In Reference to another article i posted

from JoeUser Forums
--I posted an article pertaining to an israeli scientist that proclaimed that Jesus died of a blood clot...now, wouldn't that mean that Jesus existed, and therefore God exists, that there is a heaven...perhaps? What do you think?

The Other Article: Link
international
7,596 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Playing *cough* Devil's advocate, I'd have to say that the researcher didn't offer any proof of Jesus' existance. He or she just relied on the extant, highly debated material that many people refuse to believe proves His existance.

The only way this could mean what you say is if the researcher found something outside the body of work we already have, physical evidence or a new, non-Christian historical reference, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a 'believer', but people could debate the cause of death for fictional characters in the same way, and it wouldn't lend to the idea they really existed.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
even then, if Jesus existed, he was not necesssarily a savior and god doesn't necessarily exist. He could have been the first David Koresh or Jim Jones.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not really. His "research" is purely speculation and really doesn't prove much of anything other than he has enough time on his hands to waste it with pointlessness.

I don't think there are many rational people who dispute whether or not Jesus actually lived. The debate stems from whether he was/is the Son of God or just another Rabbi and this doesn't really lend anything substantive to that debate either way.

The fact that he was an actual person is supported not only by religious text but also by letters written by roman soldiers to those back home, some of which still survive to this day. Or so I understand from my reading on the subject, as I've never actually seen them in person. I've only read translations and commentary done by the archeologists and others who discovered and studied them, but they do mention the cruxifiction of Jesus from their point of view which was often derisive and mocking of the Jews.

Again, none of this proves deity or anything else. Just that he lived, was tried, and executed.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you run across that material again sometime, MasonM, post a link. To my knowledge there is no such material, only a brief reference in Flavius Josephus, and THAT is considered by many to have been slipped in by Christian copyists. Flavius Josephus was a Jew, and it is kind of unlikely he would have referred to Jesus as the messiah.

Not to divert from the subject, mind you, whoever has any can start another thread. I'd just be interested in seeing if anyone can come up with a contemporary reference to Jesus.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #3 By: MasonM


Reply #2 By: Citizen latour999


I agree completely guys, I once had a nice conversation with a Rabbi who said that he 100% believed that a "man" named Jesus existed. He just did not believe he was the saviour. When I asked him if he thought he was sort of a David Koresh, he said he would not touch that with a ten foot poll.

Of course right when I started thinking he made good sense he followed up by saying he did not believe that the saviour had arrived yet.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

even then, if Jesus existed, he was not necesssarily a savior and god doesn't necessarily exist. He could have been the first David Koresh or Jim Jones.

I see your point, but wish you had used some less inflamatory examples.  After all, Jesus did not call for us to die for him, it was the other way around.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't read the materials on the web but rather in a couple of books I'd read on some more recent archaelogical work. If I can remember the titles or authors I'll pass it along, but it's been a while. It was only a smaller topic mentioned in them and not really the primary focus of the books.

I'm familiar with Flavius Josephus as well as the claims that comments were "slipped in". A Jew would in fact be highly likely to refer to Jesus as the messiah if he believed it to be true. After all, the first Christians were in fact Jews and the messiah was a Jewish prophesy. At this date it's not likely to be able to prove the text is as written or altered or the claims of alteration are attempts by anti-Christians to discredit it. Any of the three are possible.

While I can understand non-Christians debating the divinity of Jesus, I believe it's a bit unrealistic and intellectually dishonest to try and argue that someone whose life and teachings so radically influenced the world's social evolution never lived at all.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #7 By: MasonM


You da man Mason, have you considered politics? We need thinkers like you serving our country.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree completely guys, I once had a nice conversation with a Rabbi who said that he 100% believed that a "man" named Jesus existed. He just did not believe he was the saviour. When I asked him if he thought he was sort of a David Koresh, he said he would not touch that with a ten foot poll.


That's the difference between intelligent, respectful discussion and inflammatory derision. One you can respect, one you can't.

Of course right when I started thinking he made good sense he followed up by saying he did not believe that the saviour had arrived yet.

Well, since the messianic prophesy is Jewish, why does this surprise you? I don't mock anyone's beliefs. Although I hold my own beliefs to be true, I certainly don't pretend to be omniscient and recognize the possiblity that they could be right and I could be wrong.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
You da man Mason, have you considered politics? We need thinkers like you serving our country.

Thanks but no thanks. I served my country in the military. Politics would make me feel too dirty.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see your point, but wish you had used some less inflamatory examples. After all, Jesus did not call for us to die for him, it was the other way around.


Well, these were the first two that came to mind. I was considering not posting out of Political Correctness, and I guess I felt sort of like the Rabbi that ericseba mentioned (not wanting to touch that with a ten foot pole), but decided to post anyway. I didn't mean to be inflamatory, that is just the easiest way for me to explain it.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Understandable latour and I even understand the point you were trying to make, it's just a very bad (and insulting) analogy.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"A Jew would in fact be highly likely to refer to Jesus as the messiah if he believed it to be true. After all, the first Christians were in fact Jews and the messiah was a Jewish prophesy."


No, I think you'll find that Jews had and have a very different idea of the Messiah that doesn't add up to the events of Jesus' life, and frankly rule Jesus out, given that he didn't fulfil the majority of prophecy. He didn't unite Israel, etc.

We, of course, get around that by saying he still lives and will eventually get around to it. You wouldn't have seen Flavius Josephus hailing Jesus as Messiah, given none of the prophecies had been fulfilled. Were he to have adopted such beliefs F.J. would have been a Christian.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Baker, you totally missed my point there. The first Christians WERE Jews. And, by the way, they didn't call themselves Christians either. They still referred to themselves as Jews. They also referred to themselves as a "follower of the way", but they were still primarily Jews.

In the early days of the Christian church there was a huge debate as many insisted that in order to even qualify one must become a Jew.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

#10 by MasonM
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





You da man Mason, have you considered politics? We need thinkers like you serving our country.

Thanks but no thanks. I served my country in the military. Politics would make me feel too dirty.


That's why we have soap and water.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why we have soap and water.

There are some things soap and water can't clean.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

#16 by MasonM
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





That's why we have soap and water.

There are some things soap and water can't clean.


That's not what my momma told me!
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
I didn't mean to be inflamatory, that is just the easiest way for me to explain it.


No harm really. Like I said, I agree with your point.