What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
834 Comments
- Cain1220, on 11/09/2009, -31/+307Of course he's real. I paid him $20 to mow my lawn last week.
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -161/+342lol @ the jesus myth. There is no contemporaneous historical evidence for a historical jesus, not from josephus, tacitus, pilny the younger, or any other source. This doesn't prove he didn't exist, it just proves that believing he was a real person is nothing more than wishful thinking.
FYI wannabe apologists, Your religion demands faith, not evidence, so why continue to pretend there is some sort of evidence to validate your beliefs? If you truly believe you have evidence (a delusional belief) then you are not using faith. - charlie3782, on 11/09/2009, -38/+2121. The Gospel according to Anne Rice.
2. The Gospel according to Bram Stoker.
3. The Gospel according to Bela Lugosi.
4. The Gospel according to Joss Whedon.
5. Old stories concerning Vlad the Impaler.
6. A long time ago, some people said they had seen vampires.
7. A long time ago, other people also said they had seen vampires.
8. Rapid spread of vampire stories, across the whole world!
If I can remember any more off the top of my head, I'll post 'em.
Sweet, I wonder if I can be a vampire now, if lots of other people believe in it. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/09/2009, -4/+158Well, one thing I know for sure is that the end-all answer is going to be in a Digg comment thread.
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -37/+1641.) not contemporaneous, and conflicts with other gospels' stories
2.) not contemporaneous, and conflicts with other gospels' stories
3.) not contemporaneous, and conflicts with other gospels' stories
4.) not contemporaneous, and conflicts with other gospels' stories
5.) Circular logic. You are using your conclusion (that jesus was a real person) to support your premise (that OT prophecies were fulfilled). That is a logical fallacy in action. Any fictional character could be penned to fulfill any previous alleged prophecy.
6.) Apostles eyewitness accounts of jesus as a real person? How did they manage that with absolutely no texts dating anywhere near the alleged life of jesus?
7.) Same as #6.
8.) How is the spread of christianity (and 'rapidity' is subjective, and irrelevant) indicative of a living historical jesus? The spread of christianity occurred well after the alleged life of jesus, so it would hardly attest to the veracity of your claim for a historical jesus - if jesus was a real person, he must not have been very impressive, since nobody seemed to notice he existed at the time.
All your 'evidence' magically appears well after your historical christ is alleged to have lived, and none of it comes from primary sources, and much of it conflicts with itself. If you make up any other stuff off the top of your head, well, continue to make a fool of yourself. - mogdor, on 11/10/2009, -6/+111Why even bother with a title for this story? Just call it "Argue about religion, ready.....begin".
- apothekari, on 11/09/2009, -54/+155Who cares.
I'm tired of hearing about it all the time.
I look at it this way, if a being created me for the sole purpose of glorifying them and forever praising them for my existence, then isn't that narcissistic?
And if I am then plunged into eternal darkness or hellfire because I slack off on this glorifying and praising or turn my back on it altogether, then that's not really free will is it. It's, "Accept my beautiful perfect love...OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER!"
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'd rather burn defiantly in a hell I reject, than serve regretfully in a heaven I deplore.
If god made me to praise (him her it) forever then (him her it) should've known better.
That is why I am a pagan and worship the Sun, moon and cycles of the season.
It just doesn't have to carry all this unbelievable ***** around with it.
Or at least if it is *****, it's clearly my ***** and not someone else 's. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -22/+110lol, lets not count the millions of other followers of other religions who spread their religion and then died for what they believed was true. Just because someone is completely convinced something is true to the point of sacrificing their life for it does not make it real. Right now somewhere there is a schizophrenic homeless guy on a bus wearing 3 pairs of pants that TRULY BELIEVES he is the 2nd coming of your christ, and people who claim alien abductions pass lie detector tests all the time, it does not mean their claims are true, it only means they believe them. Your argument is nonsense.
To say that jesus is not historical is nothing more than the result of the complete lack of evidence for a historical jesus.
In before "how do you know george washington/napoleon/colombus was real?" It's called multiple corroborating primary contemporaneous sources. - PurpleTentacle, on 11/10/2009, -23/+99Except there is "evidence". There is no proof, but there is evidence. To be fair, there is never proof of historical figured, especially ones 2000 years old. All you have is evidence that points towards certain conclusions.
There is far more evidence of Christ than atheists tend to state, and IMO they would be more persuasive if they were honest and admitted that. The fact that Christianity grew so large and spread so effectively even though it gained its followers only pain is evidence (again, not proof but evidence). That sort of thing is difficult to explain outside of people being genuinely convinced (many religions spread because they offer their believers things -- but early Christianity offered only suffering).
Just believing the whole thing was made up later is hard to believe as well. Certainly it wasn't made up in the third century when it became the official religion of the nation that originally despised and hated it -- Rome. Scholarly dating puts the gospels written within the same lifetime as Jesus contemparies -- so how did the follows of Jesus spread so effectively when all that would be needed to put them away would be A) Testimony by any of the thousands of eye witnesses stated in the gospels B) the corpse of Jesus (which Rome would have easily been able to produce since they heavily guarded it). And again, why are people being persuaded to join up with a religion that told them not to fight up against Rome (which is what they wanted and why Jews were so disappointed with Jesus).
I'm not saying there is proof. But there is enough evidence and reasons to believe that it's unfair to call Christians delusional and laugh us away. - happytheclam, on 11/09/2009, -105/+175No.
- frousfroud, on 11/09/2009, -66/+135Christianity was built on a whole bundle of legends.
- scarth, on 11/09/2009, -24/+87A man named Hercules probably existed too, does that mean he was the son of Zeus? No.
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -21/+78Source?
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -21/+78"They actually walked, talked and were taught by Jesus."
LOL, Source?
"Not to mention four separate lengthy early writings which all testify of the life of Jesus in detail."
None of which are from the time your historical jesus was claimed to live in, and all of which contradict and plagiarize each other.
"It is illogical to say that someone could have such a primary, dramatic effect on so many people so quickly never, ever existed."
You're not very familiar with how logic works or how to use it, are you? This might help: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
"to say that because you disagree with WHO he is"
How can I disagree with "WHO he is" when I reject the claim that he ever "was" to begin with?
"and claim its because of lack of documented evidence is dishonest and irrational."
Yeah, well, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to evaluate a claim based on evidence (which is what i am doing) than to blindly accept a claim based on what a person wants to believe or what a person is comfortable believing while ignoring the lack of evidence (your position)or evidence to the contrary (had you ever actually compared the gospels, you would understand). You can continue being dishonest with yourself for your entire life without a peep of protest from anyone, but when you bring that dishonesty into public discourse, be prepared to be shot down. - HenryKillinger, on 11/10/2009, -15/+71If Jesus ever existed, he'd foresee the existence of Nickelback and not allow them to come into being. Point proven.
- Bookant, on 11/10/2009, -16/+70I must have missed that part. They kept CLAIMING there was going to be contemporaneous, even secular, historical evidence . . . . but after clicking through page after page of that build up I got . . . . the Gospels. If they wanted to say, "Jesus existed because the Bible says so" they could've just said it and not wasted my time.
- ParticleMan420, on 11/10/2009, -10/+63saying something is false isnt "discussion over" unless you give something to back up your claim.
- Retsam06, on 11/09/2009, -3/+56Because, as you said, the premise of Christianity /is/ dependent on the historicity of his life. If he wasn't there, there was no Messiah to pay for humanity's sins, which in that case wouldn't set Christianity apart from Judaism at all.
- Retsam06, on 11/09/2009, -8/+61"It's ridiculous to worship God. That's why I worship the sun!"
- tidu, on 11/09/2009, -15/+68that's not a straw man, it's a pretty accurate analogy.
- JesusHimself, on 11/09/2009, -3/+56Cheap ass
- zadadka, on 11/09/2009, -13/+61Worms.
Can.
Opened.
Uh-oh ! - davidjunit, on 11/09/2009, -40/+88I don't care if he existed or not, I just don't buy Mary's story. She fornicated or committed adultery in a time or place which it is was completely unheard of, got pregnant, got the clever idea to say that God must have impregnated her, and people believed it because to them pregnancy out of wedlock was impossible.
People are infinitely more educated now than they were then, you try telling someone your baby is God's baby now days and you get laughed at or sent to the loony bin. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -10/+57Wow, when did they discover these Roman records? Could you please supply a link detailing this discovery? I can't believe the late breaking news about such a major archaeological find is being broken in a digg comment section! This will change the centuries-old debate forever! WOW! I eagerly await a link to this story!
- NichowA, on 11/10/2009, -10/+55The article is also on a website for an online ministry, so it isn't exactly the most unbiased source for information.
- 3of19, on 11/10/2009, -8/+52Well, since the Sun is one of the primary sources of all life on Earth, it makes way more sense to worship (or at least be grateful for the existence of) it, than an imaginary being. :)
- JigoroKano, on 11/10/2009, -8/+51You don't know what contemporaneous means do you?
- InfinitySnatch, on 11/09/2009, -12/+54Hmm, none of these Gospels appear to be peer reviewed.
- Dagreenman, on 11/09/2009, -20/+62I like to think there was some dude name Jesus, going around telling people to love each other and not to be dicks. But there's no way he was the messiah.
- TheLee, on 11/10/2009, -31/+73did you even read the article? the article cites contemporaneous, even secular, historical evidence for a historical jesus. the historicity of jesus is not really something to be debated. whether or not he is an actual spiritual figure, well, that's a different issue entirely. (same thing could be said for the original buddha or for the prophet mohammed).
- sophiaperennis, on 11/09/2009, -16/+57Answer: The historical evidence provided by Christian scholars such as C.A. Evans (Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus) will likely be considered biased by non-Christian diachronic scholars.
As a Buddhist scholar, although Siddhartha Gotama purportedly lived 500 years before the birth of Jesus, the premise of Buddhism is not dependent on the historicity of his live as such. Scholars such as Hajjime Nakamura will openly admit that the Gotama narrative is highly unlikely to be historical. In essence, it is not that important who historically taught the Buddhist doctrine.
I'm not sure why Christianity would require such a dependency. It doesn't change the underlying allegorical theology of the teachings. - Gonthim, on 11/10/2009, -1/+40Buddhist doctrine doesn't care who started it because it doesn't matter who started it. Buddhism depends on nothing to verify it. It's just an idea. There is enlightenment, some people can reach it, if you don't, try again in your next life. Enlightenment isn't something that interacts with us, or cares about us, it's just a state of being.
Christianity is kind of dependent on God sending his only son to earth to die for our sins and give us a way into heaven. If this didn't happen, the entire new testament is false. The basis for the religion is gone. There is no afterlife to get into.
If Christianity was just about being good to your neighbor and trying to emulate Jesus, it wouldn't matter if Jesus was real or not, or who started the idea. Because Jesus is the son of God, and he is our way into a blessed afterlife, it matters whether or not he really existed. If he didn't we can't get into Heaven. - norwegianlegion, on 11/09/2009, -14/+52Holy crap, a truly controversial Digg article where the comment section isn't clearly divided into majority and minority opinions. I say we need a truly unifying comment to bring everyone together:
Nickleback sucks. Nickelback? ***** it, the name is retarded anyway. - Falldog, on 11/09/2009, -33/+69"Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity built upon a legend?"
Both. - raintree420, on 11/09/2009, -11/+46just a small 2 cents. All that preaching during the early days of xianity were to the poor, and illiterate. those that could not and would not question what they were read. xtianity was spread to the ignorant and still is.
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -11/+45Wow, when did they discover these Roman records? Could you please supply a link detailing this discovery? I can't believe the late breaking news about such a major archaeological find is being broken in a digg comment section! This will change the centuries-old debate forever! WOW! I eagerly await a link to this story!
- valis, on 11/10/2009, -10/+39I have no proof that any of these posts were made by a real person or persons, and I haven't enough faith in the internet to care one way or the other. However, I must admit that the circle jerk this subject invariably initiates alternates between entertaining and stunningly monotonous. Mostly, thought, the discussion is pointless as it can never be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
- elmuerte17, on 11/09/2009, -9/+38And Digg is a terrible place for a debate on any topic to occur, because the most popular opinion wins every time.
- Vaktathi, on 11/09/2009, -17/+45I think it can be relatively easily assumed, even if not definitvely proven, that Jesus as a person existed.
Now, was he really the son of god and a creator of miracles or just another random religious dude from the era that somehow hit the big time is what the real debate should be. - SkittlesUSA, on 11/10/2009, -10/+37"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]"
"Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.[133][134] [135]The New Testament scholar,[136][137] James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.[138][139][140]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Dude, there is an entire wikipedia article about it. Don't bury your head in the sand. - radix2, on 11/10/2009, -9/+35Tacitus was not a contemporary, and there is strong evidence that the reference to Jesus was added later.
- GreatDrok, on 11/10/2009, -13/+39Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - Carl Sagan.
In the absence of non-biased (i.e. Christian authored or doctored) material, the likelihood is that Jesus didn't exist.
Every claim Christianity made (or any other religion come to think of it) that could be tested has been shown to be wrong so these days they go with untestable claims. Frankly, if you're wrong about everything I can test, then the chances are pretty high that you're wrong about everything you say. Religions fall back on the 'you must have faith' bit because they know they can't prove any of it unlike scientific claims and I don't have to have faith in science as the facts are there to see. I'm free to come up with new hypotheses as to why something happens and that can be tested and if it holds up it can become a new scientific theory. If Christians have an hypothesis that Jesus existed, then present the proof and it better be good. - Shadic, on 11/09/2009, -5/+30"Then let's "not" count the followers of Jesus who spread the tenets of Christianity and Christ and then died for what they believed was true (noone would rightfully do that) with no immediate personal gain. Additionally there are (and have been since in the first and into the 2nd century) hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of followers following someone who never ever existed...?"
So, about that Mohammad guy...? - noangelcame, on 11/10/2009, -4/+28At least the sun is real
- SimonWatson, on 11/09/2009, -17/+41Even IF you managed to prove Jesus existed... so? you've got to prove a lot more than the guy existed, you know... like the walking on water and coming back to life stuff etc.
OR you can say it doesn't matter and it's all down to faith, which I respect... but when you try to prove this ridiculous stuff factually that's when you cross the line. - twohoundogs, on 11/10/2009, -3/+27"So, about that Mohammad guy...?"
I'm pretty sure he existed also. - WraTH017, on 11/10/2009, -2/+25She probably didn't want to get stoned to death, as instructed in Leviticus. Cuz you know, it sorta sucks to have rocks thrown at you until you die.
- pinkfish411, on 11/10/2009, -3/+26Let's add that the the whole "Jesus myth" argument doesn't seem to be one that was used by the earliest opponents of Christianity, either, even though that's the time when it should have been most effective. If the Jewish leaders opposed to the post-Easter Jesus movement had just reminded people that absolutely none of the events the Apostles were talking about had ever happened, it seems like it would have been a pretty effective way of convincing the people living in the same area where this Jesus guy had supposedly lived. While we have records of early anti-Christian Jews making other kinds of arguments--such as the claim that the Christians stole Jesus' body and faked the resurrection--we have no records of the Jews making the "Jesus as myth" argument. That argument didn't seem to catch on until Christianity was brought into more explicit contact with Greek opponents, and after the focus of Christianity had shifted from the movement of disciples around Jesus to the cosmic metaphysical dimensions of Greek Christianity.
- ParticleMan420, on 11/10/2009, -7/+29that's that then, you just heard it from JesusHimself.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 11/10/2009, -1/+22FYI: If the sales pitch has to include the phrases "it's not dodgy," and "it's not a cult," it's probably a dodgy cult.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 846 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is