Jesus Christ: Fact or Fiction?
Real historical figure
Side Score: 228
|
 |
Mythological Fiction
Side Score: 222
|
|
There are actually several secular sources believed to be reliable documentation that someone known as "Christ" did exist. The writers that refer to a figure known as Christ outside of any Biblical context include (but aren't limited to) Plinius/Pliny The Younger - Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112), A Roman historian named Suetonius (A.D. 120) and a historian from the first century named Phlegon. Given the fact that there are secular references to Jesus's existence, Jesus Christ was a real person. However, whether or not Jesus was a miracle worker or the Son of God remains has not been proven scientifically or historically. 412 days ago
"Christ" or "Anointed one" or "messiah" was a common claim (just like people today sometimes claim or think themselves to be Jesus). So, in other words, there are no historical references which verify the existence of this guy who was born in a stable in Bethlehem (or Nazareth), who came to do and say all these things which are claimed. 411 days ago
You call those good sources? Books that were written thousands of years ago, all of them over a hundred years after Christ's death of which there are NO originals still in existence and the fact that most of those were translated from Greek to Arabic to Latin to English. Talk about lost in translation. Sounds like some shaky "evidence" there brother... 394 days ago
Akiva and Josephus, from opposite sides of the religio-political divide (Akiva was a leading light in rabbinical Judaism around AD 75; Josephus a historian under Rome at the time of the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70), acknowledge a number of contemporary sources that identify Jesus as a historical person. Roman records also show the evidence of the execution of several of this man's disciples. The writings of Akiva and Gamaliel in particular deserve mention here: they were both Jews and rabbis. They were opposed to the Christian sect which had grown out of the Judaic split and would have certainly trumpeted the falsity of the existence of Jesus if in fact that existence was false. That they admit the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is powerful evidence for the historical reality; remember that disciples who claimed to be close to Jesus lived up through the end of the first century AD (John the Revelator was imprisoned at Patmos until then). I note, however, that all three of the sources I mention either carefully avoid the claims of Messiahship (in the case of Gamaliel) or throw cold water on the claim. What I believe, in this case, is of no moment; the evidence is strong to support a factual man named Jesus of Nazareth. 379 days ago
Ah yes! This question. Well, there are dozens of scholars who debate this very topic fiercely in academic and theological circles, so I fear my lowly research wouldn't do this argument justice. I do however want to share a quote from Christopher Hitchens on the veracity of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure: "The jumbled 'Old' Testament prophecies indicate that the messiah will be born in ... Bethlehem. However, Jesus's parents were apparently from Nazareth and if they had a child he was most probably delivered in that town. Thus a huge amount of fabrication - concerning Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius - is involved in confecting the census tale and moving the nativity scene to Bethlehem. But why do this at all, since a much easier fabrication would have had him born in Bethlehem in the first place ... The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born, so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent." So are you refering to Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the messiah (or Christ)? 412 days ago
That's an intersting contention; one that I'm unaware of and would like to investigate more thoroughly. However, for the sake of simplification (and because this would only be circumstantial evidence at best), I think it would be better to view them as one and the same, and save splitting that hair for another debate. 412 days ago
Well, if we stick to the modern mythical version of Jesus, then this blindness-curing, demon-casting, fish-multiplying, half-man half-deity would require an extraordinary amount of corroborating evidence to support his historical existence; evidence which does not exist, as we all know. 412 days ago
Imagine you took part in the civil rights movement. Would you have written down your experience a few years afterwards, or towards the end of your life after you have had time to see the effect and reflect upon what was accomplished? Also, it is true that Luke was not an eyewitness. It was instead written as a historical account of the life of Jesus, probably commissioned by the man Theophilus. (It was also part 1 of a series, the book of Acts being part 2.) Being a physician (Colossians 4:14), he was a very intellectual man and did not just start writing the account, but instead spent much time researching all of the events that took place, from before Jesus' birth to the years following his death. What makes this source, or any of the gospels for that matter, so much more unreliable than a secular source? 412 days ago
But none of the Gospels thought they had to, because they though Jesus would be coming back to save them in their life times. they didn't think it would be centuries later. and how many people achievements were written about on the spot ? I haven't read a single book about the great achievements of a person that wasn't written until after they died. also keep in mind that not everyone was literate and mostly passed their history by word of mouth during this time frame. 344 days ago | Tagged As: Jesus Christ lived
The authors of the Gospels wrote the gospels as polemical text to combat Jewish rumors that reported Jesus was stolen from the tomb. Each of the 4 gospels is more or less inspired by the one before it, going back to the pre-markan passion narrative which was an oral tradition that evolved over those 30 years you speak of. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence which I could get into if you asked. Jesus indicated to his followers that he would be returning at some time in the future. Given that the eyewitnesses had seen Jesus in resurrected form, they believed that his return would be soon -- within their lifetimes. Why write about Jesus when he was soon to return and word of mouth was sufficient to successfully spread the word? However, as time passed and his foretold return did not come about, Jesus' followers changed from first-person sharing about Jesus to writing down the narratives as a more permanent method that could be passed on after they died. Paul's epistles -- which included content about Jesus -- may have been written as early as 48 AD (Galatians). While not considered part of the gospel accounts, these letters do refer to events related to Jesus' teachings and life/death/resurrection. If Jesus was put to death somewhere between AD 26 and 36, these letters are more contemporary accounts of Jesus than those gospel accounts written later. 402 days ago
They weren't stenographers. They didn't have email. They probably didn't even know how to write. Yet, they changed the world with their bold proclamations. Not of a prophet, but of the Messiah !! How would those fishermen even dream that up ?? They weren't religious leaders. 326 days ago | Tagged As: Jesus Christ lived
there is no doubt that he is real, there are a myriad of historical accounts that attest to his existance; more so than attest to the existance of julius ceaser. for more information on it http://www.carm.org/questions/ 409 days ago
The first century Jewish historian Josephus also talked about Jesus. Here is one version of his testimony found at http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/ "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders." This debate asks if Jesus was a real historical figure, not if he was the Son of God. History tells us he was a real historical figure. Only personal belief can answer the question whether he was something more. 407 days ago
For all the good it does to argue the point of Jesus Christ being fact or fiction I cannot quite understand why it would matter in any way, shape or form. Is it not enough to read and comprehend the teachings in the Bible to know whether or not whomever wrote them was indeed real? Indeed, why does it matter if it was the Christ or Schlomo from Ur who wrote those loving words? For me, Jesus Christ is fact and His words tell me that He was indeed a most unusual man. 360 days ago | Tagged As: Jesus Christ lived
There is sufficient evidence that Jesus actually was a historical man. Aside from the Gospels, which were written within a generation of Jesus' death, he is mentioned in Roman records and by other authors. The gospels certainly do not contain the only mention of Jesus. There is no doubt that he truly did walk on this earth. As for Jesus being the son of God, I believe it to be true. I believe he died and rose again. 148 days ago | Tagged As: Real historical figure
Jesus really did come to earth and he will come soon just like the bible says. Ive seen the promises that God has made in word come true in my life and the prophecies of the last days are coming about, so with no doubt. My lord jesus exists. 64 days ago | Tagged As: Real historical figure
For 2,000 years, billions of people have lived according to the teachings of Christ. How can you prove Christ did NOT exist? For 2,000 years, the institution of Christianity and Christ's teachings have remained uninterrupted. What other institution can equal this fact? The Bible is the most printed and widely distributed book in the world. 407 days ago
Although I agree that Yeshua of Nazareth was a real historical figure, your argument is fatally flawed. What other institution? Islam is but 500 years younger than Christianity, while Buddhism is 400 years older. The earliest Hindu Vedas date to at least 1,100 BC. Judaism goes back maybe 4,000 years. And that's just religions. Other institutions lasting that long? City-scale government has been around for 5,000 years. Agriculture is about 11,000 years old. But then, those are practical applications, so I guess it's unfair to compare them to religion. But all this is ignoring the fundamental problem here: lots of people believing in something doesn't make it true. Lots of people used to believe the world was flat; and moreover, many people still don't realize that this theory was debunked in the 4th century BC by the Greeks, rather than by Columbus, who in fact merely believed the world was a smaller sphere than was believed at the time (he was dead wrong and would have died if a hitherto-unknown continent hadn't happened to be in his way). 379 days ago | Tagged As: Debunking mistakes
The debate over the historicity of Jesus seems to me to be the only debate where primary source documents written by eyewitnesses only a few years after the events are discarded. We have multiple accounts of the life of Christ. The authors are known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They wrote their accounts very soon after the events on question and used at least one source (Q) which must have been written earlier. The gospel accounts enjoy far greater textual support in the form of thousands of pieces, fragments and full codices that allow historians to show that the text that we read today is approximately 99% true to th original documents. The remaining 1% could be discarded without changing anything of significance. The common assumption behind many posters who deny the historicity of Jesus is that we need extra-biblical sources confirming the Gospels. This is simply not true. The Gospels themselves are the kind of first-person accounts that historians seek. You need to be careful about the words you choose. Whether or not this Jesus is the "Messiah" or "Christ" is a matter of faith. Jews don't accept that Jesus was the messiah. Christians affirm Jesus is the messiah (but they redefine "messiah" to fit Jesus' ministry). To an atheist the whole discussion is nonsense. There are references that confirm that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person but very little is known about him. Read the last chapter of Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus". 404 days ago
The "mythological fiction" advocates can cry "there's no evidence! No evidence!" and they're completely right. They cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The "historical figure" people have to prove that Jesus existed. So if there are secular sources for the existence of Jesus, as were stated at the beginning of this debate, that would be evidence that Jesus existed. That is not evidence that he performed miracles; it also does not mean that those "miracles" were not performed. Jesus could indeed have done great things that were misinterpreted as miracles and expounded upon by oral tradition. He also could have been the son of God and performed the impossible with the power of divinity. Or, he could be a complete fabricated lie. Sherlock Holmes is a "mythological figure" who is referred to by many other "secular" sources (read: sources other than Arthur Conan Doyle). As somebody else mentioned earlier, Ghandi is a real man who became a myth, and is also referenced in many sources which would be considered secular. I am a real person who, unfortunately, has not ascended to mythology. I must also wonder if any public person - Jacques Chirac, Bono, Tom Brokaw, Osama bin Laden - does NOT have a sort of mythology. 397 days ago
ok people... he 'j.c.' really existed.he is just like any other preacher that wer the apple of the eye of the higher state of "preachers"before,why maybe hes like ghandi or alexander,too hard to control,too hard to handle. and the old catholic suppresed hes existency by conspiricing the truth about him,ofcourse its political reason.people 2000 years ago are very superticious that they actually believe in every miracle hearsay,and those times are like a martial law that people are hungry of freedom,hungry of faith.well i think the real question here is about j.c.'s miracles and sermon,his not myth but his magic's are...?is it?.. 381 days ago
Jesus Christ was a true historical figure. Not only did He live for 33 years, but He sacrificed Himself for the sins of the world. Then amazingly He rose from the dead having the keys to death and hell and He now sit on the right hand of The Father making intercession for the belivers waiting till He is told to come back for us. 346 days ago
If he sacrificed himself for the world's sins, then how come he was crucified unwillingly by the Romans? I'm sorry but your reasoning is lacking. History clearly states that the Romans crucified Jesus because he broke Roman law. He didn't sacrifice himself. 344 days ago | Tagged As: Debunking mistakes
Arguing that Christ was not real is just ignorant. The Council of Jerusalem was around the year 50 AD, only 17 years after the death of Christ. By then, there was real in-fighting among the Christians. As early as 22 years after the death of Christ, Paul wrote letters to the followers of Christ. Even if you disregard his opinions, it is hard to argue that he is writing to imaginary people. These earliest letters were to a slave owner named Philemon, the church of the Thessalonians, the saints (believers) in Phillippi, the church in Corinth, the churches in Galatia (more than one), and to the believers in Rome. These people knew that Christ was real. They all lived during His time, even though Paul never met Him in the flesh. Greek and Roman mythology was not overcome by another myth. Whole civilisations have left their fairy tales in favor of the living GOD. 326 days ago | Tagged As: The fact that he lived is OBVIOUS
Jesus was a real man. He lived on earth about 2000 years ago. There is a body of evidence that supports his existence. Also, he was married to Mary Magdalene, whom was was of his disciples. Outside of the bible there is no evidence of his existence. Although there were known historians living in that era and although Jesus supposedly performed miracles and resurrected from death none of this those historians for some odd reason didn't include something of such high importance in any sort of historic record? Jesus is a mythological figure...a story. You may or may not have seen the movie "Zeitgeist" which shows us many pre-christian gods and messiahs that share the exact same characteristics as Jesus ie: Born of a virgin on the 25th of December, announced by a star in the east, performed miracles such as healing, died and resurrected in 3 days. Most people don't believe what is presented in Zeitgeist for the simple reason that it contradicts their faith. Here is a video on youtube from someone who was used as a resource for the movie Zeitgeist explaining how evidence for this was censored and destroyed long ago. Zeitgeist, Part 1 (Debunked/refuted?)
412 days ago
Ghebert, this shows you lack of knowledge on history. Zeitgeist has been thoroughly debunked (surprisingly by the YT atheist community) and is lacking in any profound information. First of all, historians affirm a historical Jesus, not one that did miracles, so if he was just a normal (illiterate) guy that got executed for preaching a philosophy to other illiterates, we would not expect him to be mentioned in contemporary writing. This is an argument from silence. The only other god that was born of a virgin was a late Mirtha god, and it was trying to fulfill Old Testament prophecy like Jesus was. Horus was not born of a virgin. That's a complete fabrication that originated from a chain e-mail. Horus was born of Isis and Osiris, whose dead body Isis reanimated for the purpose of humping. Clearly not a virgin, Isis was. No where in the bible does it say Jesus was born on Christmas. This actually does come from the pagan tradition of celebrating the Winter Solstice. Zeitgeist is deceitful for not mentioning this. Other Gods did have resurrections (upper Egypt Osiris for example) but that's not surprising. Resurrection is everywhere in the Old Testament and where his followers probably got the idea. Again, you're drawing parallels to mythical features of Jesus, not the historical one. People don't believe in Zeitgeist because it is a piece of inept propaganda. Zeitgeist Debunked
412 days ago
Jesus Christ fact ya exist ya will return ya when? try to study the holy quo ran. to believe in Jesus firstly you should believe in god because : 1- right now no intact evidence you can touch about Jesus e.g where is Noah's ship ,stick of mousse so how will you believe? by ignorance. no; but by measuring lots of recently discovered facts ( formation of fetus, universe, water, did you knew that mecca is the center of earth and mecca timing is the ideal all over the world not Grinch ) are since 1400 years written in quo ran of Muslims. you can measure these facts -you can touch- by their script in quo ran. then look for the script ions toll about Jesus,mousse ,Ibrahim and think............. 2- some things up till now behind your limits (ghosts, Jeni,for casting future, your difficult problem solving without your intervention is it your skills?)
go realistic for all ancient script ions made by human ( friends you know the knowledge 500 years ago Galileo who ever burned because he said "the sun is the center of universe not the earth" - czar said he is the god or son of god or 1 of gods. how you believe such pull chat Pharaohs had their stories like each other place i am Egyptian i can tell you. good luck for all 393 days ago
i believe that jesus might have been real but i do not heink that he could heal just by touching people or that he came back from the dead. he could've been just some guy that everyone liked and over the years he became the son of god and could perform all these different things. 235 days ago | Tagged As: Real historical figure
|
To be honest, I hold no clear position but I tend towards that the story is mythological to an extent; obviously at the time there where many "sons of god" going around. There is to little concrete evidence for the Jesus Christ figure to be considered a real historical figure, and there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility; therefore, the answer cannot be clear. 412 days ago
Indeed I did, then I spent all yesterday reading a line-by-line debunking of Zeitgeist. I already knew that the 9/11 theories were ridiculous, but had no idea how inaccurate the religion chapter was. There was just something almost poetic about his explanation for Christianity, it seemed to make so much sense. After some research though, yeah, it's bogus. 407 days ago
An objective archaeological analysis not citing biblical tests finds that the likelihood of "Jesus Christ" to be very low. The name Yeshuah was common in that time period among Jews, as were the names Miriam and Yosef. Tracking down the right Yeshuah is like finding a particular John Smith today. The specific important life events and attributes mentioned in the gospels all correspond to previous cultures, religions, deities, and myths. Even if we could figure out which Yeshuah ben Yosef we were looking for, there is no way to verify the association of those events or abilities with that person. 412 days ago
This will probably be a touchy subject. But, without a source outside of the Bible to validate the historicity of Jesus the Christ, the most safe and accurate conclusion would be that Jesus is a historically fictional character (think: vietnam war novels with fake characters at real battles). It is highly "coincidental" that Jesus has all the markings of Mithra and Horus, and several other deities that preceded the Jesus folklore. 412 days ago
I think Jesus was a real character -- his apostles certainly were. I don't believe in his miracles, that his mother was a virgin, etc. If we look at our leaders of recent times -- Ghandi, Teresa, King -- they've all be glorified even in this age of photographic and video media. We look at videos of King as a testament to his existence, however we have put King past what he really was. Certainly a great social leader, but not without is own problems [domestic affairs, etc]. Same can be said for Ghandi -- a great social leader, with poor economic choices that kept many Indians in poverty even until modern times with his de-industrialization and concept of "spinning thread for peace". Jesus, in my eyes, was a regular ordinary guy with an awesome stance on social conservatism and ideas that really helped in that time period. His social and economic philosophies were an oral hit, and his ideology was spread far and wide until it was put into the Bible in about 170AD. In that 170 year time period, his overall being was transformed from "genius" to "our supernatural savior" -- as conceptions that there would be a Messiah had been present for a long time. In regards to the comment of Mithra and Horus, it's not too much of a stretch to argue that when Jesus' story, keeping in mind it was an oral tradition back then, had it's intricacies changed slightly. That doesn't mean it was "made up", and I don't know why you'd think that. If you look at the proof -- notarized, official letters from Jesus' apostles to the royalty of the time period, the fact that they died for their beliefs -- strictly looking at the apostles, it appears they have the conviction you would only have from witnessing first-hand a character as powerful as Jesus. However, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that SINCE the time of the apostles, he's been glorified and edited to fit with the "Old Testaments" version of the messiah. Regardless, what I imagine is his "original" message -- that of turning the other cheek and helping the poor -- has little to do with religion, and is the political stance of a well-known historical figure. 412 days ago
"almost no historical primary source material" So, based on your statement, there is some fractional amount of historical primary source material stating that Jesus Christ, in fact, existed. If there is historical source material pertaining to the existence of Jesus Christ, then how can you even begin to argue that he was some figment of thought? Either there is no evidence and he does not exist or there is evidence and he does exist. "almost no... material" implies some material, intrinsically discrediting your stance that Christ is a myth. 394 days ago
mm no. The only primary source material talks about people worshipping a person referred to as Chrestus (which is merely a title, meaning Anointed One). The best evidence anyone can postulate as evidence are the writings of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), which was not only based on Christian writings itself, but proven to have been the victim of forgery by Christians in order to insert text bolstering the historicity of their myth. That means we're about as close to zero evidence as you can get, I only say almost so that I don't sound too cocky. Fact is, Christianity is built on a legend that doesn't have a historical leg to stand on. All this evidence evaporates as soon as we take a close look. 394 days ago
There is absolutely NO first hand account of this supposed prophet or his acts in the time they were said to have happened even though many well known historians lived in the time. Most historical references are to "the christ" which simply means "anointed one" and is not a name and were written well after the supposed death of christ. The Josephus passage has been sent through the wringer many times and has been absolutely been proven a forgery by many well known scholars as well. If you understand the history of the bible and the circumstances in which it was compiled the evidence seems pretty clear the there was indeed no singular person that all the passages, in the bible or otherwise, could be attributed to. There was no historical Jesus. 399 days ago
Pics or it didnt happen! XD But really, I think this is like the King Arthur story. There's no way the person we think of as Jesus Christ was real. He might have been a real person but as the stories were told over time more fiction was told than facts. Seriously, when you find a real person who can turn water into wine let me know, i might hire him for personal services 390 days ago
human beings can't get their history right from one day to the next, how in the world can you believe that the story of jesus is an accurate account? the current catholic rulers just went ahead and added more sins to their list, for pete's sake! right there, change has been made that from now on will be taken as gospel, the word of god. of COURSE jesus is a mythological fiction we have better recordkeeping options now then at any other time in history and WE mess things up. think about it people. 366 days ago | Tagged As: Debunking mistakes
If you're going to believe in Jesus, then there is no evidence that you shouldn't believe in Zeus, Amun-ra, Poseidon, Dagda, Budda, or Zelda. Whats more probable, ancient people at the early beginning of civilization believed in spirits and made a bunch of stories about it, or that there was son of God that came to earth and did so many impossible things...hmmm 399 days ago
Jesus Christ is a mythical figure plain and simple. First of all, the basis of Jesus Christ being a human being came from the Bible. How can we prove anything that the Bible says is true. Just because every single minister, preist, religious fanatic says that the Bible is undoubtedly true doesn't make it so. Along with this basis, there have been a total of about 1,000 different versions of the Bible (including the Quran and its variations.) Now prove to me that the Bible is completely and undoubtedly fact. But more importantly, prove to me that all of these different versions of the Bible are accurate. Now as for my next point, Jesus is depicted as a man. The Roman Catholics in the fourteenth century depicted Christ as a raggedy man with a beard wearing a robe and sandals. Now I personally do not believe that God was ever on this Earth as a human, much less a scruffy looking human being. Now don't get me wrong. I believe in God with all of my heart and spirit, however Jesus is depicted to show that human beings are capable of being perfect like Jesus if we do good deeds. This is what the Catholics believe. Over the ten thousand years of human existence, wars and confusion have arisen and have distorted the true Bible (yes there used to be a true Word of God), and the Catholic Church has edited their Bible to include Mythological fiction for a number of reasons. One of the reasons include the fact that Catholics had lost the true word of God and made up most of the Bible. Soon everybody came to believe that the Catholic bilble was true. Even the Lutherans, Protestants, and Baptists derived parts of the Catholic church's into their own bibles, including the story of Jesus Christ. Another point I would like to make is that the only true reasons why people praise Jesus Christ is that either people are idiotic enough t think that the Bible is completely true and accurate so they believe this myth. People are also inspired by what Jesus did for us in the Bible so people are given personal hope and inspiration through Jesus Christ, which is fine but people need to know that this is a myth. The third reason is that people have a desire to be all powerful. People want to be as powerful so they (meaning religious and political powers) create God as a huiman being and show that people can be as powerful as God. In conclusion, God is all-powerful iand Jesus Christ is a myth. 376 days ago
With the amount of information we have available to us today, all the history we have managed to uncover and still no mention of this character jesus christ..the only reference of this man is in the bible. A book that was wrote to control man and keep them in check. Therefore its my position this man did not live. 362 days ago
Total, unabashed fiction. People feel they need to believe in something, and what better "idea" to believe in than life after death or eternal grace or any of that other nonsensical jargon. I believe in a lot of the tenets of Christianity- the "do unto others..." and "turn the other cheek" but in NO way do I believe that a man (the son of god) was born to a virgin and died on a cross. 275 days ago | Tagged As: Mythological Fiction
mmm, historically, it seems to me that little of Christianity is original, but then, the best ideas are always recirculated. The video starts 'zeitgeist part 1' from 1.30 Thought I might post it up to compare to the antirefutal zeitgeist posted by ghebert, and the Jewish dude's rebuttal. However, I will note now that it is not the strongest, actually, probably one of the weaker arguements and is riddled with propagandist falacies and both audio and visual techniques I've not seen outside of government propaganda runs, and may some corporate propaganda too, except in this it's really obvious... but yeah, thought it might be interesting to compare. Zeitgeist part 1
409 days ago
|
