What colour was Jesus?

[Cain]

I have to sort of side with the 'prove it' side regarding the existence of Jesus...the inability to prove it doesn't necessarily lead to the disproof of the existence of Jesus either however....which is something that I think is overlooked by many.

I am an agnostic myself, a fence sitter...but really, where else do you sit when there is no ground on either side of an argument?

Argument 1: There is a Jesus! The bible can't be wrong!

Argument 2: There is no substantial evidence proving the existence of Jesus.

Argument 3: I really don't know whether there was a guy named Jesus or not, and whether or not he was as the bible portrays him is also a mystery. Why proclaim something to be true when I have no idea of knowing either way?

I like argument 3 myself. I've got no problems with people believing in him, or choosing to believe that he never was...I just see argument 3 as the most rational choice available.

Frankly, I don't think it even matters if Jesus did or did not exist, nor would his color matter at all.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 27 2004, 07:26 PM
If Jesus did exist, either the Romans or Jews would have it written somewhere in a non-religious sense. They were meticulous record collectors. I don't know enough about it - do such records exist? I suppose it would also be possible that they were lost or destoryed over the past 2,000 years, so an absense of records wouldn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, but they could prove his existence with them.

Ummm...they did. The Romans wrote down that they executed Jesus of Nazareth. Names, dates, crimes convictions.... everything.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Personally I think whether jesus existed or not doesn't matter at all, what does matter is that people treat each other in the manner in which jesus is said to have promoted in the bible. Now by no means am I saying that everything in the bible is great (I am drinking a beer right now) but the basic idea of helping others and doing good for those around you can not be ignored, and those are the teachings of christ. Does it truely matter to us right now whether he existed, I don't believe so, does it matter that the teachings of the bible are applied in day to day living, very much so.

(Steps off soapbox)

[peter12]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Oct 27 2004, 08:00 PM
Personally I think whether jesus existed or not doesn't matter at all, what does matter is that people treat each other in the manner in which jesus is said to have promoted in the bible. Now by no means am I saying that everything in the bible is great (I am drinking a beer right now) but the basic idea of helping others and doing good for those around you can not be ignored, and those are the teachings of christ. Does it truely matter to us right now whether he existed, I don't believe so, does it matter that the teachings of the bible are applied in day to day living, very much so.

(Steps off soapbox)

Exactly. If the world followed Jesus's teachings, there would be no arguements on the Off-Topic board.

[Cain]

Originally posted by peter12@Oct 28 2004, 02:02 AM

Exactly. If the world followed Jesus's teachings, there would be no arguements on the Off-Topic board.

Except for issues regarding homosexuals and monogamy

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by HOZ+Oct 28 2004, 01:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ Oct 28 2004, 01:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Oct 27 2004, 07:26 PM
If Jesus did exist, either the Romans or Jews would have it written somewhere in a non-religious sense.# They were meticulous record collectors.# I don't know enough about it - do such records exist?# I suppose it would also be possible that they were lost or destoryed over the past 2,000 years, so an absense of records wouldn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, but they could prove his existence with them.

Ummm...they did. The Romans wrote down that they executed Jesus of Nazareth. Names, dates, crimes convictions.... everything. [/b][/quote]
It seems not.

There are limited Roman references to Jesus, all appearing well after the alleged crucifixion:

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birthday puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

And another look at most of the gentlemen above

Three Romans whose writings contain minimal reference to a Christ, Chrestos or Christians are:

Pliny the Younger, 61-113CE Governor of Bithynia In a letter in 112CE asking Emperor Trajan about prosecuting Christians who "met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as to a god." Some eighty years after Calvary, somebody was worshiping a Christ (Hebrew equivalent for Messiah)! But, nothing is said as to whether this Christ was Jesus, a teacher and miracle working man who was crucified and resurrected in Judea or a mythic Christ of the pagan mystery religions. Even Jesus allegedly said there would be many false Christs, so Pliny’s statement lends little if any credence for Jesus of Nazareth historicity.

Suetonius, 69 - 122 CE Lives of the Emperors , a history of 11 emperors; writing in 120 about Emperor Claudius 41-54CE who "expelled from Rome the Jews who under the influence of Chrestus, did not cease to cause unrest." Who is Chrestus? No mention of Jesus. Is this Chrestus a Jewish agitator, one of many false Messiah’s or a mythic Christ? This statement proves nothing for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus, 56 -120 CE noted Roman historian, in his Annuals 14-68 CE Book 15, chapter 44 written about 115CE gives the first non-Christian reference to Christ as a man executed in Judea by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus states "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." Scholars point out several reasons to suspect this statement was not from Tacitus or any Roman records, but instead a later insertion in Tacitus’ Annuals. #1. Pilate is referred to as "procurator" which is appropriate in Tacitus’ day, but in Pilate’s day the correct title was "prefect". #2. If Tacitus’s comment was written in the early 2nd Century, why didn’t later church fathers who all sought to find proofs for Jesus historicity such as Tertullian, Clement, Origen, even Eusebius (Father of Church History) quote Tacitus? #3 Tacitus is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the 15th Century. This quotations inaccuracy and lack of use strongly suggest it is a later insertion.

The clear and indisputable fact is 80 to 100 years is a suspiciously long time after alleged events of such magnitude for no credible written recognition. Further, the brevity and scarceness of substantive fact in these three writings relative to the claim that this was about a miracle working Jewish Messiah named Jesus who was God in human flesh, crucified, and resurrected clearly calls into question the credibility of these writings.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm

To be fair, here is the writing of a believer. He references the Romans debunked above and offers his explanations:

http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html

But I don't think there is all sorts of Roman records lying around talking about Jesus.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I think it is more likely than not that Jesus existed. What his exact nature was, I won't even begin to say. I just find it hard to believe that a religion as big as Christianity could develop without a very special event occurring. Was the special event a birth of a messiah? A magician/illusionist? A revolutionary? Who knows. I feel there is at least enough circumstancial evidence that it was at least possible and no one can say he didn't exist. Anyone who says 100% that Jesus did not exist just has an axe to grind with Christians.

BTW, I am not a religious person and have little invested in this. I do think however that Christians are getting unfairly hammered lately. Why can't people just let others believe what they want without getting on their case and trying to prove them wrong? I don't believe in African tribal pantheism, but I wouldn't see any good in trying to make them non-believers.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Claeren@Oct 27 2004, 11:57 PM
Great thread, i never thought people from Alberta and the land of 'bible thumping red-necks' would be so open minded!! lol... KIDDING! Well, sort of... but i am Albertan too so...

I have heard the arguments before Cow, and they are compelling. I have also heard of MANY professors over the years losing jobs, careers, tenure, etc., after making historically well done accounts and discoveries that cast doubt on the existance, role, and/or accuracy of the accounts of Jesus' life. I also have heard of large, well funded, 'academic works' done by supposed top notch universities and their professors that are hardly more then boosterism for christianity/christ...

Scary stuff...

Claeren.

No offense, but you scare easy. First the 'elite rapturists' taking over the world and now this.

[Claeren]

Maybe your taking 'scary stuff' a little too literally... ?? Just a figure of speech for me, it is not that it is literally like horror movie scary, just something that can give you a chill up your spin if you think about it too long even though it is not likely to be of consequence in any of our lives.

And about Jesus/Christ conspiracy theories, it is all based on a razor thin line and if science/logic/historians really could get a hold of it and the public allowed it to be torn apart openly it would go the way of many past myths that were once sacrosaint in the public's consciousness. Obviously it is the pillar upon which all of CHRISTianity rests... they don't need to prove it, they just have to make sure most people don't think it is even debatable. Something they have generally managed to do...

Claeren.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Who are they? Are you suggesting there is a group of people controlling Christianity who don't believe any of it themselves, but use it to control the masses?

[dangler22]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 28 2004, 02:13 PM
Who are they? Are you suggesting there is a group of people controlling Christianity who don't believe any of it themselves, but use it to control the masses?

Its possible. Religion is the "opiate of the masses" you know.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22+Oct 28 2004, 02:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dangler22 @ Oct 28 2004, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 28 2004, 02:13 PM
Who are they? Are you suggesting there is a group of people controlling Christianity who don't believe any of it themselves, but use it to control the masses?

Its possible. Religion is the "opiate of the masses" you know. [/b][/quote]
It's possible that a select group of people who have no faith are controlling a billion + others with faith?

No, it's not.

I suppose Islam is unquestionable though.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

What is so hard to understand Dis? How many "Christians" have taken advantage of their position and bilked millions of dollars out of their flock? How many televangelists prey (pardon the play on words) on the weak minded and empty their bank accounts in the process? Where's the reach?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 28 2004, 03:42 PM
What is so hard to understand Dis? How many "Christians" have taken advantage of their position and bilked millions of dollars out of their flock? How many televangelists prey (pardon the play on words) on the weak minded and empty their bank accounts in the process? Where's the reach?

OH, I don't disagree there are people who take advantage of the faith of others....but that's not Claeren's point as far as I can tell. He's suggesting Christianity is a nothing more than a conspiracy to control the masses.

I disagree.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Isn't all religion a concerted effort to control the masses in a way?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 28 2004, 03:56 PM
Isn't all religion a concerted effort to control the masses in a way?

Any organization could be defined that way. Doesn't make Claeren's point though.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

No, Religion is, in part, a way for us to try to explain what we don't understand. Can bad things happen because of it? Sure (see the Crusades, and Fundamentalist terrorists), but does that mean that it is a bad thing? No. I won't aruge that yes, it has been used as a way to control people in the past, but that is not the underlying purpose for it. I'm not really religious, but I understand that religion (whatever religion you beleive in) is based on ideals for how people should live thier lives, the small details are not always the same, but in general, the bigger concepts are pretty close. Religions are pretty much roadmaps to how people should treat each other, but that doesn't mean they are a way to control people.

[Claeren]

There would be various motivations over the past 2000 years by various groups of people.

Obviously over the bulk of that time the Catholic church and it very centralized authority is well documented in its twisting of history and its teachings (this coming from someone raised catholic) to suit its needs at various points in time. Since virtualy every other modern christian faith is a direct decendant from that tradition there is at least some historical implication. In terms of modern North American forms of christ-worship just watching Sunday morning TV is enough to convince me that people have alternative motives.

That all being said i DO think there was a guy named Jesus who wandered around talking about stuff 2000 years ago. I really don't think anyone at the time took it that seriously and that he didn't do anything that spectacular (although obviously not completely insignificant) but that the very small group of followers he inspired, through various twists of fate, managed to build on his stories and legacy and over time we have what we have today. One of the things that suggests that is likely to me is that many of the myths and stories in the new testament have roots/cousins/similarities/etc in many other ancient traditions and cultures. The story of a 'virgin mother' for example. And many other stories, walking on water for example, serve the specific purpose of building the mystique/legitamacy of christ as opposed to building on the teachings themselves.

In regards to Christianity ONLY being about controlling the masses, i would not say that. I would say it has been the motivations of some, a minority of the elite at different times in different places. But that is all it takes, religion is based on the past and if that past is soiled by the actions of even the smallest minority and those indiscreations cannot or are not corrected or detected then 'truth' has been lost. I think the bulk of people invlolved with most religions have the best of intentions though...

I can't think of any religion that has not been corrupted at least in part by politics and alterior motives... ? Not sure about the Islam comment you made, do i have to be against christ if i am not with him? For the record i think Islam is a younger faith, has a more orthodox history, and very few years of central authority and hence less twisting of its teachings but inversely i think there are totally different problems in the faith that are in great need of resolving. Comparing apples and oranges, neither of which, i think, do anything but make life easier for those too scared to go it on their own... (no offence to anyone)

Claeren.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 28 2004, 03:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 28 2004, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Ummm...they did. The Romans wrote down that they executed Jesus of Nazareth. Names, dates, crimes convictions.... everything.

It seems not.

There are limited Roman references to Jesus, all appearing well after the alleged crucifixion:

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birthday puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

And another look at most of the gentlemen above

Three Romans whose writings contain minimal reference to a Christ, Chrestos or Christians are:

Pliny the Younger, 61-113CE Governor of Bithynia In a letter in 112CE asking Emperor Trajan about prosecuting Christians who "met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as to a god." Some eighty years after Calvary, somebody was worshiping a Christ (Hebrew equivalent for Messiah)! But, nothing is said as to whether this Christ was Jesus, a teacher and miracle working man who was crucified and resurrected in Judea or a mythic Christ of the pagan mystery religions. Even Jesus allegedly said there would be many false Christs, so Pliny’s statement lends little if any credence for Jesus of Nazareth historicity.

Suetonius, 69 - 122 CE Lives of the Emperors , a history of 11 emperors; writing in 120 about Emperor Claudius 41-54CE who "expelled from Rome the Jews who under the influence of Chrestus, did not cease to cause unrest." Who is Chrestus? No mention of Jesus. Is this Chrestus a Jewish agitator, one of many false Messiah’s or a mythic Christ? This statement proves nothing for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus, 56 -120 CE noted Roman historian, in his Annuals 14-68 CE Book 15, chapter 44 written about 115CE gives the first non-Christian reference to Christ as a man executed in Judea by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus states "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." Scholars point out several reasons to suspect this statement was not from Tacitus or any Roman records, but instead a later insertion in Tacitus’ Annuals. #1. Pilate is referred to as "procurator" which is appropriate in Tacitus’ day, but in Pilate’s day the correct title was "prefect". #2. If Tacitus’s comment was written in the early 2nd Century, why didn’t later church fathers who all sought to find proofs for Jesus historicity such as Tertullian, Clement, Origen, even Eusebius (Father of Church History) quote Tacitus? #3 Tacitus is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the 15th Century. This quotations inaccuracy and lack of use strongly suggest it is a later insertion.

The clear and indisputable fact is 80 to 100 years is a suspiciously long time after alleged events of such magnitude for no credible written recognition. Further, the brevity and scarceness of substantive fact in these three writings relative to the claim that this was about a miracle working Jewish Messiah named Jesus who was God in human flesh, crucified, and resurrected clearly calls into question the credibility of these writings.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm

To be fair, here is the writing of a believer. He references the Romans debunked above and offers his explanations:

http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html

But I don't think there is all sorts of Roman records lying around talking about Jesus.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yes you are quite right on the historians. Romans wouldn't have fiven a flying hoot so why write anything down. But what I was getting at is that the Roman government was meticulous and they would have written it down. Or at least I am very sure and have yet to find it.

Pontius Pilate and such seaches are on going.