How accurate is the Bible's Jesus?

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2002-10-14 12:45am

Don't shoot me if this has been done a million times, please. I'm just curious about everyone's opinion here. I'm somewhere around the last two options, but I'm split about 50-50 either way. I'll go with the second last one.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-14 12:48am

Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and L. Ron Hubbard were all real people. This fact doesn't validate their respective religions or mythologies.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-14 08:21am

I have to wonder how much twisting has been done to the historical Jesus. After all it's all been passed down by the apostales and I don't doubt they twisted their interpratations to suit their purposes. I suppose we'll never know.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-14 08:45am

Strange question.

The Bible is the only source we have for the existence of Jesus, there are no other contemporary sources that mention him or his many 'works'. Isn't that strange? Who are you going to compare Bible-Jesus to? There's no Jesus anywhere else. So it's 100% accurate, if you believe the Bible. Which I don't. It has no contemporary historical accounts backing up its bullshit whatsoever. For example (and this is one of a few gems):

You'd figure saints rising from the dead and talking to people around jerusalem as a consequence of the alleged SON OF GOD ARISING FROM THE DEAD as described in one of the (contradictory, of course) resurrection accounts in the 'good' book, would draw some attention from the contemporary historians eh?

A not unreasonable conclusion resulting from the lack of supporting evidence: it's fucken bullshit.

What's even more wonderful is you have these self-righteous liars inserting passages into a secondary historical sources like Flavius Jospehus: the passage goes kind of like this:

"and so the King did this blah blah there was a flood and a war blah blah blah the Roman administrators blah blah blah there was a famine blah blah ..."

and immediately after:

"The JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD WAS CRUCIFIED, HE WAS THE CHRIST OUR SAVIOR (even though, I Jospehus, am a pharisaic JEW) AND THE SON OF MAN AND ALL MUST BELIEVE IN HIM"

and then

"and then there was a war and a famine blah blah blah"

needless to say, this entire passage has been universally condemned as a forgery; except by the ignorant of course.

And remember, this is the best source

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-14 08:49am

Hmm well the Biblical Jesus is a Mean, Racist fellow who happen to do some good then got nailed to a cross

Hmm thats about it for the Bible's Accounts and our only accounts of him(Well minus the half a hundred WORSHIP HIM parts and him restating what everyone else knew 1000 years before that)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-14 11:33am

The Biblical Jesus was probably nothing like the real-life one, as the stories of him in the Bible were largely ripped off from Mithraism, which was in competition with Christianity for being the official religion of Rome. Mithraism was the religion of the soldiers, while Christianity was more inclusive. Eventually, Mithraism lost.

In order to win, the Christians took large parts of Mithraism myths and adapted them to their own. Mithra was borne of a virgin, had 12 followers, was killed, resurrected and ascended into heaven, performed miracles and was supposed to be mankind's savior, along with being the son of god (at the very least had some connection to god). His birthday was also celebrated on December 25th. What's more, Mithraism was around in ancient Persia long before Christianity, and the Christians' adoptions of some of its beliefs are a testament to the whorish tactics that are responsible for the Christianity's popularity today.

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-15 01:48am

Durandal wrote:The Biblical Jesus was probably nothing like the real-life one, as the stories of him in the Bible were largely ripped off from Mithraism, which was in competition with Christianity for being the official religion of Rome. Mithraism was the religion of the soldiers, while Christianity was more inclusive. Eventually, Mithraism lost.

In order to win, the Christians took large parts of Mithraism myths and adapted them to their own. Mithra was borne of a virgin, had 12 followers, was killed, resurrected and ascended into heaven, performed miracles and was supposed to be mankind's savior, along with being the son of god (at the very least had some connection to god). His birthday was also celebrated on December 25th. What's more, Mithraism was around in ancient Persia long before Christianity, and the Christians' adoptions of some of its beliefs are a testament to the whorish tactics that are responsible for the Christianity's popularity today.

The role of the Roman empire in shaping the "Jesus" described in the Bible cannot be overstated. I believe that there was a Roman festival called Saturnalia that was celebrated at the end of their year (late December) and Christmas replaced this.

I am not that well informed about Mithraism. Thanks for the starter.

To get a better understanding of Jesus, consider that he was a Jew in an area under Roman rule. Rome demanded total fealty from its subjects, but the Jews were unqiue because they had some knowledge of area trade routes and the ability to communicate between different peoples of the region.

As such, teh Roman relationship with Jews is somewhat atypical for a conquered people. Many Jews were "in bed" with local Roman authorities. Although the term is a little bit of a misnomer, think of Jesus as a "fundamentalist Jew", a lay rabbi (common at the time) who criticized those Jews who were in bed with Rome.

Ultimately, Jesus' criticism of these Jews (and indirectly, Rome) led to his execution.

The Bible does not depict Jesus accurately. Much was changed in the first few hunderd years AD in order to seek converts.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-15 01:52am

Precisely. Christianity is the whore of all religions. The most fundamental tenets (virgin birth, savior, redemption) were taken from other religions. I wonder what the original Christianity was like...

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-15 02:11am

Durandal wrote:Precisely. Christianity is the whore of all religions. The most fundamental tenets (virgin birth, savior, redemption) were taken from other religions. I wonder what the original Christianity was like...

Was there an "original Christianty"?

Jesus was a Jew. No Jew would accpet the idea of a Man/God. The idea that a man can be holy does not exist to Jews. Simply put, Jews believe the Messiah will come at the end of the world, and the righteous will be resurrected at that time.

As for the Bible caling him the "son of Man" and "son of God", those are expressions Jews use to describe themselves even today, reflecting their earthly birth but belief in God.

So Jesus would have found few followers among Jews, if his teachings were "I am the Messiah". All of those followers would have vanished if the world didn't end when he died.

Jesus almost certainly had some followers. He'd have never had the attention of Pontius Pilate if he was one solitary lunatic. He was ruffling some feathers. Jesus' message was likely "We are Jews first, Roman subjects second". This message would (and did) galvanize Jews to some extent, and would get the local governor (Pilate) agitated.

This message would also live on beyond Jesus' death.

Christianity is the result of efforts to add momentum to this anti-Roman movement. "Saint" Paul (not a Jew) was instrumental in this, as he sought "converts" among Greeks and others. In order to get them to believe, some things had to get changed. (simplifying for brevity) Other peoples would not agree to the teachings of "some jew" unless he was a special Jew.

This is the root of the Jewish "rejection" of Jesus. "Yes", early Christians said, "Jesus was Jewish, but his own people ignored him." This was propagated to get converts in greater numbers, even while distancing from Jews, Jesus' target audience.

Over time, Jesus changed from a local Jewish leader to the Son of God, as more beliefs of others had to be co-opted to build momentum. Ultimately, Rome saw what was going on and adopted Christanity as the state religion, albeit not without adding enough to it to smooth any transitions.

Original Christianity?

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-15 02:17am

Yes, the Bible represents the son of God 100%. As a follower of christ, I have witnessed the teachings of christ in action.I know of his powers from first hand account.You do not just read in the Bible about what good things Jesus did, and not see it for yourself.He works in ones life, when the one follows him.Of course he doesn't need an invitiation.All that he did in the bible is accurate based upon the characteristics of God.Jesus characteristics were that of God.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-15 02:24am

Priesto wrote:Yes, the Bible represents the son of God 100%. As a follower of christ, I have witnessed the teachings of christ ...

Yadda yadda yadda. We've heard your bullshit before. You state your beliefs as fact (wait for the inevitable moronic "science is a form of faith too" retort).

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-15 02:35am

Darth Wong wrote:
Priesto wrote:Yes, the Bible represents the son of God 100%. As a follower of christ, I have witnessed the teachings of christ ...
Yadda yadda yadda. We've heard your bullshit before. You state your beliefs as fact (wait for the inevitable moronic "science is a form of faith too" retort).

Science is not a form of faith.Science has valid points and helps in solving problems we deal with today.I state my beliefs as fact? I thought I stated the Bible's account of Jesus as fact.There is no "belief" just fact.Thank you for your cooperation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-15 02:38am

Priesto wrote:Science is not a form of faith.Science has valid points and helps in solving problems we deal with today.I state my beliefs as fact? I thought I stated the Bible's account of Jesus as fact.There is no "belief" just fact. Thank you for your cooperation.

No, dumb-ass. The Bible's account of Jesus is hearsay, by every definition of the term. Hearsay is not equivalent to fact.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-15 02:48am

Darth Wong wrote:
Priesto wrote:Science is not a form of faith.Science has valid points and helps in solving problems we deal with today.I state my beliefs as fact? I thought I stated the Bible's account of Jesus as fact.There is no "belief" just fact. Thank you for your cooperation.
No, dumb-ass. The Bible's account of Jesus is hearsay, by every definition of the term. Hearsay is not equivalent to fact.

Of course, it's all just made up.

I respect your opinion, but fact is fact.Yes I know that it's very hard to believe someone called Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead.Anything miraculous is hard to believe for you.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-10-15 04:23am

Hoo boy. Don't even bother, Mike. I like bashing fundies as much as the next heretic, but this is more pointless than talking to a wall.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-15 05:21am

Priesto wrote: Of course, it's all just made up. I respect your opinion, but fact is fact.Yes I know that it's very hard to believe someone called Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead.Anything miraculous is hard to believe for you.

Yet more proof that being a fundie results in dead brain cells.

It is not fact, it's hearsay; there are no other contemporary sources that back up a single one of the Bible's many tall tales for example

- people rising from the dead (not just jesus, but the 'many saints')
- Herod's slaughter of the first born children (you'd think historians would notice something like that eh?)
- Jesus' many 'miracles'

Also, we don't even know who wrote the thing (fundie morons are the only ones dumb enough to think that Mark wrote the book of Mark ...

) and it was written years after the events it purports to describe- and even then isn't even consistent with itself!!!

Pray tell, why is the Bible 'fact' but the Book of Mormon isn't? I'll tell you why, because you're a twit with the brain of a newt- I wait for inevitable cliched tossing about Christ in your life and other such figments of your imagination.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-15 12:14pm

Most of Jesus' "miracles" were simple parlor tricks. Turning water into wine was probably just filling big clay jars with water and telling all the drunks it was wine, and they were too inebriated to know the difference. The clay jars still had some residue from the wine, so the water was slightly tinged with wine's taste. Viola, water into wine.

Walking on water? More than likely it was a puddle, and the apostles were drunk.

Such miracles defy the known laws of nature, so there is no reason not to write the Bible off as simple fantasy.

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-15 01:17pm

Durandal wrote:Most of Jesus' "miracles" were simple parlor tricks. Turning water into wine was probably just filling big clay jars with water and telling all the drunks it was wine, and they were too inebriated to know the difference. The clay jars still had some residue from the wine, so the water was slightly tinged with wine's taste. Viola, water into wine.

Walking on water? More than likely it was a puddle, and the apostles were drunk.

Such miracles defy the known laws of nature, so there is no reason not to write the Bible off as simple fantasy.

Historians believe now that "Jesus feeds 5,000" (pick a number) was not that he mulitplied food, but that he was able to engender cooperation among different sects of Jews, and create a harmonious atmosphere in which discordant groups aligned, if only for a brief while.

Jesus was a lay rabbi who was attempting to distance the Jews from the Roman rulers. To get a really good understanding of Jesus, one should read about the Roman Empire and its relationship with Jews.

These sorts of things (feeding thes masses, etc.) "evolved" into miracles as the Bible was re-written to attract non-Jewish followers.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2002-10-15 04:54pm

Durandal wrote:Most of Jesus' "miracles" were simple parlor tricks. Turning water into wine was probably just filling big clay jars with water and telling all the drunks it was wine, and they were too inebriated to know the difference. The clay jars still had some residue from the wine, so the water was slightly tinged with wine's taste. Viola, water into wine.

Walking on water? More than likely it was a puddle, and the apostles were drunk.

Such miracles defy the known laws of nature, so there is no reason not to write the Bible off as simple fantasy.

On some lakes, there are hidden rock shelves or sandbars that one can walk on. I've seen it done. Some of these are just deep enough that a boat with sufficiently shallow draft will never notice them.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-15 06:43pm

Durandal wrote:Walking on water? More than likely it was a puddle, and the apostles were drunk.

He was visiting Canada and the lake was frozen.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-15 08:02pm

There are spots in the St. Clair River between Ontario and Michigan where, when the water levels are low, a man can appear to walk on water.

Mind you, the whole incident could have simply been fabricated out of thin air by his disciples.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-15 09:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:There are spots in the St. Clair River between Ontario and Michigan where, when the water levels are low, a man can appear to walk on water.

Mind you, the whole incident could have simply been fabricated out of thin air by his disciples.

yeah, and Moses crossing happens too be a large Sinai lake that the wind splits in 2 and you can walk across. Assuming the Bible isn't a bunch of crock shit anyway.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-10-16 08:39am

Ok here is a major thing over looked by ppl, all representations of Jesus show a white guy with blue eyes? In Jeruselium? Come on there is racist point one. Second ppl got curcified in the nuddie, but the catholic church cover him up coz he was circumcised and in fact a Jew till he died.

All in all the Bible is an ok story but as believable as any Fiction

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2002-10-16 12:17pm

Psycho Smiley wrote:Don't shoot me if this has been done a million times, please. I'm just curious about everyone's opinion here. I'm somewhere around the last two options, but I'm split about 50-50 either way. I'll go with the second last one.

I reccommend you read the book "The Case for Christ." It goes into detail about the authenticity (or lack thereof) of Jesus' claims to be the messiah

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How accurate is the Bible's Jesus?

Which best describes the Bible's accuracy pertaining to Jesus?

How accurate is the Bible's Jesus?

Re: How accurate is the Bible's Jesus?