Did Jesus, Buddha & Mohammed really exist?

[PratchettFan]

You don't think the idea that Jesus might look like Saddam is...um....off-putting?

No. Isn't that kind of like saying that Saddam would have been an ok guy if he just looked like Tab Hunter?

I have no idea who Tab is, but assuming you are referring to race - that isn't my point.

I just think it's better if a messiah looks less like a Stalin, Mobutu Sese, Hitler or Saddam than he does like a sane person.

Tab Hunter was a blond haired, blue eyed actor who played Jesus.

 

[PratchettFan]

How do you know Plato existed?

Evidence.

The Greeks kept pretty good records.

So did the Romans

There are no records of Plato.

 

[HUGGY]

Why is that disturbing?

You don't think the idea that Jesus might look like Saddam is...um....off-putting?

No. Isn't that kind of like saying that Saddam would have been an ok guy if he just looked like Tab Hunter?

Tab Hunter? That's not "dating yourself". That's drawing your examples of personal movie star infatuation from the middle of the last century.

 

[HUGGY]

Hunky!

 

[JoeB131]

The early church did exist in the 2nd century. It also existed in the 1st century. The problem stands. You are arguing that people who would have known first hand were fooled by a conspiracy. I do not find that to be a credible argument.

Just because stories crop up around someone does not mean they never lived.

There's no evidence it existed in the first century. There are inferences you can make... but frankly, since none of Jesus "biography" comes into form until the 2nd century, you have to wonder if Christianity isn't a screwball mix of Zoroasterism, Judaism, Mithraism and Sarapis Worship, as it has elements of all four.

The key point is that a lot pagan writers who should have mentioned Jesus in the 1st or 2nd century don't mention him. Tacitus and Jospehus' mentions of him are questionable or interpolations by later Christian writers.

 

[JoeB131]

Evidence.

The Greeks kept pretty good records.

So did the Romans

There are no records of Plato.

There are records of Plato.

The guy who is questionable is Socrates, as he seems to be a literary device entirely made up by Plato.

Kind of like Jesus.

 

[PratchettFan]

So did the Romans

There are no records of Plato.

There are records of Plato.

The guy who is questionable is Socrates, as he seems to be a literary device entirely made up by Plato.

Kind of like Jesus.

What records?

 

[PratchettFan]

You don't think the idea that Jesus might look like Saddam is...um....off-putting?

No. Isn't that kind of like saying that Saddam would have been an ok guy if he just looked like Tab Hunter?

Tab Hunter? That's not "dating yourself". That's drawing your examples of personal movie star infatuation from the middle of the last century.

I never denied being old. However, Tab Hunter was the quintessential example of the Eurpopean idea of Jesus. Very, very white.

 

[PratchettFan]

The early church did exist in the 2nd century. It also existed in the 1st century. The problem stands. You are arguing that people who would have known first hand were fooled by a conspiracy. I do not find that to be a credible argument.

Just because stories crop up around someone does not mean they never lived.

There's no evidence it existed in the first century. There are inferences you can make... but frankly, since none of Jesus "biography" comes into form until the 2nd century, you have to wonder if Christianity isn't a screwball mix of Zoroasterism, Judaism, Mithraism and Sarapis Worship, as it has elements of all four.

The key point is that a lot pagan writers who should have mentioned Jesus in the 1st or 2nd century don't mention him. Tacitus and Jospehus' mentions of him are questionable or interpolations by later Christian writers.

So, your theory is that a bunch of guys in the 2nd century got together and decided to make it all up. Peter, Paul, James, etc. never existed. Interesting, but not convincing.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a damn about a tiny, jewish sect? The man had just been another itinerant preacher with a small following. At best, they were a minor irritant in a very active political pot. I would be suspicious of any historical writings about them simply because they were not important enough to write about. However, using that as a reason to deny their existence is like denying the existence of a boy scout troop in Boise because they were not mentioned in the New York Times.

I will certainly agree that all of the hype about miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, etc. is fictional. I don't buy any of it. But I also don't buy your conspiracy theory. There is nothing to support it but speculation and it makes no sense.

 

[JoeB131]

[
So, your theory is that a bunch of guys in the 2nd century got together and decided to make it all up. Peter, Paul, James, etc. never existed. Interesting, but not convincing.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a damn about a tiny, jewish sect? The man had just been another itinerant preacher with a small following. At best, they were a minor irritant in a very active political pot. I would be suspicious of any historical writings about them simply because they were not important enough to write about. However, using that as a reason to deny their existence is like denying the existence of a boy scout troop in Boise because they were not mentioned in the New York Times.

I will certainly agree that all of the hype about miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, etc. is fictional. I don't buy any of it. But I also don't buy your conspiracy theory. There is nothing to support it but speculation and it makes no sense.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a crap about a small sect?

Well, how about, beacuse they were blamed for the fire that burned down Rome? So when a cult was accussed of what would have been a pretty major act of terrorism, people would be remarking on them.

**unless** they weren't around back then and later Christian writers just stuck those accounts into Tacitus's Annals because they were trying to pull a Winston Smith on history.

The problem with your argument for a historical Jesus is that there's no evidence for him. There are a lot of stories which you admit are "Hype". Written a century after the fact, by people who were ignorant of their setting, and were picked out by a Church trying to maintain a consistant story while other accounts were rejected.

Now, let's compare him to another "J.C"- Julius Caesar. We know exactly what day Julius Caesar was born. We know exactly what day he died. There are images of him made in real time, accounts of him in real time, records of his own writings. While he didn't perform any "Miracles', there are the remains of buildings and works he built.

 

[PratchettFan]

[
So, your theory is that a bunch of guys in the 2nd century got together and decided to make it all up. Peter, Paul, James, etc. never existed. Interesting, but not convincing.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a damn about a tiny, jewish sect? The man had just been another itinerant preacher with a small following. At best, they were a minor irritant in a very active political pot. I would be suspicious of any historical writings about them simply because they were not important enough to write about. However, using that as a reason to deny their existence is like denying the existence of a boy scout troop in Boise because they were not mentioned in the New York Times.

I will certainly agree that all of the hype about miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, etc. is fictional. I don't buy any of it. But I also don't buy your conspiracy theory. There is nothing to support it but speculation and it makes no sense.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a crap about a small sect?

Well, how about, beacuse they were blamed for the fire that burned down Rome? So when a cult was accussed of what would have been a pretty major act of terrorism, people would be remarking on them.

**unless** they weren't around back then and later Christian writers just stuck those accounts into Tacitus's Annals because they were trying to pull a Winston Smith on history.

The problem with your argument for a historical Jesus is that there's no evidence for him. There are a lot of stories which you admit are "Hype". Written a century after the fact, by people who were ignorant of their setting, and were picked out by a Church trying to maintain a consistant story while other accounts were rejected.

You're right. I forgot all about that. So it appears we do have pagan writers talking about the church in the 1st century. The fire was only 30 years after the death of Jesus.

We are back to definitions of evidence. I can't give you a photocopy of his birth certificate. However, as you have pointed out here there was a following of the man who would have been his contemporaries. They would have known whether or not he existed first hand.

Is it possible Tacitus was "edited" later on to include a little advertising for Christianity? Sure. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The problem with ancient history is always that what you are reading is copies of copies of copies of copies. Much of it is surmise. But the argument that Christianity was invented by some clever fellows rather than evolving, as is the case in most movements, just does not stand up. It is pure supposition. I think this is a situation in which the application of Occam is called for.

 

[PratchettFan]

[
So, your theory is that a bunch of guys in the 2nd century got together and decided to make it all up. Peter, Paul, James, etc. never existed. Interesting, but not convincing.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a damn about a tiny, jewish sect? The man had just been another itinerant preacher with a small following. At best, they were a minor irritant in a very active political pot. I would be suspicious of any historical writings about them simply because they were not important enough to write about. However, using that as a reason to deny their existence is like denying the existence of a boy scout troop in Boise because they were not mentioned in the New York Times.

I will certainly agree that all of the hype about miracles, walking on water, raising the dead, etc. is fictional. I don't buy any of it. But I also don't buy your conspiracy theory. There is nothing to support it but speculation and it makes no sense.

Why would a lot of pagan writers give a crap about a small sect?

Well, how about, beacuse they were blamed for the fire that burned down Rome? So when a cult was accussed of what would have been a pretty major act of terrorism, people would be remarking on them.

**unless** they weren't around back then and later Christian writers just stuck those accounts into Tacitus's Annals because they were trying to pull a Winston Smith on history.

The problem with your argument for a historical Jesus is that there's no evidence for him. There are a lot of stories which you admit are "Hype". Written a century after the fact, by people who were ignorant of their setting, and were picked out by a Church trying to maintain a consistant story while other accounts were rejected.

Now, let's compare him to another "J.C"- Julius Caesar. We know exactly what day Julius Caesar was born. We know exactly what day he died. There are images of him made in real time, accounts of him in real time, records of his own writings. While he didn't perform any "Miracles', there are the remains of buildings and works he built.

I'm sorry. I failed to respond to your last sentence. Julius Caesar was the head of the greatest political organization then on the planet. Jesus was a itinerant preacher in a small province of the empire. Are you really going to compare the two? Barrack Obama is the leader of the United States. I'll bet you can find out his birth date pretty easily. What's my birthday? Does the fact you don't know mean I don't exist?

 

[JoeB131]

You're right. I forgot all about that. So it appears we do have pagan writers talking about the church in the 1st century. The fire was only 30 years after the death of Jesus.

We are back to definitions of evidence. I can't give you a photocopy of his birth certificate. However, as you have pointed out here there was a following of the man who would have been his contemporaries. They would have known whether or not he existed first hand.

Is it possible Tacitus was "edited" later on to include a little advertising for Christianity? Sure. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The problem with ancient history is always that what you are reading is copies of copies of copies of copies. Much of it is surmise. But the argument that Christianity was invented by some clever fellows rather than evolving, as is the case in most movements, just does not stand up. It is pure supposition. I think this is a situation in which the application of Occam is called for.

No, the account in Tacitus is pure bullshit inserted by later Christian writers.

Again, I point to the passage from Emperor Hadrian where "Christian" was used as a description for worshipers of Sarapis. Now, if the Christians REALLY had been blamed for the Roman fire, Hadrien would have known damned well who they were. he would have known they were quite different from the worshipers of Sarapis, which was a widespread cult that actually had reached Rome.

It would be like if the American President in 2050 didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and the Rotary Club.

How's this for a more likely explaination- there were probably a lot of cults back then that called themselves "Christian", and they probably all worshipped their own version of the "God-Man". Until Constantine made it the official state religion in 303, and they needed to get their story straight. So they purged out all other religions, they purged any accounts of Jesus that didn't agree with the official one, and then they purged out Arianism and Monophysitism and all the other different interpretations.

Until they finally boiled it down to four Gospels that don't contradict each other too much if no one actually bothers to read them too closely.

I started questioning the bullshit of Christianity when I was 11. And frankly, after getting whacked over the knuckles by a nun's ruler too many times, I'm just not buying into any of the bullshit.

Give me real fuckin' evidence, or your boy's a fake, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm sorry. I failed to respond to your last sentence. Julius Caesar was the head of the greatest political organization then on the planet. Jesus was a itinerant preacher in a small province of the empire. Are you really going to compare the two? Barrack Obama is the leader of the United States. I'll bet you can find out his birth date pretty easily. What's my birthday? Does the fact you don't know mean I don't exist?

I added it in later- no foul.

The point is, no, I don't know who you are. But I am willing to bet if you were the founder of a cult that burned down Washington DC in 30 years, they'd have damned sure gotten your back story out there and found out who you were.

 

[PratchettFan]

You're right. I forgot all about that. So it appears we do have pagan writers talking about the church in the 1st century. The fire was only 30 years after the death of Jesus.

We are back to definitions of evidence. I can't give you a photocopy of his birth certificate. However, as you have pointed out here there was a following of the man who would have been his contemporaries. They would have known whether or not he existed first hand.

Is it possible Tacitus was "edited" later on to include a little advertising for Christianity? Sure. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The problem with ancient history is always that what you are reading is copies of copies of copies of copies. Much of it is surmise. But the argument that Christianity was invented by some clever fellows rather than evolving, as is the case in most movements, just does not stand up. It is pure supposition. I think this is a situation in which the application of Occam is called for.

No, the account in Tacitus is pure bullshit inserted by later Christian writers.

Again, I point to the passage from Emperor Hadrian where "Christian" was used as a description for worshipers of Sarapis. Now, if the Christians REALLY had been blamed for the Roman fire, Hadrien would have known damned well who they were. he would have known they were quite different from the worshipers of Sarapis, which was a widespread cult that actually had reached Rome.

It would be like if the American President in 2050 didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and the Rotary Club.

How's this for a more likely explaination- there were probably a lot of cults back then that called themselves "Christian", and they probably all worshipped their own version of the "God-Man". Until Constantine made it the official state religion in 303, and they needed to get their story straight. So they purged out all other religions, they purged any accounts of Jesus that didn't agree with the official one, and then they purged out Arianism and Monophysitism and all the other different interpretations.

Until they finally boiled it down to four Gospels that don't contradict each other too much if no one actually bothers to read them too closely.

I started questioning the bullshit of Christianity when I was 11. And frankly, after getting whacked over the knuckles by a nun's ruler too many times, I'm just not buying into any of the bullshit.

Give me real fuckin' evidence, or your boy's a fake, as far as I'm concerned.

Not my boy. I'm not even vaguely Christian. Yes, there were a lot of cults. By the 3rd century there was practically open warfare between them. So what? We are talking about the beginning. When did those cults start? Do you see any indication of them prior to the 1st century?

If there was a Jesus, then that was the beginning. There was one cult which then became many cults. Perfectly ordinary human behavior. You still have shown me absolutely nothing to make me think this just appeared without an original personality. Nothing is absolute, but it is always a good bet to assume that people behaved like people.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience as a child. I did not, though I flat rejected Christianity the first time it was explained to me at an age I was capable of understanding. I have never been a Christian or had the slightest inclination to become one. Still, you should not allow that experience to color your approach to this.

 

[PratchettFan]

[

I'm sorry. I failed to respond to your last sentence. Julius Caesar was the head of the greatest political organization then on the planet. Jesus was a itinerant preacher in a small province of the empire. Are you really going to compare the two? Barrack Obama is the leader of the United States. I'll bet you can find out his birth date pretty easily. What's my birthday? Does the fact you don't know mean I don't exist?

I added it in later- no foul.

The point is, no, I don't know who you are. But I am willing to bet if you were the founder of a cult that burned down Washington DC in 30 years, they'd have damned sure gotten your back story out there and found out who you were.

Ah.... but you have said that particular history was added much later on by people who were very familiar with the birth date. Also, remember that Tacitus was a Roman historian, not a Christian one. He wrote during the times of the emporers and it was not a good idea to irritate them. History is a funny old thing.

 

[California Girl]

Ignoring what it says in the holy books themselves, what evidence is there that any of these three gentlemen actually walked the earth?

Or, to put it another way, even if they were real people - what evidence is there that they were 'special'?

There is no evidence any of them were special.

Probably the one who has the strongest evidence of being a historical figure is Mohammed, as the Islamic religion rose very quickly after his life.

Jesus is a bit more questionable, since we don't get accounts of his life until a century later, and even then, they massively contradict each other, even the four "Canon" Gospels the church recognizes, much less the hundreds they rejected.

I don't know enough about Bhuddism to venture an opinion on Bhudda. However, the fact that the first writings about him don't emerge until 400 years after his death, I'm doubtful.

^A winner.

If, by 'winner', you mean a moron, yes... he is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I picture Jesus as dark haired, dark eyes, maybe a bit of a crooked nose, swarthy skinned, slender yet some muscle due to all the walking he did. I do not like pictures of Him as blonde and blue eyed, with very white skin.

In other words, he probably did not look a great deal different from Mohammed.

Assuming you're the sort of person who thinks all Arabic people look alike.

But yes, one would assume that He looked like a Middle Eastern Jewish man, since He was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, there are several things you have to consider, in your skepticism.

1) There are any number of things that go on every day around us that are truly miraculous, but because they're common - ordinary miracles, you might say - and because science has observed a lot about how they happen, we go "Ho hum" and ignore them, assuming that because science tells us how, that means it has told us why.

2) Lots and lots of people have wandered around throughout history, expounding on their viewpoints and beliefs and trying to gain followers, and most of them never get paid any attention, and of those who DO get attention and followers, nearly all of their "religions" die out right after the "prophet" or "Messiah" or however they style themselves does. Almost none of them manage to produce anything lasting. Jesus, Mohammed, and the various Buddhas (because there have been more than one, although Siddhartha Guatama is generally considered the Supreme Buddha) all managed to start movements that lasted centuries and attracted hundreds of millions of followers long after their deaths. That's pretty freaking amazing, and makes them special, whatever you might think.

3) Usually, the only evidence we have for ANYTHING that anyone did centuries before we existed is exactly the same evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha: eyewitness testimony. Sure, you can go to Europe and see old stone forts littering the landscape, but what evidence do you really have for who built them and how and why? Mostly, you have the testimony of people who claim to have been there. It's up to you how trustworthy you consider those witnesses to have been, and whether or not you WANT to believe what they have to say.

These are all very good points.

I do agree with 3), that little physical evidence is possible 2,000 years after the events took place.

I also kinda agree that there are miracles everyday, although this has never convinced me that God and not coincidence are the cause, given the number of "miracles" which seem to be curses.

We all know good, Christian families who have lost their house to fire, their children to illness, their business to fraud. I can not think of those as "trials" - to me they suggest that there is no benign saviour watching over his flock.

Why? Because you think it's God's purpose for us to wrap us up in the metaphysical equivalent of bubble wrap and never let anything bad happen? What would THAT accomplish?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He probably looked very much like anyone in the middle east.

If he was the son of God, I'm sure he was probably very unique in his appearance.

Why would you think that? Kinda defeats the whole purpose if He shows up with a big ol' sign over His head saying, "Messiah".