[Dicebox]

Originally Posted by Lysrothtuck

Well, if it was written down, then it must be true.

That's not my claim. My claim is that early Christianity believed there was an empty tomb. Every gospel, even Mark in its earliest manuscripts claimed the empty tomb. If there was no empty tomb, it seems like that'd be the easiest myth to debunk in early Christianity.

[maxvsmaradona]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

It's generally accepted that Jesus was black, correct?

(not sarcasm)

Originally Posted by Nevuk

What do you mean by black? Ask a Brazilian and they'll give you a different answer than an American.

It's likely he was of African descent at some point in his ancestry... but all humans technically are.

Slightly on this topic -
There's an african tribe that practices a religion very similar to Judaism.

Israeli. Born in Nazareth, which is in the northern part of Israel.

[Healthy Scratch]

but mary was impregnated by god. i'm sure god is white.

[animefan13LPfn1]

Originally Posted by NateFoundGlory

Christ that's a pretty face.

[OctoZord]

Originally Posted by Dicebox

Yes. If you don't think there was an empty tomb (or if he was even buried), then say why. I think it would have been very easy to stop the early rise of christianity by pointing to the tomb of Jesus. We have evidence of Christian creeds dating back to before the Gospel of Mark was written that say Jesus was buried and rose after the third day.

Isn't it possible that someone just took the body?

[XjoseoleXX]

Originally Posted by OctoZord

Isn't it possible that someone just took the body?

DING! we have a winner!

[Love As Arson]

There were a lot of messiahs in first century Palestine. It is possible that Jesus was one of them or a composite of the most popular ones, hence the differentiation across the gospels.

[Regards]

Originally Posted by OctoZord

Isn't it possible that someone just took the body?

Who would have taken it? There were guards put in place so it wouldn't happened, not to mention a giant boulder that was rolled over the tomb.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by Regards

Who would have taken it? There were guards put in place so it wouldn't happened, not to mention a giant boulder that was rolled over the tomb.

[LetterBomb31]

Originally Posted by Regards

There were guards put in place so it wouldn't happened, not to mention a giant boulder that was rolled over the tomb.

How do you know?

[TangledUp]

This is in the politics thread why?

Jesus was a historical figure. Several religious acknowledge that he existed as a human being. Whether he is God is up to you to believe or not.

[kboe@bex.net]

Originally Posted by mms13

Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person who was crucified. The part where people say he came back to life is the part where you stop believing.

this

[Scrawns]

Originally Posted by magicrat85

OH PLEASE :( do not use wikipedia as a source for any arguement. Anything that can be edited by anybody is not a legit source.

i can confirm as a historian that the field of historical jesus is indeed a real thing. also, wikipedia pages have warnings when proper citation isnt used. if you see a page without it, then you can bet that the things said on that page are as true as they are in some 2 volume 1000 page study of the subject.

[Regards]

Originally Posted by LetterBomb31

How do you know?

Are you asking because you actually want to know, or because you know what I'm going to say and you just want to patronize it? With you and your posts regarding the matter, I'm just going to assume that later. If it's the former, it's because I believe the historical evidence provided in the Bible as an accurate recollection of what happened after the death and burial of Jesus. I find it personally hard to say that Jesus was a real person, but then dismiss or only accept part of what was recorded about him.

[LetterBomb31]

Originally Posted by Regards

Are you asking because you actually want to know, or because you know what I'm going to say and you just want to patronize it? With you and your posts regarding the matter, I'm just going to assume that later.

Yes, I do occasionally patronize religious people on here when I'm bored. I don't take religious beliefs seriously at all, or y'know, respect them, because quite frankly, they don't deserve respect. Totally agree with Christopher Hitchens when he said: "Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things because to demystify supposedly 'holy text dictated by god' and show that they are man made and what you have to show is there internal inconsistencies and absurdities. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority... it is an indispensable thing people can call it blasphemy if they like, but if they call it that they have to assume there is something to be blasphemed - some divine work, well I don't accept the premise." I do tend to try to focus my efforts primarily towards idiots who believe in creationism or that giants once existed. But in this case I didn't want to patronize anyone, I just genuinely wanted to know your answer.

Quote:

If it's the former, it's because I believe the historical evidence provided in the Bible as an accurate recollection of what happened after the death and burial of Jesus. I find it personally hard to say that Jesus was a real person, but then dismiss or only accept part of what was recorded about him.

Why do you regard the Bible as being historically accurate?