Another question posed to those who not in the corner of believing in a religious faith. Again, I am not going to try and prove who is right and who is wrong. This is to Martin more than anyone, but all feel free to answer. If Jesus, was not the son of God or his existence does not play a significant role in the beliefs of man, including all denominations and those of no religious belief, then why is it that the widely accepted tracking of years, ie 2010 AD, is centered around the period of his existence. If he was not of the importance that Christians place on him then why is it that we use his period of time on this earth to represent this. If he wasn’t who religious groups claim him to have been, whether it be the Son of God or just a really holy dude, then why is it that most religious holidays center around the timing of some of his, supposed miracles. His crucifixion, his death, his rising from the dead, his deeds, etc. If he is of no relevance to our current world, then why are so many things centered around him, including things that you acknowledge and adhere to?
If Jesus existed this would certainly imply he was a historic figure. What does history indicate? The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1987) states: "Independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus." Naming independent accounts. According to the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, there is the testimony of the early Talmudic writings. (Jesus of Nazareth, Page 20) There is also the testimony of the first- century Jewish historian Josephus. For example, He describes the stoning of James, identifying him as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."-Jewish Antiquities, XX {ix,1}. In addition, there is the testimony of highly regarded early Roman historian Tacitus. He wrote early in the second century about "a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus {Christ} from whom the name Christ had it's origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators." (The Annals, XV, XLIV) The French philosophical moralist of the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, testified: "The history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ."
1. i dont celebrate any christian events or holidays. 2. i didnt say he was of no relevance. he is really relevant, so is santa claus and buddha. doesnt mean they exist. 3. even if every single person on earth was christian an based every single moment of their lives on it, it wouldnt make christianity true.
You’re not answering the question, again I am not asking about Christianity and it’s relevance. I am asking about Jesus and relevance to his importance. To make the comparison with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny is pretty lame on your part, I expect more from you. I am not asking if you celebrate any holidays either. My point is that he had and has a profound effect on all, an effect that all to some degree live by. You may not celebrate holidays, but you do live in the year 2010 AD, and you acknowledge it as such. Like it or not his having existed has an effect on you. If Christianity and it's beliefs are stupid then why do you acknowledge he is really relevant. The purpose behind his relevance is stupid to you and has no bearing, so how is he relevant by your own admission? If everything he represents has no existance than how can you adhere to even 1 thing that acknowledges him?
i dont understand the question. of course jesus is historically important. so is pol pot. so is hitler. i figure that a person named jesus did in fact exist. but you exist, and so do it. its not that impressive. it is claus without an E, not clause like a part of a sentence. we could call it year 6789w4 and it wouldnt make any damn difference. i am not sure what point you think you are making. what? are you saying that because i dont believe in the superstition that i should opt out of the traditions? should i fail to acknowledge halloween as well because i dont believe in draculas and frankensteins? look dude, i didnt make up the system for numbering years. i just live here on earth, i cant go around changing the system. yunno the chinese are in the year 4700 or something. like me, they only care about jesus based numbering because they live on earth with other people and we have to keep things on the same page. in no way is any of this relevant to whether your stupid magic is true.
Well, we all don't. The Jews have never used Christian dating, nor do the Muslims. Nor have the Chinese nor many other groups through the centuries. They still use their own systems in their own texts. And those that do recognize the Common Era no longer use the religious BC and AD, they use the secular BCE and CE. The Gregorian calendar is fairly recent too, the early church used the Julian calendar with different dates based on the Roman calendar. The reason that the Gregorian calendar is widespread is the same reason that English has become the international language . . . because England became the first global empire. Amigo, you need to think this one over again. You are using Christian holidays as evidence that JC exists. What evidence does the religious holidays of all the worlds other religions say, then. So, when I celebrate the feast of Thurseblot this means that Thor, the protector, exists to drive back the frost Jotuns so that Spring may return to Midgard? :hihi: Who says he is of no significance? He is of huge social significance. He is of huge moral influence. He is just not a historical figure. He could be, but evidence doesn't exist. Plato and Hammurabi are also of huge social and moral significance, yet they too are not proven historical figures. Leonardo, Lincoln, and Buddha are also of huge social and moral significance, and they are proven historical figures. Countless historical and legendary characters have no social and moral significance at all. I see no correlation between social significance and historical authenticity.
Not historical evidence. The "independent accounts" are not even contemporary accounts. Again these were written hundreds of years after the events. They record what certain writers believed or had heard of. Multiple contemporary accounts are required to establish a historical trace and even then the sources must be carefully scrutinized for hearsay. Come on, Tacitus is not even close to being a contemporary source. He is reporting the faith of the Roman Christians of his time. Historical evidence means contemporary writings, not writings from some other point in history. This begs the question. Why didn't the contemporary Romans, methodical record-keepers as they were, document anything at all about a King of the Jews in their province who led a revolt and had to be executed? Why didn't the Essenes write about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They wrote about Herod and even John The Baptist, apparently. Many think that the two wandering rabbis, Jesus and John may have been confused, especially since they are two translations of the same Hebrew name. We have already had a long discourse about how personal testimony does not equal physical or historical evidence. But in this case, Rousseau is wrong anyway--there is no historical evidence of Socrates either. The three references to him by people perhaps alive when he was alive still were written many years after his death. Many believe that Socrates was a literary figure, in two of these sources he was a character in a play. Only Plato writes of him outside the theatre but some believe he may still have been an allegorical figure.
I guess I am wording what I am trying to say wrong or I just made a stupid set of statements, it could be the later I will admit. Red this really isn’t meant for you, because you and I agree about certain things, it is meant more for Martin who is so adamant that religion is stupid and fictitious. If religion and all it encompasses is stupid and fictitious then why should you recognize Jesus for having any significance. Why would you even agree that he has any relevance for any reason in history. I’m not talking about what many in the world might believe, but you. If he represents something that doesn’t exist, having had a relationship with God, who doesn’t exist as far as you are concerned, then how could he be of any significance in history. I mean he only exists in the writings that have to do with the history of religious beliefs and faiths, either as the Son of God or just some really holy dude. Either way he represents something that you don’t acknowledge as having any relevance.
red thinks religion is fictitious too, i am just less tactful. i dont. i am not concerned about him at all. for all i know he didnt even exist anbd the stories about him are made up and assembled from legends about many different dudes. ok be prepared, because here come the big guns of honesty. i expect people like you to believe because you just dont have any critical thinking skills at all. you are making very stupid points and acting like they mean something. historical significance and impact are not relevant. to the rest of you that believe, see how you are? see how poor you guys are at thinking? you are just like this guy.
[/QUOTE] I am the one with critical thinking problems, then how come you keep contradicting yourself. I understand, you simply just don’t know and I am ok with that.
