Born in a stable to humble parents, never did he get above the common people.

Irish....does it really say this in the Bible?

Luk 2:7 And she had her first son; and folding him in linen, she put him to rest in the place where the cattle had their food, because there was no room for them in the house.

The is no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Ka El, the Superman from Krypton!

Since there is no more contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, Erakles, or Apollo, you might as well have a thread called "Mithra, the Man" or "Krisna, the Man". The is no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Ka El, the Superman from Krypton!

Luk 2:7 And she had her first son; and folding him in linen, she put him to rest in the place where the cattle had their food, because there was no room for them in the house.

But Irish I checked 10 different versions of the Bible and none of them said "stable".

None of them say The Hilton either, however cattle usually eat their food in a stable or barn and rarely at the Hilton.

So it is an assumption then that he was born in a stable.

If Tom Sawyer built a raft would you not assume it was made of wood or would that be to much of a literacy stretch?

If Tom Sawyer built a raft would you not assume it was made of wood or would that be to much of a literacy stretch?

I just noticed the "Pastor Z"! That's awesome.

No Twain didn't write the Bible. Now answer Irish's question.

Did Samuel L. Clemens write the Bible

Anyway before we get derailed here, the subject is on the character of Jesus whether you believe Him to be fictional or not.

And yes we can only go by what is recorded by scripture cause that all we realy hace thats conclusive.

No, I didn't answer Irish's question, and neither have you.

Just as the example you used (Tom Sawyer) is a fictional person so is Jesus.
We can no more so prove Tom Sawyer was a real person using the book "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" than we can use the Bible to prove Jesus.

Yes I did.....you did not read it right. Perhaps that ^^ is simpler for you.

However for the sake of discussion perhaps you could look at the character as fictional from a fictional novel and still make analyses of the main character.

None of them say The Hilton either, however cattle usually eat their food in a stable or barn and rarely at the Hilton.

Let’s consider why – Matthew says that Jesus was born in Judea during the reign of King Herod (40BCE to 4 BCE) and Luke says that he was born during the taxation decreed by Augustus while Cyrenius was governor of Syrian (6 CE to 9 CE); Luke says Jesus ascended in Bethany, Acts says in Jerusalem…Reliable? Hardly! Self Contradictory? You bet!
The word Luke used for ruling translates to different types of governance. What's more, "
A further, funerary inscription, known as the Aemilius Secundus, follows the career of a solider who served under Quirinius "Caesar's legate in Syria". The text chronologically recounts the events of the life of Aemilius, placing a census "of 117 thousand citizens" before the military campaigns of Quirinius in the north of Syria, events that occurred c. 4 to 6 B.C. The census, however, only mentions "citizen" (i.e. Romans, not Jews) in the city of Apamea, but it is consistent with the hypothesis that Quirinius conducted censuses while militarily governing in Syria before his provincial governorship." And that is not from an apologetics manual, it's from Wikipedia. Also, Acts doesn't say anything about where Christ ascended. Acts 1:12 says that the apostles returnedto Jerusalem after the ascention, noting that they had a "Sabbath's day walk" from there.

Okay, I find the character in the novel to be a plagiarized character in a plagiarized story line. The story and character were centuries old when this particular version was written.
None, including Josephus, are contemporary, but written many generations after the supposed facts. Josephus’ quotations did not appear until the 4th century and are accepted as interpolations by Bishop Eusebius, a well known “Liar for God”.
Josephus is recorded as living from CE 37-100, and is noted for recording the fall of Jerusalem in 70. He would have obviously been able to speak to those around when Jesus was living. Again, according to a survey of works listed on wikipedia, "...it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent." The less well-known passage describing the execution of James, "brother of Jesus" is considered authentic, especially since in that time one was known by his father, not his brother.


one only needs to look at the massive proportion of manuscripts compared to the next highest, which was one of Homer's books,
Did Home start a religion that dominated the known world for 1700 centuries where only Homer’s works were copied and published? No he did not, naturally the scriptures are going to be overall more numerous than any other ancient manuscripts, especially since the Christians make a concerted effort to destroy all “pagan” writings!
Those that are Christians accept his existence, those that are non-Christians do not necessarily accept his existence. Besides, they are studying the scriptures, comparing the older and newer one and many of the writing of the 1st century pagans and church fathers, not to see is Jesus existed, but what the original teachings were (not necessarily Jesus’ words, but words attributed to him).

So it is an assumption then that he was born in a stable.

^Source, please.

Nice thread, Irish. The replies are interesting. I can't say as I've seen a single reply yet that answers the thread. The human side of Jesus (regardless of whether you believe he exists or not) really goes to show you how a Christian ("Christian" meaning one who follows the teachings and example of Christ) should act, and really separates those who use their "faith" in Jesus as an excuse to heap hatred on others.

Regards, PA

I'm sorry preacher-man Z, but you still haven't answered the question.
Seem simple to me...

Just as the example you used (Tom Sawyer) is a fictional person so is Jesus.
We can no more so prove Tom Sawyer was a real person using the book "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" than we can use the Bible to prove Jesus.

Yes I did.....you did not read it right. Perhaps that ^^ is simpler for you.

No, it's pretty much common sense. It's safe to say it was a stable. If I said I was taking a dump, you'd assume I was in the bathroom wouldn't you?

zandore, I think you just like to pick fights. Grow up.

By what institution were you ordained Zandore? I'm a minister to, hence the question. No, really.

I believe!

Are you a former christian Z?

....then it would be safe to assume that those little girls.....

As I think this is OT, given your predilection for christian threads (mine to) , what parts about the christ, have you stopped believing?! Why are you a former christian!? Was it the book and it's inaccuracies and contradictions, the community, or was it the philosophy that changed your heart? (If to personal, smack me with a toaster strudel and I'll walk away. Potentially fatter for the effort I admit, but I'll walk. )

are an old topic that we're never going to agree on, so why not let's agree to disagree and move on

That is unless you want to assume he was then it would be safe to assume that those little girls.....

That is unless you want to assume he was then it would be safe to assume that those little girls.....

If I may quote that entire sentence of mine
Why is it OK to assume that Jesus was born in a stable (when it is not mentioned) and not OK to assume the little girls were used as sex slaves?

Okay Z. Let's pretend Jesus wasn't born in a stable. What matter would it make? If I said "ok, I'm heading out for a couple of beers with mates", it's not that hard to come to the conclusion that I'm going to the pub. But if you maybe decide to interpret "heading out" as going to the bottle-o and grabbing a slab and then going to a friends house, then the effect of my statement is still much the same. I'm still going somewhere else, and I'm still having a few beers.

If however I say "I'm going to a friend's house", there is no possible way for you to know what I'll do, and it would be illogical to simply say "he's having a few beers", unless you have some other evidence to back up that statement.

But seriously, let's not turn yet another thread into a "sex slaves" topic. Remember, this is the Spirituality/Religion/Beliefs section - if you want to argue, that's what our other board is for. So let's get back to the original topic, ok.

So? Maybe they were. You're still acting childish.

Okay Z. Let's pretend Jesus wasn't born in a stable. What matter would it make? If I said "ok, I'm heading out for a couple of beers with mates",.....

But seriously, let's not turn yet another thread into a "sex slaves" topic. Remember, this is the Spirituality/Religion/Beliefs section - if you want to argue, that's what our other board is for. So let's get back to the original topic, ok.

No, it's pretty much common sense. It's safe to say it was a stable. If I said I was taking a dump, you'd assume I was in the bathroom wouldn't you?

zandore, I think you just like to pick fights. Grow up.

There are several non-Christian sources that mention Christians. They may not provide proof of Jesus' existance, they do provide proof of the Christian sect appearing in the 1st century.

However, scholarship by those such as John A.T. Robinson (known for having "rejected the ancients' view of God living in a material heaven above the actual sky") shows the Gospels coming before the temple's destruction in 70

Also, the writings of Paul are not in dispute, save a few whose authorship is questioned. The general consensus is that he wrote at least the majority of the Pauline epistles, even being a favorite of Freud

also, the current society which Jesus lived in was highly illiterate and an oral-based society, thus everyone who saw him could not run and write all of it down

My sources? Uh...wikipedia (the parts about Josephus, Quirinius, and John Robinson) , a "Histority of Jesus FAQ" on a site called infidels.org (obviously not Christian-run), I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler I believe, and the Bible (regarding the Ascention accounts).

Norman Geisler ... The idiot of all idiots! This man is no scholar! James Robinson I like, but he takes a minority opinion of the Gospel dates and Jesus being a pacifist. He's a devout Christian, but very honest in his historical assessment of Jesus. I would strongly recommend his book "The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News"--though I don't agree with everything he says.

Sean

If you are referring to Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius; these writers seem to have mentioned Christians (although the Tacitus and Suetonius quotations have been contested as later Christian interpolations – after all if you control the entire “known world” for 17 centuries and all education, you can change anything you want to and destroy the originals), but if you will notice the dates of their writings it is in the 2nd century CE not the 1st century. I can counter that by saying that the Persian savior god, Mithra was borin in the middle of the night between 24 and 25 Dec 272 BCE and was crucified in 208 BCE, arose from the dead after 3 days in the tomb and ascended to his father Ahura Mazda after walking and speaking with his disciples (sound familiar?). We have ample evidence from Persian and other neighboring people’s writings that the Mithran sect existied in the 3rd century BCE. Following the line that you seem to be following, how can you deny Mithra without denying Jesus? A member of this forum, Mythra (who claims to be a modern Mithran), often says, “Jesus is just a” Johnny-come-lately” copy cat cult, that tried to marry Judaism with Mithraism!”
I was not referring to those historians to provide evidence of Jesus, only of Christians, contrary to what most apologists do. I am aware of the questioned interpolations, and I will do you one better to acknowledge that the Pliny passage is also under scrutiny. I will, though, have to mention that the Christian religion didn't exactly begin in control of the "known world." Many Bible critics mention that the number 666 in Revelation refers to Nero, as I would sincerely bet that it does. What many people neglect is that prophecy has both a present and future application. However, prophecy is not my point. My point is that Nero was responsible for using Christians as human torches for the Roman cocktail parties, and Christianity has spread the fastest and farthest not when it is in control, but when it is threatened. You are correct in saying that the majority of those writers were late 1st, early 2nd century. However, many people say that the Bible wasn't even "invented" until the 3rd or 4th century, so conformation of the sect of Christianity, not to mention the Gnostic writings, disputed as they may be. Paul himself was put to death in CE 65, so obviously his writings had to come before that, and most Christian scholarship puts his books before the Gospels anyway. At least, scholarship that I have read. Regarding Mithra, I am aware that the Dec. 25 date for Christmas was a ploy to reach out to pagans. I am not denying that, nor trying to contest. Most scholarship places the birth of Christ in spring, circa 5 or 6 BCE. Even my Bible says that.


Actually the majority of biblical scholars agree that the only gospel that MIGHT have been written prior to the destruction of the temple was Mark, all the rest were either extremely late 1st century but probably in the 1st quarter of the 2nd century. The gospels aren’t even mentioned by early Christian writers until 150 CE and not mentioned by name until 185BCE, hardly conducive to assigning them a 1st century date! As for Mr. Robinson, for every scholar your produce, I can produce 3 that argue in the opposite. What you are attempting is called “Arguing from Authority” and is a common apologetic ploy, one that only the weak in knowledge of the subject would employ.
Any writing in which the autograph (original manuscript) does not exist is in dispute. Christians of the past have quite a history of editing and changing their mythology to suit the current church politics. If you compare the bible produced in the 4th century to the one you use, you will find many changes in wording, additions and subtractions, and additional books and missing books! A current theory looks at the similarity of Paul and the religious teacher/Son Of God Apollonius (a contemporary of Jesus – if he existed – who not only had gospels written by his disciples while he still lived, but also wrote quite of few books himself), other than that, Paul is questioned almost as much as is the gospels, although it is agreed that they were probably written sometimes after the middle of the 1st century. Even then, Paul seems to have no real knowledge of Jesus (other than a name) and mentions no biographic material on this mangod..Mythra would say that it was Paul who made the first attempt at marrying Judaism and Mithraism!
Common Christian misconception…according to Seneca the Roman historian, all Jewish men were require by the temple law to be able to read and write. That ALL Jewish men were literate. Really, if you want to understand your religion, get out of the mythology and dogma and actually read the ancient pagans, Jews and Christians, historians and theologists, until then you can’t really defend your religion against those with any real knowledge!
Yep, that is what I call really studying and researching the subject! LOL
I am only stating my beliefs, and insulting my knowledge is hardly justified. I have not insulted, nor bullied, nor tried to harass. If I was not arguing based on what I have learned and read, I would be accused of coming up with it myself. When you are learning that 2+2=4, is that not arguing from authority? After all, we aren't born knowing that. I am fully aware of common apologetics ploys, and if I was trying to dismiss or convert you, you would have already known it. I do not have a divinity degree, and most of my knowledge has come from long nights of reading. Just because I have much to learn does not constitute a lack of knowledge. For every Robinson I have read up on, I have read on a Hume, a Gould, a Darwin. I read "The Origin of Species" before I had ever read the Bible, outside of sunday school as a child, which hardly constitutes a scholarly quest. I was asked to reproduce my sources, and, while they may not be horribly impressive (although I am very fond of wikipedia, and it is rather strenuous in fact-checking (recent surveys show it is more widely used than the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica )(I think that was on CNN). Paul himself mentions disciples as with this Apollonius. Some of his letters were about sects based on following Paul, Peter, and Apollos, among others, to say nothing of Jesus.

I am not arguing with what you say about Seneca, although I would argue you are "Arguing from Authority." That's still not to say that the culture was highly oral.

And before you ask Truth, I am a 3rd generation Deist who has been misused, abused and villified by Christians all my life, a professional historian and have made a point of studying the history of your religion as a defense against Christians and their dogma!

You'll note I used Geisler for a decidedly non-apologetic reason. If I was to quote an author solely because of my personal liking of his work or because he shares my faith, I would have quoted Lewis (as in my signature, obviously not a message most Christians want to hear) or Tolkien, who of course had many insights outside of LOTR, which I also am obviously a fan of. I don't have much of an opinion on Geisler, I actually was using him to provide a segue to the Robinson reference. If you would read the reference to Robinson in the book I quoted, you would see that Geisler called Robinson an atheist, which I was trying to contest, while presenting the dating methods Robinson used, which I was using for my argument. Sorry for the misrepresenting of my sources.

I don't know what type of Christians you have had to deal with, but I am not one of them.

I don't appreciate the knocks at my intelligence, but I'm not going to insult you or try to belittle you

I truly appreciate the insight you've given me, because it is mostly stuff I had never heard. I would think that shows I am at least trying[i] to grow in my learning.

I have had a lot of trouble with "Christians" myself, if that's any consolation. Both over doctrine, and the fact I'm not Republican.

I can assure you I will do nothing of the sort

Let’s just say that I live in the deep south, in the staunchly Evangelitical Fundamentalist bible belt, where the brag is a church on every corner and each church preaching fire and brimstone damnation every Wednesday and twice on Sunday! Of course I have lived many different places and found that Christians for the most part are just regular people, but those that are extremist about their religion are unbearable.

I know where you're coming from. I'm from downstate Illinois, which is certainly at least Bible Belt lite. I have been to churches of most denominations (in fact, the main denomination I haven't visited is Roman Catholic, and that's only because someone told me you can't visit those without either being Catholic or having an invitation. Don't remember who told me that. I'd say the worst I've dealt with are the Southern Baptists. I've had some tangles with them. I imagine that's the main type you've had trouble with. The young-earth creationist/religious right/disagree and go to hell type.

Sorry, you came on like a fundie apologists and that activated my anti-politeness switch…I have found in the past that small insults usually discourage those that only come to aggravate, not learn.

Nope, I have read apologetics, and it interests me greatly, but I'm just as critical of that as I am reading something like The Panda's Thumb or something similar. I think that most apologists (Geisler, as I mentioned, McDowell, and the like...I'm more of a fan of Ravi Zacharias, Lewis, and Peter Kreeft...I know more, but I forget a lot of them) try to make it a one-sided argument, and use strawmen to make their points. I do like formal debate, which is why I may have sounded like that, but I don't base all my info on Christian sources. And I have been aggravated intentionally too many times to do it myself. Sorry I came across that way.

Which I truly appreciate…I love to learn new things and I really appreciate this trait in others. Too many Christians want only dogma, only a few (like Irish, PA and SLL on this forum) want knowledge. I guess they think that if it is contrary to their beliefs that it might affect their faith!

Yeah, we should never stop being students, even if we have three doctorates and are professors emiritus, and all that. If the body of Jesus was (conclusively) found, or we had conclusive proof of there being no God, I would want to be the first to know. Only a weak believer (of anything) changes his/her mind in the face of criticism. Now, if there is a sound argument, sometimes it's necessary to change one's thinking. But just because one hears opposing sides shouldn't throw one into a frenzy. However...many fundies do feel that way, listening to things "where everyone agrees," as the NOFX song put it.

Oh No, don’t tell me….you are a *shudder* Democrat! I am a moderate Independent and vote for who I see as the best candidate…
And I can assure you that I will be more polite in the future,

were did jesus the man learn and practise the seven from within, which would have been elavated in order to be one with the father, that of truth.if one is born of flesh one must asend to the father , there are many doors one must go through in walking in the spirit

the Essenes, Yeshua was an Essene