Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:29:19 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Was Jesus Real, is he the same person as Buddha

Started by garnish, March 30, 2019, 05:55:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ziggy starbucks


BlodwynPig

Quote from: garnish on March 30, 2019, 05:55:55 PM


If he looked or was depicted like that, how many followers do you think he would have in 2019?

garnish

QuoteHistorian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman "is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine," twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, "he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus," Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the "brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah." While few scholars doubt the short account's authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus's lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the "Testimonium Flavianum," which describes a man "who did surprising deeds" and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

biggytitbo

I could never follow a man with a beard, almost certainly a paedophile.

The real Jesus was of course a lumberjack which is hardly ever depicted in the paintings.

BlodwynPig


Historians seem to agree that he was real. As for the quotes attributed to him - who knows?

I'm not very knowledgeable about the Bible but I have read the synoptic gospels and the book of John. The one thing that bothered me was the scene where the Pharisees brought an adulteress to Jesus and asked what should be done with her. They know about the progressive teachings of Jesus and they are trying to get him to damn himself by contradicting the Mosaic laws. They say, 'Moses teaches us that women like her should be stoned to death. What do you think about that, Jesus?'

Jesus delivers his famous line, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'

Now, I actually agree with Jesus about this. But I also find it weird that the son of God would need to sidestep the question and answer it in a cunningly diplomatic way. If you have divine authority then you should not have to do that. Just say Moses was wrong, or mistaken. The way it comes across, it's like Jesus is just another politician. It's like Paxman and Howard: 'Did you threaten overrule him?'

BlodwynPig

The oft misquoted line that he said was

"Consider the willy"


biggytitbo

Quote from: Default to the negative on March 30, 2019, 06:18:40 PM
Historians seem to agree that he was real. As for the quotes attributed to him - who knows?


If they do they're talking bollocks. There was the lumberjack jesus but he's not the same one who did the tricks, that jesus is made up.

It's not hard to believe that there was a man called Jesus and he caused a big to-do. I can accept that much.

biggytitbo


garnish

the real jesus had nothing to say about masturbation, and may have been a wanker himself

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Default to the negative on March 30, 2019, 06:18:40 PM
Historians seem to agree that he was real. As for the quotes attributed to him - who knows?

That's not true for starters.  There are no contemporary reports of such a man at all.  Not one.

Historians who work on evidence don't agree with that and why would they?

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 30, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
That's not true for starters.  There are no contemporary reports of such a man at all.  Not one.

Historians who work on evidence don't agree with that and why would they?

What form would those contemporary reports take? Do you want a BBC news report about it.

paruses

Pics or it didn't happen. That should be a minimum requirement.

garnish

Quote from: Default to the negative on March 30, 2019, 06:58:46 PM
What form would those contemporary reports take? Do you want a BBC news report about it.

It was 2,000 years ago, people had writing back then and the lord our God materialising on Earth would have been important enough to write down with words.

Mr_Simnock

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 30, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
That's not true for starters.  There are no contemporary reports of such a man at all.  Not one.

Historians who work on evidence don't agree with that and why would they?

LOL, ken m would be proud of that

Quote from: garnish on March 30, 2019, 07:03:28 PM
It was 2,000 years ago, people had writing back then and the lord our God materialising on Earth would have been important enough to write down with words.

There's evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the Pilate Stone) but we don't have any other surviving records of his administration. Maybe it's just that a lot of things were lost over time.

Also, I was never arguing for him being the son of God.

garnish

Quote from: Default to the negative on March 30, 2019, 07:10:28 PM
There's evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the Pilate Stone) but we don't have any other surviving records of his administration. Maybe it's just that a lot of things were lost over time.

Also, I was never arguing for him being the son of God.

you will deny him 3 times before the cock crows

Dex Sawash

The fellow who helps me in the yard is named Jesus.


Shoulders?-Stomach!

Jesus having existed or not hardly matters, posterity aside. It matters about as much as whether the Starship Enterprise existed.

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: Default to the negative on March 30, 2019, 07:10:28 PMAlso, I was never arguing for him being the son of God.

Or, as I spent much of what would now be called Year 2 believing, the sum of God.

I used to get so annoyed at the teacher that she kept saying this over and over again in her weird accent, but wouldn't actually tell us what the sum WAS.  2+2=4?  1+1+1=3?  A million times a million?  What was it, and how was God's magic sum also Jesus?

Probably 6×9=42, come to think of it.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on March 31, 2019, 08:37:07 AM
Jesus having existed or not hardly matters, posterity aside. It matters about as much as whether the Starship Enterprise existed.


Josephos mentions the Starship Enterprise in his Testimonium Flavianum but many Historians believe this to be a later forgery by star trek fans.

FredNurke

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on March 31, 2019, 08:49:52 AM
Or, as I spent much of what would now be called Year 2 believing, the sum of God.

I used to get so annoyed at the teacher that she kept saying this over and over again in her weird accent, but wouldn't actually tell us what the sum WAS.  2+2=4?  1+1+1=3?  A million times a million?  What was it, and how was God's magic sum also Jesus?

Probably 6×9=42, come to think of it.

1+1+1=1, innit.

NoSleep


garnish

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on March 31, 2019, 08:37:07 AM
Jesus having existed or not hardly matters, posterity aside. It matters about as much as whether the Starship Enterprise existed.

The existence of the Starship Enterprise would be very big news indeed, though.

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: FredNurke on March 31, 2019, 10:56:03 AM1+1+1=1, innit.

Well yes, except that we hadn't done the Trinity at that point; I invented that one just now for humorous purposes.

It was only when we actually DID do it a few months later that I finally twigged what the stupid-voiced twat was trying to say.


Quote from: NoSleep on March 31, 2019, 11:11:00 AM1(1+1+1)=1

Ooooh, clever!


EDIT: Just in case I be thought of as racist or xenophobic in these troubled times, I should clarify:

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on March 31, 2019, 08:49:52 AM...in her weird accent...

that as far as I know she was as English as the rest of us.  She just had a slightly weird voice and I guess that maybe I had weirdly specific bad hearing.


Soup Dogg

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 30, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
That's not true for starters.  There are no contemporary reports of such a man at all.  Not one.

Historians who work on evidence don't agree with that and why would they?

This is absolutely false