post tenebras lux

Really? Suggest you consider reading this site.

Jack the Bodiless

No 1st century secular historians wrote about Jesus. Other than the (forged) entry in Josephus, there's a couple of mentions of the existence of "Christians": that's it.

Alethias

There are credible historians that dispute the existence of Jesus.

You present me with 3 choices. Are they the only possible choices?

I have kids. Sometimes, when they want to do something I don't want them to, instead of telling them no, I'll give them limited choices. By restricting my choices you are attempting to restrict my possible answers.

Other possibilities are

• that the documents were doctored over a period of time to make them conform to church theology
• that the writers of the books of the NT are liars and Jesus didn't say what was attributed to him.
• that Jesus didn't exist

I could come up with other possibilities with time, but those are the ones that seem most plausible to me, in order of plausibility.

When correcting bad behavior, giving limited choices for the intent of inducing a desired result is a plausible strategy. In discussions such as this, it's a logical fallacy.

Alethias.

Keith&Co.

I think it's more to the point to examine the OT. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the messiah, so whatever Jesus said should be filed under 'false prophet.'

Who?

WishboneDawn

:rolling: :rolling:

Damn, you're good.

Mageth

#4. A legend.

windsofchange

#2 actually sounds plausible. Actually, he didn't even have to be a lunatic (we call them "mentally ill" these days, btw ). He could have just been misguided, really believed that he was the Messiah and acted accordingly. It wouldn't be the first or last time that happened. And it wouldn't mean he was a bad or stupid person either. In fact, he could have wrongly believed himself to be the Messiah, and yet have still been a kind, charismatic and loving person who attracted a lot of followers for a short time, till he stepped on the wrong set of toes. That happens sometimes too, unfortunately.

WishboneDawn

Or none of those. Mageth had a good point with the legend. There may have been a real Jesus but little like what the gospels portray. A figure who served as the bones of a story about a messiah.

All of jesusfollower's proposal's presume that the gospels provide an accurate account of his life and I don't accept that, wicked, nasty liberal that I am.

FatherMithras

Proving you have absolutely no idea what on earth you're talking about. there is not a single contemporary source for Jesus and what we know about history flatly contradicts the Bible. The only reason they believe jesus may have a historical basis is that the religion sprung up within a hiccup of history from what the followers themselves claim was the start. The stories in the bible about Jesus are not taken as true by any historians except fundamentalist fringe whackos.

LOL. the old, pathetic C. S. Lewis argument, that anyone with half a mind could beat. Here's the answer(s). If he actually believed he was God (which he may or may not have. Since we don't have anything written by him, and the earliest sources about his life are from people who never met him, it's highly questionable) than he's obviously a complete lunatic. If he didn't believe it, and just said it, he's a liar. If he just had a nice message that got corrupted with time and thought he was a prophet, than he was mistaken. You guys need to add it to the list, liar, lord, lunatic or mistaken.

Wrong. Go actually read up buddy. As an avid history buff, I love reading these guys. What they say is generally "There's this group of christians who believe such and such. They say they follow a story about a man named Christ, who they believe was a savior. they don't delve into whether or not he existed, because a fringe cult's beliefs aren't important to them.

The problem is that just because the bible says something, it doesn't make it true. It's laughable you actually consider this valid. The bible was wrong about the Exodus, the invasion of Canaan, and made up events in Bethlehem around Jesus's supposed birth. It also says rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, that there's a firmament above the earth, and all kinds of stupid stuff. The bible is hilariously ahistorical and lacking content of fact. Way to...prove nothing.

JesusFollower

Your welcome Alethias. It is pleasant talking with you. Boy I must say you have some tough questions. As far as saying "God is light"...the translation means "Truth". God is light and in Him in no darkness (untruth) at all. The scripture says Jesus came into the world as "light" meaning again "truth" but mankind choose and prefered "Darkness" or untruth. Hopefully that made sense to you?