God or Human?

[CoffeeDrink]

I have a hard time believing anything the bible has written down. The bible is just a collection of fanciful tales full of sex, debauchery, war, death, impossible ordeals, mythical creatures, and massive plot-holes; so, pretty much the basic formula for any popular teen novel these days.

Besides the fact that the bible is hard to consider factual in any way, it's not even written firsthand. The books held inside were written decades, perhaps even centuries later. Over time, rumors, and embellished hear-say is form fitted to entertain the reader. It is a fantasy book, and nothing more. I doubt Jesus truly existed in the way the bible portrays him. I find the whole mess the equivalent of Mel Gibson riding up and down the rank and file of his Scotsman, they claim that William Wallace is ten feet tall, laser beams from his eyes, and lightning shoots out his arse. ridiculous, right?

Nothing more than the overactive imaginations of old men sitting in caves.

So no, Jesus was most certainly not, a god. Nor do I find credibility that he actually existed in the first place.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I'm not religious, so I don't know how good my output is, but in a strictly speaking personal sense, I view Jesus as a very influential human.

In a religious sense, I would assume that Jesus contained both traits of a human and divinity.

 

[Deokishisu]

Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find a historical (as in, outside of the bible) mention of Jesus ANYWHERE around his supposed lifespan. The 1st century was not an era where no history was written down. In fact, we have the work of contemporary writers and historians that describe events all throughout the era that Jesus supposedly lived. Yet, none of these contemporary historians give one mention to Jesus, or a supposed Messiah. (Josephus, a Romano-Jewish scholar who recorded Jewish history in the 1st century would certainly have wrote about Jesus, or the cult developing around such a figure, but the one page that mentions a messiah is widely regarded to be a fake, forged by early church leaders a few centuries later.)

Furthermore, the Romans kept records of official business, such as state executions. The crucifixion of an anarchist leader would've certainly made a list SOMEWHERE.

The bible itself leads credence to the fact that the entirety of the New Testament was fiction. First of all, the first complete writings of the gospels appeared in the 4th century. The early church decided on the four we now know as canonical, as numerous other gospels existed. (There were as many gospels as there were early christian cults.) It's generally agreed that the gospels were rewritten several times before then (and transcribed, which is not error-free, countless more times), which could have entirely changed the meaning of certain passages. The gospels themselves are not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written after Jesus and his apostles had died, and then attributed to those authors. The earliest dates for their writing start at Mark's which was completed around the Fall of Jerusalem, in the late 60s CE-early 70s CE. Mark is widely agreed to have been written first, but the text was completed years after the last apostles would have died; at around the end of the first century. The Jews were also involved in a long and bloody conflict at this time, and there's no doubt that by the time Mark was completed, most if not all of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' supposed acts would've died of natural causes (most) or by Roman sword (some). This rules it out, and by proxy the later gospels too, as a primary source for the Jesus tale. Another nail in the coffin (or cross) is the simple fact that Mark has the geography of Judea completely wrong. Mark references towns in the wrong places; has Jesus and Friends make direct trips that, if following the directions given by Mark's gospel, would have made them do numerous, ridiculous backtracking and add countless days onto their supposed journey. It's clear just by reading the text that none of the authors who contributed to the Mark gospel were from Jesus' neck of the woods. They are so unfamiliar with the terrain that it borders on insanity.

Matthew and Luke were written around the same time, and are based on Mark and another source document commonly dubbed as "Q", of which none survives to the present day. They fix Mark's flagrant abuse of geography, but clock in at about 80-100 CE, which remove them even further from Jesus' supposed life and death.

John was the last gospel written, and Jesus' attitude and personality is noticeably changed in this one. John's gospel is probably the one that contains the most supernatural elements, and is widely discredited for being written by multiple authors in stages, and clocking in almost 100 years after Jesus' supposed death.

If that hasn't given you some food for thought about the authenticity of the whole tale, why not chew on some big contradictions between the gospels? The sentences below are shamelessly copy-pasted from another source, as I can't be arsed to retype my notes.

How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli.
Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
Did Judas keep the gold he got for handing over Jesus, buy a field, and die (by falling and having his bowels burst out) in it as in Acts 1:18? Or did Judas throw the gold away and hang himself as in Matthew 27:5?

Would contemporary authors, eye-witnesses, or the people experiencing the events in Jesus' life directly have made these sorts of mistakes? Perhaps one could dismiss the lineage errors, but the hour and day in which one's messiah is crucified seems difficult to mess up if one was actually there. These are not the only internal inconsistencies found in the text, by the way. A careful reading of the New Testament would reveal dozens more.

It is my researched opinion that Jesus was not human, nor was he a god. There's no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all.

 

[Livewire]

Assuming he is an actual historical figure - a man who spearheaded a radical off-shoot sect of Judaism that threatened social order and the "establishment" and subsequently died for it, and became a messianic figure because the new fledgling religion needed him to be so, to justify its existence and message. And subsequent generations of followers filled in the gaps at the Council of Nicaea and during the writing of the gospels in the second, third and fourth centuries C.E.

Awfully convenient of a brand new radical religion, trying to win over converts, that its chief prophet just happens to also be the son of god and this faith happens to be the "true" faith of the one true God. Look at it through the lens of a purely social/political movement, and things will begin to make sense and you'll see it for what it really is - Constantine's method of controlling his vast empire with a common, universal faith to unite his subjects under.

 

[CelticsPhan]

Jesus was absolutely human, but he could either be God's only Son, or even a metaphorical figure. Since Jesus was and is such a role model to us humans, he could very well be just a character from an egregious story.

The fact that he was divine could've been added on by whomever this part of the New Testament was written so that people could conclude his character. I'm a Catholic Christian and the rest, so my opinion on the matter is obvious. If the Bible is truly a test of belief for humans, then Jesus is truly God's Son, or at the least a prophet of God.

I just watched the Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime with a suggested god as a main character), and that makes me think: wouldn't it be better if Jesus really was a God after all? It gives me a lot to look forward to and figure out when it's time for my life to end.

The answers here don't surprise me; there isn't a lot of proof or evidence in this world that suggests Jesus' divinity or even his existence. And if the world universally agreed or somehow figured out Jesus, we'd neglect religion as a whole and continue on with our short mortal lives.

 

[The Void]

Assuming he is an actual historical figure - a man who spearheaded a radical off-shoot sect of Judaism that threatened social order and the "establishment" and subsequently died for it, and became a messianic figure because the new fledgling religion needed him to be so, to justify its existence and message.

Awfully convenient of a brand new radical religion, trying to win over converts, that its chief prophet just happens to also be the son of god and this faith happens to be the "true" faith of the one true God.

To oversimplify, this is just about how almost all major religions like Buddhism and Islam started out.

And subsequent generations of followers filled in the gaps at the Council of Nicaea and during the writing of the gospels in the second, third and fourth centuries C.E.

No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.

Look at it through the lens of a purely social/political movement, and things will begin to make sense and you'll see it for what it really is - Constantine's method of controlling his vast empire with a common, universal faith to unite his subjects under.

Constantine did not need Christianity to "control" the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Empire was well off without Christianity. The Church during Constantine's time was still viewed as a weird monotheistic cult that was incompatible with the Roman religion that was the foundation of Roman society.

Heck, Constantine was only baptized when he was on his deathbed.

 

[Deokishisu]

No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.

What if I told you I was divinely inspired to post this? You have no proof, and thus no reason to listen to me. Anyone can claim divine inspiration, it's just a lot easier to get uneducated sheep herders from the 1st century to believe you than it is strangers on the internet.

The church fathers at the Council of Nicaea were no more holy men than you or I. They were educated scholars who rose up in the ranks of their local christian cult and were basically ordered by Emperor Constantine to show up and standardize the mess that was christianity at the time. Estimates put more than 1800 people there. 1800 people from different parts of the Roman Empire who all disagreed on how the church should be set up, the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Judeo-Christian god, how people should repent when they've sinned, etc. If all of these church officials were divinely inspired, why weren't they all teaching the same thing already? Why was the council necessary at all? In reality, it was just a group of powerful men deciding, "This is what we are now." Nothing more.

 

[Livewire]

To oversimplify, this is just about how almost all major religions like Buddhism and Islam started out.

Right, but Buddhists & Muslims don't tote Buddha and Muhammad around as the son of god, respectively.

No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.

"Divinely inspired" is basically tantamount to words made by man, but made to look divinely inspired so as to put those words beyond questioning by other men - "We didn't say it, God did, so you know it's true!" Awfully convenient for your message if it's infallible, coming directly from God to man. It's a good way to give gravitas and authority to your movement.

Constantine did not need Christianity to "control" the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Empire was well off without Christianity. The Church during Constantine's time was still viewed as a weird monotheistic cult that was incompatible with the Roman religion that was the foundation of Roman society.

You're aware that Rome spent almost the entirety of the 3nd & 4rd Centuries at war, defending the empire's borders against invasion, and fighting political and social upheaval at home. The empire was dwindling after the 2nd century CE. Rome went through more emperors in a single year (6, in 238 CE) than you and I have fingers on one hand. Wide spread social and political upheaval a "well off" empire does not make. Mind you, Constantine only became emperor after defeating the other Tetrarchs in battle and becoming the sole emperor in the West. The first thing he did as Emperor was to eneact several reforms, all across the empire, to strength it and to heal it from the civil wars and infighting. Constantine saw the new, up-and-coming religion as an opportunity to bind the empire together with a state-run religion - no more loosely-defined pagan sects and multiple Gods. It was a reform. Look at any Theocracy today and you'll see the benefits of a homogenized, state-run religion that promotes strict social and cultural order. Why else would he change centuries of traditional pagan Roman beliefs? Unless he needed to.

Heck, Constantine was only baptized when he was on his deathbed.

Just because he propagated the rise of Christianity as a major faith, doesn't necessarily mean he believed it himself. As in, the belief system wasn't for him. It was for the masses.

 

[ShivaDF]

Fundamentally, the only difference between men like Jesus or Buddha and most of us is that they consciously manifested their divine nature.

I don't whether Jesus existed or not, or whether he's some amalgamation of a bunch of different people. But I agree with Tek's comment.

Honestly, I don't think there's any kind of divide between "divine" and "everything else." One point in the universe holds the energy of the entire universe.

This is a digression, but why do non-religious people always assume that if Christ existed, he died on the cross? He could have gotten somebody else to be crucified, you know. Or there could have been some sort of gambit to keep him alive. And didn't Jesus know the people who were to put him in his tomb? And isn't it interesting how Jesus's legs weren't broken? Just saying.

 

[The Void]

What if I told you I was divinely inspired to post this? You have no proof, and thus no reason to listen to me. Anyone can claim divine inspiration, it's just a lot easier to get uneducated sheep herders from the 1st century to believe you than it is strangers on the internet.

The church fathers at the Council of Nicaea were no more holy men than you or I. They were educated scholars who rose up in the ranks of their local christian cult and were basically ordered by Emperor Constantine to show up and standardize the mess that was christianity at the time. Estimates put more than 1800 people there. 1800 people from different parts of the Roman Empire who all disagreed on how the church should be set up, the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Judeo-Christian god, how people should repent when they've sinned, etc. If all of these church officials were divinely inspired, why weren't they all teaching the same thing already? Why was the council necessary at all? In reality, it was just a group of powerful men deciding, "This is what we are now." Nothing more.

Like I pointed out earlier these men were directly appointed by the Apostles themselves, the closest followers of Jesus. Councils were necessary exactly because they were not teaching the same thing. After Jesus' death, the Apostles would do this -- they would gather around and discuss their understanding of Jesus' teachings and if there was an issue in their individual understanding, they would further discuss that issue until they all get it right.

To say that all their Christian converts were uneducated goat herders simply isn't true. Soldiers and wealthy men throughout the empire were converted too, and I doubt you would call Constantine an idiot.

Right, but Buddhists & Muslims don't tote Buddha and Muhammad around as the son of god, respectively.

They did something similar: Buddhists regarded Gautama as the Enlightened One while Muslims hailed Muhammad as the Holy Prophet.

"Divinely inspired" is basically tantamount to words made by man, but made to look divinely inspired so as to put those words beyond questioning by other men - "We didn't say it, God did, so you know it's true!" Awfully convenient for your message if it's infallible, coming directly from God to man. It's a good way to give gravitas and authority to your movement.

I said "by tradition". From a completely irreligious point of view, the Council of Nicaea was basically the summary of these men's understanding of scripture, which was formed and developed over the course of years.

You're aware that Rome spent almost the entirety of the 3nd & 4rd Centuries at war, defending the empire's borders against invasion, and fighting political and social upheaval at home. The empire was dwindling after the 2nd century CE. Rome went through more emperors in a single year (6, in 238 CE) than you and I have fingers on one hand. Wide spread social and political upheaval a "well off" empire does not make. Mind you, Constantine only became emperor after defeating the other Tetrarchs in battle and becoming the sole emperor in the West. The first thing he did as Emperor was to eneact several reforms, all across the empire, to strength it and to heal it from the civil wars and infighting. Constantine saw the new, up-and-coming religion as an opportunity to bind the empire together with a state-run religion - no more loosely-defined pagan sects and multiple Gods. It was a reform. Look at any Theocracy today and you'll see the benefits of a homogenized, state-run religion that promotes strict social and cultural order. Why else would he change centuries of traditional pagan Roman beliefs? Unless he needed to.

It would have been counterproductive for Constantine to maintain unity and order by introducing a weird new religion where its adherents eat their own god. The Roman religion was the heart of Roman society and it shaped the culture and greatness of the Empire. It was also flexible so it was able to borrow and loan elements from and to other beliefs, such as the Egyptian, Gothic, and Celtic religions.

If anything, it would seem as though Christianity was a major factor in the decline of the Empire. Because of Christianity, barbarian rides had increased, the army became disloyal, tax base decreased, and the entire system collapsed within 80 years after this law.

Since every neighboring barbarian tribe -- Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alans -- were Christianized, lootings started to target the old pagan symbols of great Roman cities. In addition, this new Christian empire did not allow for the thorough elimination of the enemy. Why would a Christian obliterate another Christian? This could be further supported by the fact that of all the barbarian invasions since 395, only the Huns' were truly stopped, while the invasions of all the other, Christian tribes were not.

Constantine and his successors were definitely not theocratic rulers, no matter how much they saw themselves as such. They had no say on doctrine, and their authority was constantly being challenged by bishops -- most notably the bishop of Rome.

Just because he propagated the rise of Christianity as a major faith, doesn't necessarily mean he believed it himself. As in, the belief system wasn't for him. It was for the masses.

He did believe in it. He personally accepted it as early as his youth. Again, even if he was using Christianity to unify and control the masses then he had ultimately failed, even in unifying Christianity itself. Constantine was a follower of Arianism, a heresy as declared by the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Spinor]

Jesus is genetically engineered magician. How else can you give a virgin birth to a dude, and one with an escape act that went for three whole days?

(Or you know, Jesus was some human and the Bible is a collection of scientifically and historically inconsistent and unreliable accounts and myths. But don't mind me. I was a troubled child who liked to ask too many questions.)

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Even from a semi-secular point of view, it still seems to me that the Jewish are still the only ones with a true covenant with God (judging from how history has been with them). Islam shot off from a conflict with Abraham choosing his wife's kid over the actual firstborn bore from a mistress, and as you've seen that hasn't ended up well. Christian offshoots are even weirder than that, likely because their deviation from Judaism is so much more complex.

As for Jesus, I imagine the thing was born out of misconstruation of fact into fiction (what the Bible's best known for). He could've wore robes of linen and bore gold or he could've been like that entity in Revalation who wore sack clothing or something idr. Who knows ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[Phantom1]

Hmm.

Since there is no god and I doubt Jesus existed, neither.

If Jesus did exist he was a hippy blasphemer who most likely had a few screws loose and thought he was the son of god.

 

[uoneko]

being the jew that i am, i'd go ahead and say human
and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.

 

[Dakotah]

being the jew that i am, i'd go ahead and say human
and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.

Can you please cite archaeological evidence that definitively supports the existence of Jesus. The bible is not a historical document, in that it is merely a series of stories haphazardly, and often full of contradictions, put together. All indications are that the character "Jesus" is merely a combination of a good number of people from different sources. Since most religions borrow from other religions or beliefs in order to "convince" people to convert, it's logical to believe that there wasn't any one person named Jesus.

 

[uoneko]

Can you please cite archaeological evidence that definitively supports the existence of Jesus. The bible is not a historical document, in that it is merely a series of stories haphazardly, and often full of contradictions, put together. All indications are that the character "Jesus" is merely a combination of a good number of people from different sources. Since most religions borrow from other religions or beliefs in order to "convince" people to convert, it's logical to believe that there wasn't any one person named Jesus.

i never said my source was the bible, and you can literally just google it and plenty of evidence will show up.

 

[Dakotah]

i never said my source was the bible, and you can literally just google it and plenty of evidence will show up.

Google <> evidence. I asked if you could cite an archaeological find that proves without a doubt that Jesus was a living breathing person. The claim was yours, and I asked you to back up that claim. It's not, therefore, my responsibility to prove your assertion.

 

[uoneko]

Google <> evidence. I asked if you could cite an archaeological find that proves without a doubt that Jesus was a living breathing person. The claim was yours, and I asked you to back up that claim. It's not, therefore, my responsibility to prove your assertion.

wow, look, a link you could have easily found in a matter of seconds by yourself
wow! another one!
incredible how easy it is to research on your own if you're curious about the subject instead of asking someone

 

[Phantom1]

and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.

You did read my post right? Where I said I 'doubt'; 'doubt' meaning the possibility that he did. And then my next sentence where I explain that if my doubt wasn't correct, what I thought he was?

Also, there is much reason for doubt, that I will explain here, to explain said doubt.

The discussion on whether Jesus was an actual being that walked the Earth, meaning that a man existed - during 0AD to approximately 33 AD, or 0CE-33CE - matching descriptions and events noted to be attributed to his person, is called 'historical Jesus'.

In fact there are many different theories attributed to historical Jesus, that can lead to understandable doubt that a man, as described in the Bible, never existed as described, or was a completely different person entirely.

Let's look first into what is commonly understood as fact, Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, and what empirical evidence we have for it.

First, there are relics. A relic is a religious object that is associated to a Saint or religious figure of importance. This can be anything from a literal piece of a saint, a toenail for instance, or an item, a piece of the crucifixion cross. There are many of these objects and they were a common form of business for the early church, "Here have a saint's earwax!" Other relics were commonly taken back from the Crusades, like water from the river Jordan, for example, was a hot commodity. People would travel hundreds of miles and pay their life's worth for such an item. And every Catholic church HAS to have a relic beneath their altar or they are not officially seen as a church.

Now, what relics do we have to associate with Jesus, and are they sufficient to place as empirical evidence?

The Shroud of Turin is a common story within the church. It is claimed to be the shroud in which Jesus' body was buried in the tomb. It bears a negative, so to speak, of a body that was most likely crucified, and the face bears much likeness to that which is familiar to many as Jesus. Though the Shroud is a falsehood. When it was dated it did not date to the time of Jesus, but rather the 14th century. Even without the dating, it is impossible to know if that was him. Many, many people were crucified over history. It's a needle in a haystack, honestly.

Pieces of the True Cross, the cross that Jesus was killed on, exist all over the world. Many are used as relics for churches, others, family treasures... but here's the thing, there are too many of them. It is said that if they were to be put back together it would be enough to build a ship. The Nails of the cross have also allegedly been found, but they could easily have been from one of the many, many, many other crucifixions in history, especially during that time period.

As for textual knowledge, there is little to go on. Most are confirmed fake one way or another.

Many who believe he existed as the story says, are gripping at the straws of majority opinion.

Now let's look at the Bible, the largest evidence that he existed. You can link to barely known archaeological sites as much as you want, but still the strongest evidence is the Bible, sadly enough. And as some one already said here, it's not a historical document.

The Bible contradicts itself in so many ways, and the story of Jesus, the Gospels, are no different. There are four Gospels that are in the current Bible. I say current because many many books were removed from the Bible or never accepted, many contradicting the others in amazing ways, like the Gospel of Judas, which obviously was never added in any version. It disagrees in many things, some small, others notsomuch. There are many things that happened in that time that can be confirmed. Others that cannot. IE: The Massacre of the Innocents, of which there is no evidence of other than Biblical or religious texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

 

[Phantom1]

how smart and clever you are to find a loophole to defend yourself! you really know how to debate huh.

There is a reason I said doubt, not "GUYS HE NEVER EXISTED." Doubt leaves the opportunity to be proven wrong. My explanation is hardly a 'loophole'. I'm atheist, not ignorant. Should enough empirical evidence appear to confirm a man named Jesus existed and did the things they say he did, then perhaps I will concede his existence as a man to be a fact rather than speculation.

And yes, I can debate. Thank you.

EDIT: After all, this section is called Discussions & Debates, right?