even mentioned in other cultures. The references to Jesus are almost all fleeting and made decades after his death. The other issue is that there were contemporary historians who wrote about Jewish life in Judea and never mentioned Jesus at all. You would never find a historian writing about a slightly earlier period and not referencing Herod for example, Now, this could easily be (likely) because Jesus was a very minor figure when he was alive, but it does raise questions. I do believe that Jesus existed as a historical figure and that there is very strong evidence for it, but it's also possible he didn't exist (or that he was someone who was created off of multiple people). The majority of historians certainly believe that Jesus existed, but it isn't unanimous (and the dissenters are generally serious historians, not conspiracy theorists).

Yes, iconic historic figures are easier, just because everybody knew them and they were important for their period (one less or more than others). Jesus, as you pointed out, was likely a minor figure when alive. Again, none of this proves to be 100% guaranteed (that was the statement we were debating), but they are valid and recognised between historians.

Lets move on though, there are valid arguments for both of views. Lets agree to disagree!

I think you should stop being insulting.

Obviously I'm talking about the "holy" Jesus.

I insulted you, I was wrong. I was fucking irritated at the time....

You werent obviously talking about the "Holy Jesus". The question was if you would travel back in time to talk to him. It did not say anything about him beeing a divinity. You simply said he was invented and it started all the conversation.

[Amblève. 4,995]

I insulted you, I was wrong. I was fucking irritated at the time....

You werent obviously talking about the "Holy Jesus". The question was if you would travel back in time to talk to him. It did not say anything about him beeing a divinity. You simply said he was invented and it started all the conversation.

Then I'm sorry if I didn't express it clearly enough. I thought it would be obvious that when talking about Jesus the holy one is meant.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Then I'm sorry if I didn't express it clearly enough. I thought it would be obvious that when talking about Jesus the holy one is meant.

Alright mate, you can belive in whatever you want to belive. I personally dont think he did all these things, but that is not debatable, it is faith.

You should have made it clear, people really thought you were only talking about his existence (me, for example).

[Jase 43,479]

I rarely discuss religion with anyone but prefer to do research on my own. I find that much more productive. The reason behind that is summed up by this comic:

Again, I can't enlarge and see a picture clearly that is posted by you!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Again, I can't enlarge and see a picture clearly that is posted by you!

I think it's screen resolution. Try ctrl +

[Jase 43,479]

I think it's screen resolution. Try ctrl +

Failed to work...

[dave30 728]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6g-AjMXsIs

Ha ha school not far from my house.