{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/8/2015 4:25:44 AM
20
There are no first hand accounts of his existence, except by his followers, but there is a theory that they created the idea of Jesus, and a lot of them were not literate, so they couldn't transcribe their experiences. There aren't even any official records, held by the Romans, of his crucifixion. So to sum it up, yes it's possible that he could have existed, but he could also have not existed.
English
-
What about the historian Josephus Flavious? He wrote about Jesus in his history books and is widely known.. And he wrote "there was a man from Nazareth who did many miraculous things called Jesus, if you could even call him a man"
-
Josephus mentioned Jesus a few decades after Jesus was supposedly crucified, so he is not a first hand account. His accounts are second hand sources at best.
-
There is the recently rediscovered Gospel of Peter, which was written around 30 AD, and chronicles a man who called himself Jesus. However, there are no miracles or claims to divinity, just Buddha-esque parables.
-
Anything written by one of jesus' apostles, you have to take with a grain of salt and be prepared to analyze the bias of such work. There is s theory, that Jesus was not real and that his followers and apostles created the idea of Jesus.
-
The likelihood of Jesus' existence is far more probable than not.
-
Tis probably, but not entirely proven.
-
Most probable
-
The question of most probable and least probable is not really a question. With out undeniable proof, all possibilities are equally possible and probable. I just like asking the question: why is Jesus portrayed as white, when he originated from the Middle East? If he was white then he would be from Europe or the aryan regions further east.
-
[quote]The question of most probable and least probable is not really a question. With out undeniable proof, all possibilities are equally possible and probable. I just like asking the question: why is Jesus portrayed as white, when he originated from the Middle East? If he was white then he would be from Europe or the aryan regions further east.[/quote] 1) Without undeniable proof, not all possibilities are equal. There are razors, the most famous being Occam's, that weed out hypotheses. Occam's Razor states that the option that makes the fewest assumptions is the correct one: in this instance, the choice that Jesus existed is far more probable than a group of 12 men created a character that was killed by the Romans and perpetuated by Jews in their lifetime. Especially since this man supposedly had a role in a revolt at around the same time. 2) Jesus is often portrayed as white because he was portrayed by white people in Europe. This is also true for the Greek pantheon, and was (in classical literature) to be a symbol of holiness or deification. The same goes for men like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, who were clearly not white in the same way they are portrayed.
-
My reasoning is that probability does not define absoluteness. Base the probabilities on what evidence we have, but at the same time you have to consider bias, misinformation, and credibility. If we see the evidence and only the evidence, then yes his existence is most probable, but only probable. When you look at everything down to a minute detail and analyze the sources and the evidence themselves, then you really can't assume anything unless you were there. History is portrayed as one thing or another, which leads back to the saying, "history is written by the victor". In the next couple of centuries after the birth of Christianity, Christians made up two thirds of the Roman Empire, and eventually they were the top denomination when Constantine became the first pope. History is filled with bias, therefore one can not always see the full picture. Most probable leads to assumption that something happened, but just because we assume something happened does not make it fact. We have discovered no remains and no belongings. We only have mentionings and scriptures about him. No official roman, who were quite efficient at record keeping, record exists about him until Josephus' mentioning of him nearly a century later when Christians already made up a large majority of the roman people. All possibilities are accepted because nothing is certain.
-
Nothing can be certain if your regimen of evidence is that strict.
-
That's the point, nothing is infallibly certain unless you see or experience something for yourself. You can accept something and operate on the basis that it is fact, but you don't truly know if that information is entirely true unless you witness it firsthand.
-
Not even if you witness it first hand
-
Were you there when Jesus was crucified? Was I? The answer is no therefore we can only assume and determine what is probable, without knowing what is undeniable fact. My point is not to put down my own religion. My point is that we must all learn to look at things from different angles, and consider all possibilities. I think the creed of the assassins brotherhood fits this situation perfectly, "nothing is true. Everything is permitted".
-
Have you ever been to Mars? How do you know it's real? That argument is silly, as most things (evolution, cosmology, etc) is taken without personal experience, but with either evidence or probability (based on what evidence is available).
-
I don't need to go to Mars to know its real. All I have to do is look up in the sky in someplace where there isn't a lot of light pollution. The theory of evolution is still a theory, but I accept it because it is the most logical explanation. Scientific discovery is based on empirical evidence, that has been confirmed time and time again. Historical fact is often warped and re shaped, depending on who's stating. An example of this is the Armenian genocide. One side calls it genocide because the Turks killed about 1.5 million Armenians, and the other side denies that it was genocide and merely an action of retaliation against the Armenians, and that they didn't kill that many. History is debated and debated, but scientific discoveries can be confirmed again and again because evidence can be renewed and rediscovered. If all you have are the mentionings and writings of long deceased figures, then how can you know how credible they actually are. Historical fact is defined by record keeping. Record keeping is vulnerable to human flaws and errors as well as exaggeration. It is only until hard, concrete evidence, which can deteriorate over time, is discovered.
-
You're at John Locke levels of evidence. The beautiful part about whether or not Jesus existed is that it doesn't matter. Evolution deniers and climate change deniers matter.
-
It really doesn't matter because either way you look at it is not going to change anything. Deniers of evolution and climate change are ignorant because they refuse to look at the issue from both sides. The problem with issues like that, is that there is always one side that makes an argument, that could potentially end in disaster if they're wrong. Both sides of an argument are never right or wrong until what they are discussing takes place. It's like shrödinger's cat in a way, but everyone thinks they are right, and that what they say is set in stone. No one ever considers what will happen if they're wrong, and when no one considers that disaster ensues.
-
There is the recently rediscovered Gospel of Peter, which was written around 30 AD, and chronicles a man who called himself Jesus. However, there are no miracles or claims to divinity, just Buddha-esque parables.
-
There is the recently rediscovered Gospel of Peter, which was written around 30 AD, and chronicles a man who called himself Jesus. However, there are no miracles or claims to divinity, just Buddha-esque parables.
