Is there any known image of the real Jesus Christ? (mind=blown, gtfih)

[Weezy32]

There is actual very little evidence he ever even existed, dead serious.

It does not matter if he existed or not if he did exist he was a mentally ill guy talking nonesense and seeing **** and some stupid people believed him and told other people that he performed miracles and those other people believed it based on their words and now we got billions of people believing that.

Think about the leader of Scientology...ITS CLEAR that he was a bit crazy and spewed some seriously crazy **** yet there are millions and millions of people still following him . We know for sure that he existed we got pictures of him yet that still doesnt change the fact that he made millions of people believe in some crazy fairy tail and had them work for pennies per hour, distance themselves from family and friends, and worship some fairy tail he made up.

[Weezy32]

He is a derp, but what he's claiming is so ridiculous that i had to respond. Its one thing to say you don't believe the bible and you don't believe Jesus is who he claimed to be and didnt rise from the dead etc. But to claim that he never existed, that the NT was written 100-300 years after his death, and that the entire thing is made up is ridiculous.

How is he a derp....

Mejority of people could not read or write back in the day. Their IQ was in the teens so if some person who could read or write came by and told them stories they would believe it. You seriously dont think that was plausible ?

Look at what is happening today with Scientology people have internet computers mandatory education yet still millions are tricked into following a stupid religion like scientology.

[KingSWRV]

Again - you have no idea what you're talking about. The college I attended, for example, had a religion teach who was a Biblical scholar..........and an athiest.

There are some historians who believe that Jesus did not exist. However, they are a very small minority. Historians overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was a real person who lived during that time. That doesn't mean you have to believe that he was truly the Son of God - but to disregard the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed puts you in the very small minority.

Wrong. Thats just propaganda taught to you by religious quacks, taking generalizations like that at face value from sources you don't even realize have no credibility.

But you believe vague statements like that because you want to believe it.

The fact is nobody has evidence for Jesus, and there is hardcore evidence against him existing. So it doesnt matter that someone (who is biased) told you (who is also biased) that there is some sort of consensus of quacks.

They don't count and its not science. Doesn't matter how many retards you think there are saying bogus things, its still bogus.

[Weezy32]

Alexander was a historical man. (with multiple diaries recording his death and arrival at conquered cities)

Hitler was a historical man.

Jesus was a religious diety.

Zeus was a religious diety.





Well I was paraphrasing, I didn't actually go in and look it up.

Most life estimates were 30-40 years. So Jesus supposedly himself died at 31. So the people who were supposed to be his contemporaries, by the time of the earliest writing, they would nee to be 65-70 years old, which is still way older than 45.

So if 40 years old is considered an old man at the time, it still doesnt do anything for your guys' argument.

I said 30 because I was exaggerating to prove my point and didn't look it up, its more like 40-45, my point still stands you know? It didn't change anything that the official report was in the 40s. Lots of people still died well before they reached max lifespan age lol. Especially poor peasants like the early christians.

The internet comment was also kind of a eggsagerated joke to illustrate what I mean so I don't know why it triggered you so hard.

You guys seem upset, like you cant handle this topic and acting childish... so ill back off for now. But don't act like the science and evidence isn't tight.

Watch that video if you really want to have a debate and then go from there.

You better watchout your comments bro

Dont forget religious freaks have killed anyone that did not believe in their god so you are walking a thin line here.

Best to just let them believe in their fairy tales not like you can convince someone not to believe in god or jesus ...remember they dont want to go to hell and burn after they die.


TROLLOLOLOL

[Messier_Object]

Too bad we have icons of Jesus that look similar to Cesare Borgia and predate him by about 1,000yrs...

Jesus was invented generations after his supposed life and death by the earliest Christians; by the apostle Paul and crew and was based on John the Baptist who died for being Christian at the hands of the Romans and similarly baptized people and had a following. ...

Do you actually believe this?

Yeah, because the Middle Eastern Christians don't pray to a brown Jesus, or the Japanese Christians don't pray to a Japanese-looking Christ or Africans don't pray to Black Jesus, right?

It's only whites who do it.... right?










...

Our Lady of Częstochowa is actually the patron icon of Poland. I have both this and the Christ Pantocrator of Sinai (along with others) hanging in our house.

[Messier_Object]

Wrong. Thats just propaganda taught to you by religious quacks, taking generalizations like that at face value from sources you don't even realize have no credibility.

But you believe vague statements like that because you want to believe it.

The fact is nobody has evidence for Jesus, and there is hardcore evidence against him existing. So it doesnt matter that someone (who is biased) told you (who is also biased) that there is some sort of consensus of quacks.

They don't count and its not science. Doesn't matter how many retards you think there are saying bogus things, its still bogus.

Well, he's right. The belief that Christ was not a historical figure is a fringe sect within academia. Even the scholars that doubt his existence say they are in the minority.

[KingSWRV]

Well, he's right. The belief that Christ was not a historical figure is a fringe sect within academia. Even the scholars that doubt his existence say they are in the minority.

Really?

I have been witness to many such debates and proven arguments that he never existed since the 90s. I have seen some famous Christian apologists of their time get murdered on this topic.

Its common knowledge by now.

Do you have a list of names of people in "academia" who all believe and don't believe Jesus a person existed? Can you quote all these people (and prove they aren't one of the thousands of random religious quacks out there who masquerade as legitimate peer reviewed scientists and historians and try to have official sounding titles)?

Can you show me a pie chart as well with percentages.

How can such a thing even be summarized.

Its one of the most retarded arguments people with low IQ have; a plea that there is some sort of "consensus" amongst percentages of so called "smart people" as evidence of something.

[Messier_Object]

Really?

I have been witness to many such debates and proven arguments that he never existed since the 90s. I have seen some famous Christian apologists of their time get murdered on this topic.

Its common knowledge by now.

Do you have a list of names of people in "academia" who all believe and don't believe Jesus a person existed? Can you quote all these people (and prove they aren't one of the thousands of random religious quacks out there who masquerade as legitimate peer reviewed scientists and historians and try to have official sounding titles)?

Can you show me a pie chart as well with percentages.

How can such a thing even be summarized.

Its one of the most retarded arguments people with low IQ have; a plea that there is some sort of "consensus" amongst percentages of so called "smart people" as evidence of something.

How about we name the scholars in the minority instead:
Richard Carrier
Robert Price

The latter which has said that his views run against the majority of scholars. This view is also held by Michael Grant who stated that no serious scholar has postulated the non existence of Jesus. Again, sharing this view point, Robert Van Voorst has stated that the minority view has failed to defend their position and that it has been "...effectively refuted."

Then you have people like Bart Ehrman that deny the divinity of Christ, but still argue for his historicity.

[KingSWRV]

How about we name the scholars in the minority instead:
Richard Carrier
Robert Price

The latter which has said that his views run against the majority of scholars. This view is also held by Michael Grant who stated that no serious scholar has postulated the non existence of Jesus. Again, sharing this view point, Robert Van Voorst has stated that the minority view has failed to defend their position and that it has been "...effectively refuted."

Then you have people like Bart Ehrman that deny the divinity of Christ, but still argue for his historicity.

Ok two people, decent start... keep going. Did you do a google search?

So obviously judging by your focus on "Robert Price" you went on Wikipedia and read the first paragraph.

Also from Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[188][189]

Theological bias[edit]
John P. Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they�re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[190] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]

The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[191] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][192]

The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[193][194]

Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[195][196][197]

W.R. Herzog has stated that: "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[198]

Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present-day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[199][200]

Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]

According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[201] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[202]

Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[22][203][204] Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[22][205]

Scarcity of sources[edit]
It is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[206][207] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient era.[172]

Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[208] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[209]

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[210][211][212]

Most scholars believe that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus did exist as a historical figure.[213][214][215]

[KingSWRV]

http://www.atheistapologist.com/2010...l-man.html?m=1

Was Jesus a real man? And no, I don't mean did he eat meat, do one-handed push-ups, watch football, and drink beer. I mean did he even exist in the first place? Obviously any Christian you ask will say "Yes" (and rightly wonder why you'd even waste time asking them). However, what might surprise you is the huge percentage of non-Christians who believe he was a real man, as well.

If so many non-Christians (including atheists) believe in a historical Jesus, there has to be something to it, right? As it turns out, not really at all.


Hearsay and Bias

One of the basic logical elements of our legal system here in the U.S. is that hearsay is inadmissible as evidence. If a witness on the stand said, "My friend told me that this guy committed the murder," how far do you think that would get the prosecution's case? So, we obviously only should consider what's told to us by people who were actually there -- eyewitness accounts.

Even within eyewitness accounts, testimony is, of course, subject to bias. It's one thing for one of the alleged disciples -- who had a vested interest in claiming that Jesus existed -- to recount the story of Jesus. It would obviously be much more convincing coming from either an unbiased source or a source biased in the opposite direction (who had something to lose by admitting Jesus' existence).

So, we only should believe first-hand accounts, and among that subset, we should place a lot of suspicion on biased sources.


Who Wrote About Jesus?

With those guidelines, let's take a look at who was talking about Jesus and when.

Christians

Well duh, of course Christians wrote about Jesus. Even the Gospels in The Bible itself could technically be considered historical recordings of the life of Jesus. However, even if the obvious bias in such writings wasn't enough to discredit them, there are two important things to take into account about the Gospels. First, the earliest Gospel was written after 70 C.E., long after when Jesus was supposed to have lived. Second, it is the overwhelming opinion of most historians that none of the Gospels were written by people who were eyewitnesses. First, even if Mark and Luke truly wrote their namesake gospels, they weren't disciples of Jesus and don't have eyewitness testimony to give -- it's all second-hand. Second, John and Matthew were disciples, but John's Gospel has been fairly soundly discredited as having been written by him (even many Christians admit this), and the credibility of Matthew's authorship is tenuous at best.

Ultimately, we have biased accounts written by second-hand sources several decades after the events happened. There isn't a court or reputable historical society that would accept these writings as proof of any kind.

Add to all of the above the fact that The Bible went through many changes and that which writings would be accepted was literally voted on, and it's easy to see that there isn't much to base validity on within The Bible itself. See the excellent book Misquoting Jesus for more on these changes.


Non-Christians

Pontius Pilate often is pointed to as having written about Jesus. Pilate was the judge at Jesus' trial and the man ultimately responsible for condemning Jesus to death. So, if Pilate had written of Jesus, this certainly would be impressive evidence of Jesus' existence. Christians will readily cite letters that Pilate wrote to Seneca mentioning Jesus and confirming facts from The Bible.

There's just one problem: The only known letters -- or writings of any kind -- from Pilate mentioning Jesus are from a novel. Yes, a novel ... like, in the fiction section.

The letters so many Christians quote from or cite as evidence come from the book Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome, a novel written in the late 1920s. Since the time of that book's printing, the fact that it was a work of fiction has been increasingly obfuscated. One example of such obfuscation is that the author of the book -- and thus all of the letters -- is credited as an "Editor" on the cover of the book (shown at right) rather than the author. Seeing "Edited by" on the cover of any book obviously leads readers to believe that the contents were not written by the person named as editor, and in this case the assumption follows that Pilate actually wrote the letters.

Unfortunately, it is surprisingly easy to claim something as fact -- even in the Internet Age -- and have that message snowball to the point that the uninformed masses never would waste time double-checking since it's unlikely that such a "commonly accepted fact" wouldn't be true. But to give credit where credit is due, at least the reviewers on Amazon know better ...

There were non-Christian people from the era who genuinely mentioned Jesus, though ... what of them?

The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius is often cited as having written of Jesus. He was born in 37 C.E. -- at least four years after Jesus' supposed death -- and he didn't even mention Jesus until 93 C.E., which was after the Gospels themselves already had started coming out.

Pliny the Younger's writings also serve as evidence to many Christians. Sorry, he was born in 64 C.E., so he's nothing but hearsay either.

Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus also were born after Jesus' death. Seriously, what's the guy gotta do to get some ink during his lifetime?


With Great Fame Comes Great ... Obscurity?

The lack of timely written mentions of Jesus really is the most damning evidence against the existence of a real, flesh-and-blood, historical Jesus. Despite claims in The Bible of Jesus' fame preceding him, no one wrote about him within his lifetime. Here are some examples of The Bible claiming that word of Jesus reached far and wide during his time on Earth:

Matt 14:1 -- At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus

Luke 5:15 -- But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

So, Jesus was a rock star, and yet there's not a single instance of someone writing anything about him during his lifetime -- including by his followers. No historians recorded these miraculous events by this prominent fellow. No philosophers pontificated about his Sermon on the Mount. No followers jotted down how Jesus was changing their lives. Keep in mind, these aren't just poor illiterates who may have written of him, this collection of potential writers included rich politicians, scholars, and religious leaders -- many of whom surely knew how to write. So, this super famous guy went around healing the sick, walking on water, and so forth, and everyone collectively thought, "Meh, I'll write it down later."

No, it wasn't until the actual cult of Christianity started gaining popularity that people began writing about Jesus. Why do you think that is?


Been There, Done That


Another reason to be skeptical of the historical accuracy of the story of Jesus is that his story is basically a carbon copy of the mythology surrounding the protagonists of other major religions of the era. You know how everyone complains that we don't see any good, original movies lately because everyone keeps rehashing or remaking classics? Yeah ... guess that's how religions were back then. No one had an original idea, and all of the saviors were dying (or being martyred), being resurrected, and then ascending into some sacred realm.

A writer on Listverse does an excellent job with a top-10 list of Christ-like figures who predate Jesus and how they share similar stories. It's also well known that early Christians adopted aspects of other religions in an attempt at conversion, and that goes even further to explain the similarities in the story of Jesus. It's much easier to convert people when there isn't much to convert from. Some of the similarities include a Dec. 25 birthday, a miraculous birth/virgin birth, death and resurrection after (specifically) three days, healing the sick, walking on water, and so on.

Here's the top-10 list of Christ-like figures he gives:
Buddha
Krishna
Odysseus
Romulus
Dionysus
Heracles
Glycon
Zoroaster
Attis
Horus
Seriously, read about Horus in particular. Jesus could not be a more obvious Horus clone if he tried.


Conclusions

Here are the conclusions we can take from the above: There is a story of a famous man that very closely mirrors other fables that already were circulating at the time, and this story was only written well after the man's alleged life, and then only by people who never could have met him. All other noteworthy men of that era were written about during their lifetimes -- so there was a precedent for that sort of historical record-keeping -- yet not a single word was written of this man during the height of his living fame or even for decades afterward.

Jesus may have been a real man -- to deny that would be closed-minded -- but there is no sound evidence that he was. In the absence of religious bias, no historian would argue that this man probably existed.

[KingSWRV]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/d...doesnt-add-up/

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, andBart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

---

The fundamental lack of any real corroboration outside the books of the bible is indeed the most damning evidence against ever establishing a ‘historical Jesus’. None of the writers of the books of the NT approved by the RCC can be placed in history themselves and nothing of contemporary record (specifically anything during the time Jesus himself was said to have lived) has been traced to an actual Jesus or any of the events in the NT. The census that is mentioned never happened; there is no record of Pilate having presided over the case of either Jesus or Barabbas and naturally none of the miraculous claims were ever documented outside of the NT.

So to sum up: no evidence of any biblical events regarding Jesus, no evidence regarding the authors of the books of the NT much less evidence for their authority regarding the events they write about which don’t even agree with each other, no historical or archaeological evidence backing up any miraculous claims and no contemporary records giving any credence to a single claim the NT makes.

I rather doubt we’ll ever have any closure regarding this because most who are pushing for taking a historical Jesus seriously are believers, and they simply never needed evidence to begin with. But it doesn’t make any claims for a historical Jesus any more likely to ever be proven true.

Thats just what I found in the first few minutes on the first page. I could go on and on....

[GreatOldOne]

[Psyllius]

Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted. There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good. This was common in scholarly communities.

It's funny people are so quick to dismiss this since even now in the age of technology people are still lying on a daily basis.

[Mercworx]

It's even more interesting when you realize ancient proto Judeans/Sraelites were likely a mix of Canaanites and the Shasu people and that the old testament is likely two different religious text that merged.

Some scholars think the early account of creation is actually the Canaanite version. The Shasu people may have actually been Egyptian slaves which is where the exodus story nasty come from.

Not to mention "El" is the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon where "Yahweh" is linked to the Shasu. "Israel" may actually mean "God fights" interesting considering "El" is a warrior God



Fascinating stuff really. We know so little about that period.

[Aircommander91]