Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

The actual Jesus probably didn't exist

Post a reply
User avatar



Gender: None specified
Points: 650
Reviews: 0
Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:10 am
View Likes
thatguy1944 says...



PenguinAttack wrote: I could imagine the concept of Jesus being invented to instill concepts of ethics and morality to a culture


That's precisely part of my observation. I believe it is possible that even those who supposedly knew jesus were fabricated or exaggerated to support a semblance of validity.

Since most of the public was illiterate back then how would they know one way or the other that this person with a great and groovy message of love and piece existed some 30 years before. I think with a little bit of coordination and authority an institution like church could easily be used to spread the "truth" of Jesus's life and message.

To clarify, I'm not attacking the message of your god only questioning it. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of god describing the life of actual jesus. I believe that like the rest of the bible that jesus's life is only a story where he is the main character. A metaphor.

and the Sahara actually used to be a tropical jungle. I like to think that our ancestors migrated out of there when shifting weather patterns dried up the area. Forcing them to eventually spread out across the globe.

:p

Thatguy1944




User avatar
53 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 4963
Reviews: 53
Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:31 pm
View Likes
Cole says...



I don't think it's wrong if people don't believe that the Bible is a witness to the divine, but I think it's foolish to completely brush off the Bible and the existence of Christ as religious propaganda when there is a staggering amount of evidence supporting the two.

I honestly feel like you're almost trying to make up excuses of why we have Christianity today. You're trying to fabricate alternate ways of how my faith came to be.
Since most of the public was illiterate back then how would they know one way or the other that this person with a great and groovy message of love and piece existed some 30 years before. I think with a little bit of coordination and authority an institution like church could easily be used to spread the "truth" of Jesus's life and message.


You're trying to make excuses or other propositions to try to disprove the validity of Scripture. But you have to look to where the evidence points, what history says.

Judaism is perhaps one of the oldest monotheistic faiths in the world (even though some may consider it to be Hinduism). The prophecy of the Messiah (or in Greek Khristos--Christ) existed for thousands of years. The first mention of the Messiah is mentioned in the book of Genesis, which was penned nearly two millennia before the birth of Yeshua.

There were hundreds of aspects to the prophecy. Peter W. Stoner, former Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College, said that by using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of the Messianic prophecies, he found that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled those eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrated it by supposing that "we take 100,000,000,000,000,000 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas."

They would cover all of the state two feet deep. "Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing only these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Even non-Christian Jews, in their writings, called Yeshua a witch and a sorcerer. They couldn't disclaim what prophecies Yeshua had fulfilled because there were still too many eyewitnesses alive. Instead of denying what He did, they merely said He did what He did because of witchcraft.

My first point: Yeshua could not have been invented on the spot for religious Christian propaganda. Firstly, the probability of one man fulfilling all of the prophecies predestined to the Messianic character is nearly incalculable. The fact that thousands of Jews in the first six decades of the first century were convinced that Yeshua of Nazareth was the Christ is remarkable. Also, if Yeshua was "made up", it would have to be planned over thousands of years, since we have ancient records talking about the coming Messiah. So, a character meant to spread Christian propaganda was planned for a couple millennia? Eh…

My second point: Clearly, they didn't just say "Yeshua is the Messiah" and fabricate His entire ministry. Firstly, the swell of Christians that poured out of Israel within the first six decades of the first century is astounding. If it had all been fabricated, the rise of Christianity would not have had the intensity that it did. Even the fact that they called Yeshua of Nazareth the "Christ" (which is Greek for the "Messiah") demonstrates their belief that He was Immanuel. Early Christians called themselves "The Nazarenes". "The Nazarene" was a title for Yeshua since He grew up in the village of Nazareth. With this title, they were associating themselves with Him.

Secondly, even unbiased anti-Christian Jewish texts recognize that Christ had some sort of divine ability, calling Him "a sorcerer". As I said before, they couldn't disregard His deeds and miracles because there were hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses alive that would disprove them.

I just think it's ridiculous that you're willing to accept Christ as some sort of propaganda rather than heeding the enormous amount of evidence we have supporting His life, His ministry, and quite candidly, His divinity.

There are hundreds of books on this subject. Scholars and professors have dedicated their lives to this very subject and have a lot more to say than I do. I suggest you look at some of them.

Now, I'm done with this debate, so I'll be seeing you guys.
My heart holds all secrets; my heart tells no lies.

~Hosea 6:3~
ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את יהוה כשחר נכון מצאו ויבוא כגשם לנו כמלקוש יורה ארץ׃




User avatar
8 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 685
Reviews: 8
Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:03 pm
skwmusic says...



The earth has been around for millions of years, and humans have been around for thousands. What makes you so sure a flood never happened or a garden never existed? How would you know? Land changes, and where I live was once covered in water, but it's not anymore. You probably couldn't even tell except for the millions of rocks you dig up.


Since you asked, I'm only 15. But with all the knowledge of a high school sophomore, I shall debunk your claim :D

When something like a flood or earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, it leaves a mark on the earth. Floods can erode nearby landmass and will leave a clear distinction in the layers of rock that are eventually buried by new landmass. But even disregarding that, the flood is still physically impossible. The bible describes the flood as reaching the highest mountains. Let's assume it's Mt. Everest. Everest is about 5.5 miles high. The lowest ocean depth recorded is about 7 miles down. You're telling me that 5.5 miles high worth of water, in addition to the 7 miles of ocean depth already there, came out of nowhere and flooded the earth?

So. You are protesting the time span of 30 years and saying that Jesus couldn't have possibly existed because by then it was just some fabrication, but then you point to his teachings, written 400 years after his death and his biography, written at minimum 600 years after his death and cite that as proof of Buddha's existence? XD

That probably wasn't a good example to use was it? Hehe ahh I feel stupid...

Also, just as an FYI, the Christian tradition was originally carried out as an oral tradition. Romans were kind of... um... killing Christians at first? The religion was totally an underground religion, lol. Until about 300, when you have the first Roman Christian Emperor come around. And that's basically when the Roman Catholic Church officially started up and started producing these documents.


That's not necessarily true. The empire didn't really start persecuting christians until the 4th century, with Diocletian. After Diocletian came Constatine, who was the first Christian emperor of Rome. Christians actually grew to be about 10% of Rome before Diocletian came to power. Of course it's still entirely possible that Christians still passed on stories by oral tradition since like I said, most people back then were illiterate.

That still doesn't address my underlying point in that in a system as efficient as the Roman's, that no one bothered to write down that a prisoner they executed came back to life. The general population may have been illiterate, but surely people in power like Pilate, or if he was illiterate a scribe or something, could read. It's ridiculous to think that the only person who could think to write at least the resurrection down was some guy looking to start a religion based on Jesus. I don't really know alot about Indian society during the time of Buddha but I do know a fair share about the Romans.

One of the biggest examples of unbias is the fact that Mary Magdalene was said to be the most beloved disciple and was the first to witness the resurrected Christ. She was a woman!


How exactly is that unbias? If what you claim is true, that the events in the New Testament really did happen, then how do you bias that? The guy wrote it down because it happened! You can't bias that. You can bias how it happened, but trying to say that the bible saying a woman saw the resurrection if she actually did is an example of unbias is like saying Robert E. Lee surrendering is unbias. It's not bias or unbias, it's historical fact! Instead you portray this part of the story as some sort of manipulative rhetoric technique. Look how accepting our religion is, a woman was the first to see our messiah resurrected!
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." -George Carlin




User avatar
53 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 4963
Reviews: 53
Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:32 pm
View Likes
Cole says...



I said I wouldn't come back, mostly because I don't have anything more to say about this subject. You guys can deny and argue with everything I say. I don't really care... however, I merely want to correct you, skwmusic.

That's not necessarily true. The empire didn't really start persecuting Christians until the 4th century...


Are you kidding me? Have you heard of the Roman Emperor Nero? He ruled from 54 to 68 AD. Nero is considered the first major sponsor of Christian persecution. He is held accountable for the executions of Apostles Peter and Paul. Nero was known for his torture and execution of Christians. He was known to tie Christians to burning stakes and use them as giant torches for his parties and gatherings.

Not to mention the Great Fire of Rome; the people of the empire searched for a scapegoat and began to hold Nero responsible for the damage of the fire. To deflect the blame, Nero targeted Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, and to be crucified and burned.

He was so cruel to Christians, that in later centuries, after John's Revelation was made public, they believed he was the Anti-Christ.

Please get your facts right.
My heart holds all secrets; my heart tells no lies.

~Hosea 6:3~
ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את יהוה כשחר נכון מצאו ויבוא כגשם לנו כמלקוש יורה ארץ׃




User avatar



Gender: None specified
Points: 650
Reviews: 0
Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:05 pm
View Likes
thatguy1944 says...



aHow are you so sure that all of these eyewitnesses even existed? I mean is it impossible for story of jesus to be just that? a Story?

It just bothers me because as humans we can get so lost in the moment. I can just imagine priests, monks, and other holy men all vying for interest and attention for their cause. I don't really care how many prophecies exist to me the notion of a prophesy is silly and useless.

Also @skwmusic I think it is entirely possible that a massive flood is possible maybe not to the extent that Mt. Everest would be covered but maybe enough to give humanity a bad coupla' days or years. Any mark on the earth left by a shift in weather patterns. or what have you, wouldn't be immediately obvious to us probably because any physical evidence is most likely deep below the surface of the earth.

Thatguy1944




User avatar
10 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 606
Reviews: 10
Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:44 pm
AubrielRose says...



The bible is a collection of stories that were changed and added to over a lengthy spand of time. A great deal of those stories, matter of factly, were basically taken from Buddhism, Roman Myth, Greek Myth, etc. My personal opinion is that Jesus may have been slightly delusional (I don't mean to offend anybody here) in claiming that he was the son of God. I do however think he was a great teacher of morality, sane or delusional.




User avatar
135 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 1607
Reviews: 135
Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:08 am
stargazer9927 says...



skwmusic wrote:When something like a flood or earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, it leaves a mark on the earth. Floods can erode nearby landmass and will leave a clear distinction in the layers of rock that are eventually buried by new landmass. But even disregarding that, the flood is still physically impossible. The bible describes the flood as reaching the highest mountains. Let's assume it's Mt. Everest. Everest is about 5.5 miles high. The lowest ocean depth recorded is about 7 miles down. You're telling me that 5.5 miles high worth of water, in addition to the 7 miles of ocean depth already there, came out of nowhere and flooded the earth?


It's been thousands of years. Yes, there is a mark, but it's not huge. And I'm not perfect with geology, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't mountains formed over time? I doubt they all existed during pangea, so how are you to know it was that high at the time?

And fact isn't everything. God can do amazing things. If you were to tell someone from the past how your body works (in detail like you would learn in biology, rather than just the average body functions) they probably would have called you crazy, telling you that's impossible. It wasn't until recently all the amazing and craziness was found as fact.
Let's eat mom.
Let's eat, mom.
Good grammar saves lives :D




User avatar



Gender: None specified
Points: 650
Reviews: 0
Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 am
thatguy1944 says...



@stargazer9927 How does that prove how amazing god is? I really think that many religions discredit the power of the mind by encouraging followers to rely on god and or faith

I've only had myself to rely on in life and I find it a waste of energy to encapsulate the concept of god into one almighty being I think it limits the potential of people as individuals and as a society




User avatar
37 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 382
Reviews: 37
Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:26 am
Laminated says...



When something like a flood or earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, it leaves a mark on the earth. Floods can erode nearby landmass and will leave a clear distinction in the layers of rock that are eventually buried by new landmass. But even disregarding that, the flood is still physically impossible. The bible describes the flood as reaching the highest mountains. Let's assume it's Mt. Everest. Everest is about 5.5 miles high. The lowest ocean depth recorded is about 7 miles down. You're telling me that 5.5 miles high worth of water, in addition to the 7 miles of ocean depth already there, came out of nowhere and flooded the earth?


This is a good argument:) One prevalent theory is that, before the flood, the earth was surrounded by a "ring" of water, so to speak. The atmosphere was very wet. In theory, this also enabled the humans to live much longer than they do now. (As a side note, at one point God did cut down man's life span, limiting it to 120 years) When the flood occurred, this theory states that the water contained in the atmosphere descended on the planet. The Bible supports this theory, as God, when creating the heavens, not the land, separated the waters. Water above, water below.

As for an effect on the earth, wouldn't you say it's possible that the "supercontinent" existed before the flood, and the forces of the flood redefined the land masses of the earth, splitting it to a greater similarity to today's geology?
I'M GUNNA MAKE DIS PLACE YO HOME




User avatar
36 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 13373
Reviews: 36
Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:44 pm
tr3x says...



This is a good argument:) One prevalent theory is that, before the flood, the earth was surrounded by a "ring" of water, so to speak. The atmosphere was very wet. In theory, this also enabled the humans to live much longer than they do now. (As a side note, at one point God did cut down man's life span, limiting it to 120 years) When the flood occurred, this theory states that the water contained in the atmosphere descended on the planet. The Bible supports this theory, as God, when creating the heavens, not the land, separated the waters. Water above, water below.

As for an effect on the earth, wouldn't you say it's possible that the "supercontinent" existed before the flood, and the forces of the flood redefined the land masses of the earth, splitting it to a greater similarity to today's geology?


This "theory" (it's a hypothesis, not a theory. Get it right.) has no factual evidence supporting it. It is entirely disregarded by modern science because whoever came up with it obviously doesn't know the first thing about biology, physics or geography.

That said, I highly doubt there will be any agreement on this topic, because the nature of religion is that it takes things on faith. Even if one proves that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus, people would believe it on "faith".
A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
- Terry Pratchett

Si non confectus, non recifiat - If it ain't broken, don't fix it.




User avatar
1071 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 77125
Reviews: 1071
Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:25 pm
View Likes
Kyllorac says...



When something like a flood or earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, it leaves a mark on the earth. Floods can erode nearby landmass and will leave a clear distinction in the layers of rock that are eventually buried by new landmass.

This much is true, however...

But even disregarding that, the flood is still physically impossible. The bible describes the flood as reaching the highest mountains. Let's assume it's Mt. Everest. Everest is about 5.5 miles high. The lowest ocean depth recorded is about 7 miles down. You're telling me that 5.5 miles high worth of water, in addition to the 7 miles of ocean depth already there, came out of nowhere and flooded the earth?

Ignoring that Mt. Everest is on a completely different continent than the Middle East, that the mountains in the Middle East are much smaller, that floods events can be localized, that human populations tended to concentrate in certain habitable regions, that most cultures around the world have a story about a flood which wiped out much of humanity, and that it has been scientifically verified that there was extensive flooding in the region around the Black Sea (though the violence of the flooding is disputed), the Earth has been completely covered in water (solid and liquid) at various points in time during its history, and there remains enough water sequestered in the atmosphere and polar ice caps to cover the majority of the planet. Before the last Ice Age, the Appalachian Mountain range was taller than the (then non-existent) Rocky Mountains, and the sheer amount of material dislodged by the glaciation and dispersed along the East Coast is incredible. If you consider how long the Appalachian Mountains are, and that their entire length was at one point covered in ice averaging at half a mile thick, that's a lot of water. And we're not even considering the coverage of the Southern Hemisphere.

Even earlier in the Earth's geological history, back when it was much warmer on the surface than it is now, the planet's surface was almost exclusively liquid water.

Point being, a global flood may seem unlikely now, and it may seem like there's not enough water, but the Earth's surface has been covered by water in the past, which indicates that it could be covered by water again in the future. There's definitely enough water to do the job.
Screwing with gender since 1995.


There are no chickens in Hyrule.




User avatar
3676 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 32
Reviews: 3676
Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:56 pm
Snoink says...



Of course it's still entirely possible that Christians still passed on stories by oral tradition since like I said, most people back then were illiterate.


Partly through oral tradition and partly tradition through ceremonial rituals, i.e., the sacraments. Of course, these rituals emphasized the various parts of Jesus' life and such. ^^ But yeah, essentially.

I think Tacitus did write about Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate? I think they're still trying to figure out the authenticity, but still.

EDIT:

Also. Because several of you have kind of brought up these sentiments... :)

"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

— C.S. Lewis (The Silver Chair (Chronicles of Narnia, #6))


<3
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D




User avatar
8 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 685
Reviews: 8
Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:50 am
View Likes
skwmusic says...



It's been thousands of years. Yes, there is a mark, but it's not huge. And I'm not perfect with geology, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't mountains formed over time? I doubt they all existed during pangea, so how are you to know it was that high at the time?


Pangea was a supercontinent that was formed about 300 million years ago. The earliest human genus, homo, traces back to only 2 million years ago. Our species Homo Sapien originated in Africa only 200,000 years ago. Even at the conception of Homo Sapiens, we still didn't have enough knowledge to write anything down or even speak. We talked in UGHHs and AGHHHSs for a very long time.

Kyllorac could you link me a source to your claim? I have been google searching for 10 minutes and haven't found anything (which if you claim is true shouldn't take any longer than 2 or 3 minutes) except a bunch of creationist bull.

But let's just accept your claim for now. Let's say this flood happened in human history. Like I said in response to stargazer, this would be a time where UGHH and AGHHH could mean anything between "let's be friends" and "I'm going to shove a spear up your nose". I don't think that humans would be mentally capable, at this point, of utilizing writing utensils, unless you count cave drawings.

And this flood would not be just for 30 days. This would not have just *poof* came out of nowhere in like 2 days. This would at least take a few thousand years to rise and fall. No human could've survived this time period.

And the ark? Oh god. Think about the impossibility of building an ark holding 2 of EVERY ANIMAL. How would they possibly provide enough food for even a week, let alone a month? How are the carnivores going to eat, what about species that mate by killing each other, does this include plants, do we save the poisonous animals, what species of plants do these things eat, all this is knowledge that no human being has had until very recently in human history. Also think of all the feces lying around, what if the animals kill each other, how is the ark even going to fit all of these, is this EVERY species of animal at that time?

I have found no credible source claiming that a flood did in fact happen. But if it did, surely no human had the knowledge or incentive to document this event, and even if they did, all records would be lost in the flood after the guy died. Also the Ice Age wasn't like the earth completely froze. It was just a drastic reduction in the Earth's temperate state, meaning there were still trees, and there was still dirt, and there were still big wooly mammoths to harpoon. And at this time, humans were still hunter-gatherers, too occupied with harpooning mammoths to even care about god and what he had to say. Organized religion wouldn't come about until the neolithic revolution, which happened at most, 10,000 years ago. And even then Judaism is about 3,000 years old. If you accept that this story was passed on by oral tradition which it most certainly was not, the story would be so distorted after hundreds of thousands of years (which it would not have survived anyways) that the documented story in the bible would be just about as hooplah as nyan cat shooting rainbows out his ass.
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." -George Carlin




User avatar
8 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 685
Reviews: 8
Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:52 am
skwmusic says...



I think I should add another post clarifying that a flood could certainly have happened. But to say that flood is the same one described in genesis is ridiculous.
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." -George Carlin




User avatar
81 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 1263
Reviews: 81
Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:22 am
View Likes
Pigeon says...



Why are we arguing about the flood? Isn't the debate supposed to be about Jesus?

I know, I know, arguing Biblical accuracy...except that it's still irrelevant, because al that matters for the purposes of this discussion is the New Testament, or possibly just the gospels.
Reader, what are you doing?