[the president (OP)]

I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)

[neilep]

I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)

I was at a Christening last sunday morning....grrr...had to there at 9am and it was the morning after the clocks had gone forward too !

Anyway, The Christening came at the end of the Sunday services and as I watched the various protocols and action elements that went on during the service I pondered how amazing it was that after 2000 years a mans " magic "  has had such a startling effect and set of repercussions...............in MY opinion.

[demadone]

When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con.

Actually the argument is whether he existed or not. The things he did and the influence they had on his world and not to mention ours are simply overwhelming. There was no way to trick people with some of the things that he did. So it's either he did exist or he didn't.
But if he didn't exist then how could he become the most influencial man in history?

[the president (OP)]

david blane does amazing magic tricks and no one knows how he does it. and 2009 years ago very few people could read or write and the were very simple minded. my good friend went to new guinea and showed some of the natives card tricks they were amazed they thought that he a magician (these tricks would not fool a 5 year old here in the us) and hes no david blane i can tell you

[Don_1]

There are purported reports by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Emperor from AD 14 – AD 37) and Claudius (Emperor from AD 41 – AD 54) on the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet none to Caligula (Emperor from AD 37 – AD 41) who relieved him of his duty and exiled him to Gaul where he is said to have committed suicide.

The Catholic Church believes a report to Tiberius, found in Liverpool (see how long they’ve been a bunch of crooks!) to be a fake, yet they believe it to be a true account of the crucifixion of Jesus!

Pilate was the Roman Prefect of Judea from AD 26 – AD 36. Jesus is thought to have been 33 yrs old when he was crucified (I hazard a guess he was born in AD 0) so the crucifixion took place in, or around, AD 33, during the latter days of the reign of Tiberius. Pilate is said to have reinforced Judea with 2000 Roman soldiers because of this event, yet there is no evidence of any debate or report being made to the Roman Senate.

Another problem with Jesus is that there appears to be no mention of him in Jewish history of the time. The Talmud makes reference to around 20 people who are said to be Jesus by some, but in each case there are problems with the association.

Jesus wrote nothing whatsoever. Would you not think that the son of God, sent to teach us righteousness would have written the odd note or two?

The only reference to his life is in the New Testament of the Bible. There is nothing in Roman or Jewish history to support his existence. As for when the New Testament was written, nobody knows. Some say the first writing was the Epistle of St James, between AD 45 – AD 96. Some say it was written hundreds of years after Jesus, and, of course, some say it was written before Jesus was born.

Since there is no God, he could not have been the son of God.

Did he exist? If he did, then I think he was a good, well intentioned man who, together with his associates, tried to reconcile mans differences. Unfortunately, rather than succeeding in his quest, he simply made matters worse. If he did exist, then his story has been exaggerated to a point which is totally out of proportion to actual events.

Of course, there is a very good chance that he is a fictional character devised by people with good, if misguided, intention.

Did he perform miracles? No. Again these events, if they happened at all, were misunderstood, misinterpreted and much exaggerated. Experiments have shown how a story told to one person and passed on to successive others can end up bearing little resemblance to the original, and police will tell you that an incident observed by a number of people will be differently accounted by each.
‘The tallish man wearing a dark blue coat made off down the street.’ – ‘The tall man in a dark coat ran down the road.’ – ‘The tall person wearing a dark jacket ran up the middle of the road.’ – ‘The 7ft person wearing just a black jacket shot off up the road like a maniac.’

Jesus turned water into wine, or did he just say ‘this water is God’s wine’ or words to that effect? He made a blind man see, but was this a metaphorical blindness?

I do not denounce the Bible, in fact I think the New Testament contains a great deal of good lessons, as does the Old Testament in places, but it is not the work of any God, nor is it a factual account of any son of any God or prophet.

BTW I do not denounce any who choose to believe in God, Jesus, Mohamed, Amun Ra, Ganesha, or whosoever they choose to follow. We are all free to believe or not.

[the president (OP)]

nicely said

[Alan McDougall]

OH man man man

This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick

Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen

It is white or black they is no grey here

You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician

BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

Alan

[BenV]

OH man man man

This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick

Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen

It is white or black they is no grey here

You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician

Or, you accept the idea that he may have been a man with some good ideas, and stories got around about him that became vastly overblown.  Plenty of grey here.

BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

Alan

It's in the new theories area, and it is a new theory.  This suggestion is quite tame compared to some of the other ideas in this board.

[paul.fr]

Perhaps he was a rubbish magician, and his audience were just rather dumb.
Isn't the greatest magic trick, the one where people believe in him?

[Don_1]

Alan, I have no wish or desire to offend you, or anyone else who believes in God, Jesus, Mohamed or any other gods or prophets.

You choose to believe and I respect that. You may have noticed that out of respect, I will always refer to (the one) God, Jesus, Mohamed etc with a capital.

On the matter of miracles, even some theologians accept that there may be misunderstandings and mistranslations which may have made these events seem like miracles. Although I accept this is not generally accepted by most theologians.

As to the 'the beautiful mind of Jesus', as I said, 'I think he was a good, well intentioned man. I think there can be a grey area. He need not have been the demonic liar or deceitful impostor, just because he was not the Son of God. He could have been just an ordinary man who, like others, wanted peace for his fellow man. This should not make him anything but a thoroughly good man.

The 'Intelligent Designer' thread was going around in circles and getting nowhere. Doubtless this thread could do the same, since there is no evidence that Jesus did or did not exist and if he did, that he was or was not the Son of God.

I would hope that nobody would post anything deliberately offensive toward God or his followers, whatever faith they choose to follow.

[archie bishop]

who the this person think he is!!!! of course The Messiah was real, He excisted.

[lyner]

Did anyone see The Life of Brian?

[paul.fr]

Did anyone see The Life of Brian?

Wasn't it based directly on the bible?
"he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

[demadone]

More historians wrote about christ than those mentioned above. You may have heard of Flavius Josephus.
I also admit this is not a science topic. Science is too weak to prove the existence of God or christ. We scientists are yet to learn the structure of our brain, till we know more than 10% of ourselves then we can take on the as for now presumptious role of deciding who exists and doesn't.

[JimBob]

OH man man man

This makes me sick on the stomach really really sick

Jesus was either exactly who he said he was or the most colossal persuasive demonic liar the world has ever seen

It is white or black they is no grey here

You accept him as the divine son of God or take the dangerous road of calling this man of peace, love and truth and beauty a lying deceiving magician

BenV WHAT THE HELL IS THIS DOING ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

Alan

Have you ever studied the history of the Christian church? have you read the the early fathers - the ones who's ideas didn't make it through the first 500 years of the history of Christian POLITICS and power struggles? Have you considered that present day literalism, which you seem to hold dear, was a response to modern scientific enquirery and only has a history of a few hundred years? The Church - all Church's except perhaps one obscure branch of the Church at Antioch - are the product of political struggles and unfaithful to the original teachings. millions of people have died as a result of the fights and wars within the Christian community. Just look at the wars after the inception of the protestant reformation. I am certain that what is taught today bears little resemblance of the teaching of a Jewish man 2000 years ago. I have studied this as a result of wishing to better understand what I once discarded.

As one theologian puts it:

"Ironically, biblical literalism misunderstands the biblical faith in the very course of struggle to understand and defend it in a changing cultural context. Biblical literalism commits a seductive form of idolatry. The literalist misleads Christians by asserting the idolatrous [sic] notion that the words of inspired Scripture adequately and sufficiently bind the God revealed in Scripture to the narrow limitations of a "common sense" interpretation.

"The requisite balancing principle is forgotten: that Scripture produced under "inspiration" by mere mortals simultaneously conceals as it reveals the Word-requiring an act of faith and careful, "inspired" personal interpretation to grasp the Word spoken to the self. Literalism errs fatally when in implicit arrogance it denies the mystery of the revealed but sovereign, never-fullyknowable God. " [the underlining is mine]

Your ideas destroy the Mystery in which God reveals Itself to me. You destroy MY Christianity. And you certainly do not speak for me or the majority of Christians. And by far, you do not speak for anyone who has studied the history of the church, or the of the ideas of the church from its inception. Most theologians who have ever been on this earth would tell you what I am telling you. The Bible teaches in parables, just as Jesus did - both the Old and the New testament.

You speak heresy - that is prophetic.

Read http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/11/the_heresy_of_l.html - the history of literalism in a succinct form by Anglican priest.

[Madidus_Scientia]

People want to believe in something as a means of explaining their world, and the "god made it like that" sentence is alot easier to swallow than learning science and how to think critically, especially for children. And indoctrination into a belief is hard to break, and a person will fly into the face of all kinds of logic to uphold their belief.

Whether it's Jesus, Allah, Zues, Thor, whatever alternative of religion is present in the culture at the time is what people will generally take up and believe, if they feel the need to believe in a deity. Do you honestly think you would still believe in Jesus if you were born in India or Afghanistan?

The myth of Jesus isn't perpetuated so strongly because he was real, but because belief in him happened to fill the "god gap" in alot of peoples minds at the time. It just so happens that those people weren't wiped out by any other cultures, so the myth and culture still exists.

[JimBob]

The "God gap" is part of the human condition. Experience - individual experience of their reality  - will determine what each individual believes. All religions are a myth of some type, but actually represent an experiential reality that cannot be put into words or analized or described by science. Psychologist, such a Jung, Maslow, etc., have attempted to explain the "peak experience" but fall quite short to the experiences they try to explain. It is a reality, just not a common one. Purely religious people never experience it. Spiritual people do. And don't ask me to explain. I can't. I think I have had the experience, though.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. What he represents is real.

I believe Jesus was a historical figure. Josephus write of him specifically. It is the only surviving account of the man made during his time.

[Don_1]

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. What he represents is real.

Good frame of mind.

More historians wrote about christ than those mentioned above. You may have heard of Flavius Josephus.

Indeed there were many who wrote after the alleged event. But during the event, there appears to be no written articles to support his existence. Flavius Josephus was one of them, but he was born in AD 37, four years after the crucifixion, so he can have no first hand knowledge of the event. I could write a factual account of the life of King George XI, since I would have verifiable documents written at the time, Flavius Josephus could only rely on hearsay, not very reliable at all and often 'coloured' by those who recount such hearsay.

As JB has suggested, the question of the existence of the man and/or his provenance are not as important as what he represents, his teaching and his love for ALL his fellow man.

Incidentally, as I stated above, I always use a capital when referring to God etc, out of respect for those who believe, so it should be Christ, not christ.

[rosy]

life of King George XI

Is this deliberate or do you mean George VI (father of the present Queen Elizabeth)?

[Don_1]

Erm, no it wasn't deliberate, it was a cock-up, thanks for pointing out & correcting my error. I consider myself well and truly FOGGED.