someproteinguy wrote:
Sgriob wrote:
While the commercialization of Christmas bothers me somewhat, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that your celebrating something and someone that clearly didn't exist, at least not in the sense he's portrayed in the bible. Was there a dude 2000 years ago that was called Jesus? It's more than likely. Was he a carpenter? I'm willing to say there was a few carpenters called Jesus. Did he freaking heal people just by touching them? Hell no.
I remember reading a few books on this when I was younger. Details escape me mostly, but from what I recall there's relatively decent records (considering the time) of the man prior to his death. The resurrection part is mainly based on eyewitness accounts from his followers. So you just take that for what it's worth.
AFAIK, we have absolutely no records of Jesus existence outside of the bible. I've never doubted the basic stuff in the story though--I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a Jewish carpenter who ended up getting crucified because his new teachings conflicted with Judaic laws of the time.
But there are many details that are almost certainly false in the bible story, because they make no sense historically (even ignoring the miracles stuff). For instance, it is highly unlikely that he was hung from a cross. He was probably forced to carry some kind of burden (possibly a cross), but crosses were reserved for the most high-profile crucifixions of Roman enemies. Jesus definitely
would not have qualified. Romans didn't mind him, because he was encouraging people to pay taxes and follow their laws. The only reason he was crucified was to keep the peace.
He was actually in all likelihood hung from a tree on the side of a well-traveled trade route (similar to how pirates were hung at port entrances). The cross story is either because the story changed over time, or was intentionally changed to make his death seem more important. We don't actually have any records that suggest it was the apostles who wrote the gospels, so either are equally likely really, even assuming they were legitimately honest people.
People have tried to make the argument that he was forced to be crucified on a cross by the Jewish peoples of the city. But that still fails to explain why the petty criminals who were already on crosses when he arrived were, well, on crosses.
I have no (or at least very few) doubts that the historical figure of Jesus existed. I don't believe he could perform miracles, of course. And I think his story changed greatly over time to seem... more impressive. Which isn't surprising at all, really, when you think about the fact that Christianity was essentially an illegal roman cult for 400 years. Is it so hard to see why the idea of him being crucified as an enemy of Rome would be so appealing (and empowering)?
But that all of this was based on a man seems fair. The proof of Muhammad existing is more substantial, and you can see how large of a religion he spawned.