5 ms·

I never understood why people are so fascinated by some theories and spend so much time on it. Bermuda triangle, jesus and loch ness monster don't become more

by sigi45 8y ago

I never understood why people are so fascinated by some theories and spend so much time on it. Bermuda triangle, jesus and loch ness monster don't become more interesting when we decorate those stories with more theories which can't be proven. I'm always thinking that this might just be the reason why those stories are still around. People just don't stop. they continue to extend it small little piece by piece.

dvt 8y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. that Jesus is comparable to the Loch Ness monster (an urban legend)? No serious historian (secular or otherwise) doubts the historicity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His divinity is obviously a matter of faith, but Jesus was certainly a real human being that was born and eventually was crucified around 30 AD.
- sigi45 8y ago
  Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed. We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps but propper people.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    There is no reason to assume Jesus was not real. This issue was closed by historians over a hundred years ago and never has there been thrown any new light that puts it into doubt. It’s only fringe people with specific agendas, who always seem to lack the skills and knowledge to work with the sources, who claim otherwise. For a good overview of why historians know Jesus existed you should read John P. Meier - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person.
    - deleted 8y ago
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
        I guess you want proof like a physicist can deliver proof. If that is your standard than most of history does not exist due to lack of proof. Which is a ridiculous position to hold of course.
        sigi45 8y ago
        No it is not. We do have a lot of original written and old text from different sources or other objects. Artefacts. Findings. Jesus as a person is very specific. There should be more proof then there is. From Julius Cäsar (who lived in the same timeperiod btw) does proof exists that he lived.
        anjbe 8y ago
        > There should be more proof then there is. Julius Caesar was a military and political leader of a whole empire. The contemporaries who discussed him (namely Cicero and Sallust) were themselves influential Roman politicians living at the heart of the empire. Why would you expect some no‐name cult leader in an ancillary province, executed with common robbers in the lowest and most humiliating way possible, whose followers (common folk, fishermen and prostitutes) remained underground for over a hundred years due to persecution from both the Jewish and Roman authorities, to have artifacts and texts of the same level as Caesar, or even an order of magnitude less?
        redial 8y ago
        No one expect it. But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. The first step must be to acknowledge that there is nothing about Jesus up until around the years 80~120. That simple FACT is uncontested by everybody, and it is also the only fact uncontested by everybody. That is nothing controversial, yet somehow here everyone that brings it up gets downvoted. Most of the "evidence" is from the second century onwards and written only by christians. You would need to go a couple of centuries forward to find real third-party references about him. Most historians consider this as proof of existence of a person 100 years earlier, that is also true. But I don't know why christians clench so tightly around historians on this issue, when it is also the opinion of most historians that the accounts about Jesus are not historical, and that most of the events told about him historically never happened. So, if we are gonna go with historians on this, then: 1) Jesus was a real person. 2) Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
todd3834 8y ago
I’m this case people seem to be fascinated by history. Simple as that. Regardless of what you believe about Jesus, the significance his history has had on the world is undeniable. It’s also very interesting that many people have paintings of a blond haired blue eyed surfer Jesus when the evidence suggests he looked different.
- sigi45 8y ago
  And it is not true. There is no proof of that.
  - todd3834 8y ago
    No proof Jesus existed? No proof he looked like surfer Jesus or no proof he doesn’t look like that?
    - sigi45 8y ago
      It depends on what you mean by Jesus history. If you see it similar to Santa Claus history than yeah no proof is needed but than I would still find it strange to discuss something like this in so many facets. If you see it more like Julius Cäsar History then my comment makes more sense.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        Ironically, even Santa Claus is based on a real person, as others has pointed out. The difference in belief (edit : about Jesus) between non believing historians and Christians is mostly about the miracles. There is at least one written source who actually followed him and it is supported by a number of other writings from people who talked to people who met him (Paul and others). Given the circumstances (he was born a carpenters son, huge demographic changes occurred shortly after his death and it all happened about 2000 years ago) I'd say that is pretty well documented. Plenty of people we know about are less documented than that. As for the miracles that is another story. I believe, but I actually fully understand why people won't belive.
dang 8y ago
You took this thread on a tedious religious flamewar tangent. That's a bannable offense on Hacker News. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18744129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18744129 and marked it off-topic.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by sigi45 8y ago

dvt 8y ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. that Jesus is comparable to the Loch Ness monster (an urban legend)? No serious historian (secular or otherwise) doubts the historicity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His divinity is obviously a matter of faith, but Jesus was certainly a real human being that was born and eventually was crucified around 30 AD.

sigi45 8y ago
Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed. We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps but propper people.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  There is no reason to assume Jesus was not real. This issue was closed by historians over a hundred years ago and never has there been thrown any new light that puts it into doubt. It’s only fringe people with specific agendas, who always seem to lack the skills and knowledge to work with the sources, who claim otherwise. For a good overview of why historians know Jesus existed you should read John P. Meier - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person.
  - deleted 8y ago
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      I guess you want proof like a physicist can deliver proof. If that is your standard than most of history does not exist due to lack of proof. Which is a ridiculous position to hold of course.
      - sigi45 8y ago
        No it is not. We do have a lot of original written and old text from different sources or other objects. Artefacts. Findings. Jesus as a person is very specific. There should be more proof then there is. From Julius Cäsar (who lived in the same timeperiod btw) does proof exists that he lived.
        anjbe 8y ago
        > There should be more proof then there is. Julius Caesar was a military and political leader of a whole empire. The contemporaries who discussed him (namely Cicero and Sallust) were themselves influential Roman politicians living at the heart of the empire. Why would you expect some no‐name cult leader in an ancillary province, executed with common robbers in the lowest and most humiliating way possible, whose followers (common folk, fishermen and prostitutes) remained underground for over a hundred years due to persecution from both the Jewish and Roman authorities, to have artifacts and texts of the same level as Caesar, or even an order of magnitude less?
        redial 8y ago
        No one expect it. But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence. The first step must be to acknowledge that there is nothing about Jesus up until around the years 80~120. That simple FACT is uncontested by everybody, and it is also the only fact uncontested by everybody. That is nothing controversial, yet somehow here everyone that brings it up gets downvoted. Most of the "evidence" is from the second century onwards and written only by christians. You would need to go a couple of centuries forward to find real third-party references about him. Most historians consider this as proof of existence of a person 100 years earlier, that is also true. But I don't know why christians clench so tightly around historians on this issue, when it is also the opinion of most historians that the accounts about Jesus are not historical, and that most of the events told about him historically never happened. So, if we are gonna go with historians on this, then: 1) Jesus was a real person. 2) Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.

todd3834 8y ago

I’m this case people seem to be fascinated by history. Simple as that. Regardless of what you believe about Jesus, the significance his history has had on the world is undeniable. It’s also very interesting that many people have paintings of a blond haired blue eyed surfer Jesus when the evidence suggests he looked different.

sigi45 8y ago
And it is not true. There is no proof of that.
- todd3834 8y ago
  No proof Jesus existed? No proof he looked like surfer Jesus or no proof he doesn’t look like that?
  - sigi45 8y ago
    It depends on what you mean by Jesus history. If you see it similar to Santa Claus history than yeah no proof is needed but than I would still find it strange to discuss something like this in so many facets. If you see it more like Julius Cäsar History then my comment makes more sense.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      Ironically, even Santa Claus is based on a real person, as others has pointed out. The difference in belief (edit : about Jesus) between non believing historians and Christians is mostly about the miracles. There is at least one written source who actually followed him and it is supported by a number of other writings from people who talked to people who met him (Paul and others). Given the circumstances (he was born a carpenters son, huge demographic changes occurred shortly after his death and it all happened about 2000 years ago) I'd say that is pretty well documented. Plenty of people we know about are less documented than that. As for the miracles that is another story. I believe, but I actually fully understand why people won't belive.

dang 8y ago

You took this thread on a tedious religious flamewar tangent. That's a bannable offense on Hacker News. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18744129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18744129 and marked it off-topic.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]