Take your own advice, Baller.
It would be a great improvement to the forum you contaminate.

 

Evidence or not, its authenticity has always been in question, but for the sake of argument, I will grant you that all sources are 100% true. It doesn't change anything. Either Jesus believed he was the son of god or this whole thread is pointless. If he didn't believe that, and didn't say the things the bible claims he said, then that person is of no interest to anyone, because clearly it is the Jesus character, or persona that matters, that is the person people are interested in. The man that is portrayed in the bible is what counts. If we were just talking about some guy, that never said anything, and was killed, then he would be irrelevant to this topic.

If it were the case that Jesus existed, and he didn't believe he was the son of god, never said the things the bible claimed, and it was everyone else that claimed he was the son of god, I'm going to refer to him as Brian.

 

It's actually never been in question. You're not granting me anything. Very few sources have had their authenticity in question. You clearly don't understand what the actual importance is of Christianity and of Jesus. Feel free to call him whatever you like but you're just showing your own immaturity and your need for him to either not have existed or have been "delusional" as you called him.

 

Still living with mom and dad?

That's what I thought.

-S-

 

For what it's worth, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus on Christ are not considered to be notably unreliable.

 

What difference does it make? (?)

Eventually he will move. You will always be the putrid human being you are now.

 

Out of interest is there anything in there about Christ being resurrected ?

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[47]

- Josephus, from The Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

-------

This may be an interpolation. Nevertheless, the question here is not whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, and the Messiah, but whether or not he lived.

 

Precisely.

 

I know that. Which is why I started the question with "Out of interest". For the record I do think Jesus the person existed, and stated it on this thread some time ago.

 

There is no code of conduct for journalists, there is not even a professional body with which they could be censored, this makes them a trade and not a profession.

They have nothing to answer to. But can you imagine baller posting in a major newspaper one of his theories on life, when he receives a letter asking for proof, which would get a reply "Do your own research".(I am imagining a world where baller won't swear in print). Would it you think increase sales or just get him a job at the Daily sport?

 

I suspect there will be contemporary sources that record the belief held by Christ's followers that Christ rose from the dead, in addition to the quoted source of Josephus.

I also suspect that there's a lot in archives in museums and the Vatican that would paint a surprising picture of the early church. Here's something for you, though -- and I've not checked this exhaustively but I believe it to be true -- the gospels run, in chronological order of writing, from Mark to John, and Christ is portrayed as increasingly divine the later the Gospel was written. Not conclusive in any way, but certainly interesting.

 

That would make sense. A story tends to get more exaggerated as it is passed on.

Also if talking about something that happened in the past, it is also necessary to juice it up, just to bring it to par in status with events that happen in the present.

For example, it I were to say "Hey you, did you hear? The shop down the road was robbed 15 minutes ago, they got away with £45 "

That would be a story worth telling someone. If on the other hand I were to say "Oi you, did you hear, the shop down the road got robbed in 1998, they only got away with £45" No one would care. it's no longer a current event,

but if it is spiced up to something like "Hey you, did you know that a madman entered this shop, executed 5 people and took the cash register in back in 1998" It becomes almost as relevant again.

 

Yes, there is.

Shut the fuck up about things you don't know for once.

 

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.


Baller, you're the budding journo can you enlighten us to what standards you'll be working to?......will you be unbiased, or pushing your point of view?.

 

*not_secure_link*thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/goodstrategyp11.gif?w=317&h=223

-S-

 

No journalist is anything but unbiased. However I'm glad that somebody else "gets it" about the standards, ethics, and code of conduct of journalism.

 

Tell me more about how many times you've been published in Vanity Fair while begging cash from your mom.

-S-

 

*not_secure_link*ct.fra.bz/i59/5/11/28/f_2a0ec29bef.jpg

 

During the alleged lifetime of the man we call Jesus Christ the Jews were under oppression from the Roman Empire. There were many men who rose to the occasion claiming some form of divinity or the other (working miracles etc). The Jewish population were expecting the end of the world any minute now and were eagerly awaiting the Messiah to return and free them from their despair. In such an electrified atmosphere it's not that hard to see why stories of the arrival of this heaven sent man would be so readily gulped up by the masses.

Looking at the story of Jesus it's just to similar to the Egyptian god Horus, the sun god or Son of God to be coincidental. If there was a man named Jesus he was probably just that, a man, nothing more nothing less. What probably happened was his persona got swept up in the hysteria of the age and blended with myths along the way to create the amalgamated legend that we have today.