Died in different ways. . Jesus died on a cross about 2, 000 years ago. What if he died another way and at another era?.... Sorry for the crappy ms paint quality. I'm in a hurry. Died in different ways Jesus died on a cross about 2 000 years ago What if he another way and at era? Sorry for the crappy ms paint quality I'm hurry
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (393)
[ 393 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#22 - anon id: 640476c5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
WHAT IF


He didn't exist at all

Bloody christian idiots
#194 to #22 - anon id: d5d14e77
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
i doubt all the people of the holy land of , Jerusalem which include 3 religions of today (Christianity Judaism Islam) were all just making it up. The man clearly existed, but it's just through story and broken telephone that things get exaggerated, what if he was just a magician like Chris Angel or some ****? People back then would blow their minds and believe he's the son of god
User avatar #221 to #22 - fartmart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
shut the **** up you anon
User avatar #293 to #22 - alexwise
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Just how euphoric are you exactly?
User avatar #322 to #22 - fyaq
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Jesus of Nazareth is a proven person in history books. His existence is undisputed.
you are a retard.

The religion stuff is separate. maybe learn something instead of jumping on the fedora'd circlejerk of /r/atheism
#326 to #22 - Her
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
WHAT IF   
   
You actually did research about what you disagree with, so then you actually have reasons to disagree with it? I also think Christians are bloody idiots, but I also know that Jesus was proven to actually exist, as a human.
WHAT IF

You actually did research about what you disagree with, so then you actually have reasons to disagree with it? I also think Christians are bloody idiots, but I also know that Jesus was proven to actually exist, as a human.
User avatar #328 to #326 - Her
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
*I know there was evidence to support his existence. But it may not be sound proof.
I don't know, I wasn't ******* there to discover it.
#359 to #22 - PieceOfMind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
*tips fedora*
*tips fedora*
User avatar #43 to #22 - optimussum
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
woopsie

seems you dropped your fedora
#159 to #22 - poniesareghey
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
This came in the mail for you anon
#289 to #22 - seymourtets
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #298 to #22 - completeaddiction **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I'm an atheist and I totally believe everyone mentioned in the bible existed.
#309 to #298 - waterbottlemanboy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I love you.
I love you.
User avatar #357 to #309 - completeaddiction **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#36 to #22 - ganjalf
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
>FJ anon
>effective trolling

pick one
User avatar #65 to #36 - bitchplzzz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
ur a fagat
#68 to #65 - ganjalf
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
watch the edge mate
#37 to #22 - witislimited
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Once upon a time, almost all atheists were smart. Ignoring the ideologies of the two, atheism is now just like any other mainstream religious ideology- stuffed with bandwagon idiots who throw their beliefs into other people's faces.    
   
Or this guy's a ******* troll. I'm not too sure.
Once upon a time, almost all atheists were smart. Ignoring the ideologies of the two, atheism is now just like any other mainstream religious ideology- stuffed with bandwagon idiots who throw their beliefs into other people's faces.

Or this guy's a ******* troll. I'm not too sure.
User avatar #184 to #37 - kolsinder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
What a fatuous comment. "Ignoring the ideologies... like any other mainstream ideology" - what on Earth are you on about? As for "bandwagon idiots", not only are they perpetual in any pursuit that accrues a sufficient number of participants, but saying they've only appeared recently is simply ludicrous. When exactly were they all smart? Was it at quarter to three on April 12th 1998 or was that the time when Mac users were all humble? Let's face it, this guy is obviously a troll and assuming he isn't, he most definitely isn't an archetypal atheist - I shouldn't even have to be explaining this much. If atheism prevails within a thin segment of the Internet, it doesn't follow that it's become a global trend. You might be pleased to read about some of the blasphemy laws that have recently been levied in Russia. Poor show, witislimited, poor show.
#210 to #184 - witislimited
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Calm down, it's text, not a dick, you don't need to take it so hard. I'm bad at communicating ideas in my head, so let me try again. (The following may be offensive).   
   
People who have had bad experiences with religion (examples here:  (an accidental baby born to drunk/negligent parents who only had it because this religious abortion ******** convinced them to keep the kid, or gay people who want to marry but can't because a bunch of nosy, whiny zealots decided God was too incompetent to do anything for himself, or some man who was never exposed to critical thinking or knowledge as a child because his parents feared he'd become an atheist) ) turn to atheism because **** religion/God.   
   
The majority of the first followers of Christianity were Roman slaves and low class citizens who turned to God because the idea of a loving deity watching over them made their lives less painful. But none of the happy, spoiled high class Romans who guzzle wine (some of which contains lead, just to sparkle) like Christianity because it was the most public ideology and urged them to think more then nothing did. They weren't Christians either.   
   
I believe a God exists because the universe is too complicated to be born independently- if anything existed in the very beginning, it's probably not something mundane (unlike a God) and if it is, then it's not extraordinary enough to create every single concept you see in science. That and that I have a reason to collect afterlife insurance.   
   
Christianity is no longer as positive as it was at the time of the Romans because it now impedes the progression of new ideologies, and even scientific development, likely due to some sexually frustrated white man who thinks woman are property and that slaves shouldn't think critically rewriting the Bible a few centuries ago, as in opposed to a loving, omni-potent being. Point being, the correctness of an ideology is irrelevant- people will switch between the two so often, it seems bipolar.
Calm down, it's text, not a dick, you don't need to take it so hard. I'm bad at communicating ideas in my head, so let me try again. (The following may be offensive).

People who have had bad experiences with religion (examples here: (an accidental baby born to drunk/negligent parents who only had it because this religious abortion ******** convinced them to keep the kid, or gay people who want to marry but can't because a bunch of nosy, whiny zealots decided God was too incompetent to do anything for himself, or some man who was never exposed to critical thinking or knowledge as a child because his parents feared he'd become an atheist) ) turn to atheism because **** religion/God.

The majority of the first followers of Christianity were Roman slaves and low class citizens who turned to God because the idea of a loving deity watching over them made their lives less painful. But none of the happy, spoiled high class Romans who guzzle wine (some of which contains lead, just to sparkle) like Christianity because it was the most public ideology and urged them to think more then nothing did. They weren't Christians either.

I believe a God exists because the universe is too complicated to be born independently- if anything existed in the very beginning, it's probably not something mundane (unlike a God) and if it is, then it's not extraordinary enough to create every single concept you see in science. That and that I have a reason to collect afterlife insurance.

Christianity is no longer as positive as it was at the time of the Romans because it now impedes the progression of new ideologies, and even scientific development, likely due to some sexually frustrated white man who thinks woman are property and that slaves shouldn't think critically rewriting the Bible a few centuries ago, as in opposed to a loving, omni-potent being. Point being, the correctness of an ideology is irrelevant- people will switch between the two so often, it seems bipolar.
User avatar #397 to #210 - kolsinder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Your first remark is vapid and petulant so I won't deign to answer it. I don't know quite know the intention behind the following two paragraphs so I'll let them linger. As to the next one, instigating an argument based on "Who/What created God?" is very tempting, but I'll refrain from doing so. This takes me to the last paragraph, which is also mostly irrelevant bar the last line, where you suddenly jump in and declare, by fiat, that "people will switch between the two so often, it seems bipolar". Likewise, I'll spare the redundant gif you've included.

Tell me this, Freud, do you ever re-read whatever you write, wherever you may have written it? If you ask me, it seems as though you've muddled up my comment with the 'Religion' board because frankly, I can't even begin to fathom what is before me. Never did I request a concise history of Christianity's evolution, nor did I beseech you to share your beliefs. I wanted you to defend your view that "atheism is now just like any other mainstream religious ideology- stuffed with bandwagon idiots who throw their beliefs into other people's faces" - you haven't even come close. You've described how Christianity's utility has gradually deteriorated (in your view) without mentioning atheism at all. For that matter, atheism is not a religion; it is the absence thereof.
User avatar #399 to #397 - witislimited
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I added the Sigmund Freud gif because it was mildly amusing at the time, even if not entirely relevant. I understand why you'd argue with me- like I said, I'm bad at getting some ideas out of my head. Possibly because it's a stupid one.

But I thought out how to phrase it right. I believe in God because I think it's true. The first Christians believed in God not because they thought it was true (they did believe it's true, but as a byproduct of the following reason) but because, again, it made life a little less painful- an emotional reason, as in opposed to an intellectual one. Some Atheists believe in God simply because they are convinced that his lack of an existence is true. Then there are some Atheists who believe in his lack of existence after deciding they dislike religion, examples to cause this dislike will be found above in a spoiler tag resembling a blue ball wearing sunglasses.

However, that secondary statement is likely less true because the average Atheist isn't as nosy as the average Christian, leading me to believe that Atheists are smart enough to realize when to mind their own business, making it more likely to believe in Atheism just because it convinced them. There's still the possibility of stupid Atheists, jumping on the bandwagon because it looks smart and they lack critical thinking for themselves.

Now this is very theoretical. Should Atheism become as major as Christianity as an ideology, if some book of morals where to be formed, some twat would mess along with it along the line and manipulate future Atheists, just like the same kind of twat who screwed with the Bible (because let's face it, no omni-potent being would write such a messed, and somewhat confusingly phrased book). Future Atheists might also screw with the spread of other ideologies in the future, taking every opportunity to shoot them down, forcing Atheism like Christians force Christianity.

On that note, sorry for capitalizing Christianity but not Atheism before.
User avatar #402 to #399 - kolsinder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Fair enough, I see what you're saying. Going back to my point in the first comment, superficial followers are ever-present, so it's very plausible that there are insincere atheists somewhere (though I'd say it's unlikely because the switch to atheism is almost always conscious, not perfunctory). I'm not going to mention the original comment, the catalyst that started the reaction, because he is by no means a prime example of an atheist.

Possibly, however I perceive the problem in your second-last paragraph as manipulative dogma, which incidentally is why I'm against referring to dubious texts for moral guidelines. In fairness, atheism should never emerge as a religion because that would be a massive paradox; it should always be confined to the rejection of religion, whilst not espousing anything new. For example, even though the USSR was meant to an irreligious country, the reason they expunged religion was not because of their profound fondness of secularism; it was because they treated their communist ideology as a sort of religion, to the extent that it was meant to replace Christianity.

I didn't even know you were meant to capitalise 'Atheism' (I still wouldn't in view of the above).
User avatar #403 to #402 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Well, by current grammatical standards, Atheism isn't meant to be capitalized. Whatever reason there is (that is not stupid) that Christianity is capitalized should be extended to capitalizing atheism.

If Atheism is to become a major ideology, it will, rest assured include stupid people, who will be subject to the manipulation of some asshole who saw and took an opportunity, just like Christianity. There will be superficial followers, just like Christianity. The only difference? The ideology. Yet the similarity in the following is striking. In all our years of existence as a human species (100,000, maybe 200,000) we sure haven't made a large amount of progress in our ideology. Same ****, different millennium.

I occasionally view people as a horde of unpredictable, constantly self-contradictory mess that somehow, impossibly agrees on some things. There's no consistency, so it's hard to say they're always bad and always good. I say this not only on the level of a group, but on the level of an individual, with some guy making sense today but degenerating into a retard with an opinion tomorrow. Did you ever notice?
User avatar #404 to #403 - kolsinder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure 'Christianity' is capitalised because it is a religion in the same way as 'Presbyterianism' is too, for example. 'Atheism' isn't because it isn't an organised religion, it is a religious persuasion, just like 'authoritarianism' wouldn't be capitalised either.

I don't want to play the devil's advocate, but I simply cannot envisage a future wherein atheism has been manipulated in any regard. Say what you like, I personally just cannot grasp such a thought, not because I'm such a "devout" atheist, but owing to the resulting paradox. How can you exploit the rejection of religion? To my mind, the only possibility is the one I've already cited in the USSR: insisting there isn't a god while foisting a very similar doctrine on the hoi polloi (e.g. communism). In my view, you haven't actually implemented any atheism, so to speak; here you've merely substituted one set of dogma for another.

I haven't really, but that may be because I'm only 18. I'd pin the blame on emotion and also on the fact that lately there's so much to be opinionated about (politics, science, economics, ethics and religion of course). When everyone's involved in everything at once, logical mismatches are bound to occur. I remember being virtually slaughtered here when I quipped about American politics - never again.
User avatar #405 to #404 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I'd respond with detail, except chronic sleepiness is keeping me from thinking clearly.

1: Perhaps there's an alternative reason for capitalizing religion that could still extend.
2: I'm having trouble thinking up such a future too- this, I blame on sleep apnea.
3: I like how politicians form the most ****** up opinions- yet fear how successfully they convince others.
User avatar #409 to #405 - kolsinder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/04/2013) [-]
Have a nap? Or, failing that, a cup of coffee? Maybe, I can't recall having grammar rules explained to me after Year 8, so I'm naturally not an expert in this domain. Well you've still got to concede that it's far from evident, to say the very least. I thought that was the theorist's job - I do of course agree with the fact that they're the ones instilling said opinions in everyone's mind.
#410 to #409 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/04/2013) [-]
No amount of sleep is a sufficient solution for sleep apnea, even if it's borderline. For example, you have a crappy car on rent that can only run on one kind of fuel that is ****. You can't fill the tank beyond it's capacity, the fuel has bad mileage/energy content and you can't use any other fuel without upgrading it because your car loaner's a jackass and you can't do it yourself anyway.   
   
Real life situation: ****** sleep, ****** coffee flavor that brings ****** caffeine tolerance coupled with ****** parents who can't even understand my explanation that I do not have an internal on/off button, much less allow me to sleep polyphasically or even use sleep pills when I pass bedtime. I'm very often sleep deprived, and was stunned to reach an entirely new level of clarity and alertness I never thought existed this morning when my teacher woke me up from a half unwilling nap. I imagine this is how everyone feels 2 hours after waking up. Worst of all, I haven't even developed some kind of tolerance for sleepiness.   
   
Seriously. The coffee my dad drinks is like **** mixed with vanilla extract. Looks like ****, tastes like ****, some **** of both kinds is nutritious except coffee like vanilla extract, smells good.   
   
Then they tell me not to fall asleep in class or before bedtime.
No amount of sleep is a sufficient solution for sleep apnea, even if it's borderline. For example, you have a crappy car on rent that can only run on one kind of fuel that is ****. You can't fill the tank beyond it's capacity, the fuel has bad mileage/energy content and you can't use any other fuel without upgrading it because your car loaner's a jackass and you can't do it yourself anyway.

Real life situation: ****** sleep, ****** coffee flavor that brings ****** caffeine tolerance coupled with ****** parents who can't even understand my explanation that I do not have an internal on/off button, much less allow me to sleep polyphasically or even use sleep pills when I pass bedtime. I'm very often sleep deprived, and was stunned to reach an entirely new level of clarity and alertness I never thought existed this morning when my teacher woke me up from a half unwilling nap. I imagine this is how everyone feels 2 hours after waking up. Worst of all, I haven't even developed some kind of tolerance for sleepiness.

Seriously. The coffee my dad drinks is like **** mixed with vanilla extract. Looks like ****, tastes like ****, some **** of both kinds is nutritious except coffee like vanilla extract, smells good.

Then they tell me not to fall asleep in class or before bedtime.
User avatar #96 to #37 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Likely because once upon a time, atheism was caused by people's learnings going against the belief of the Church, such as those who found the sun and planets were not rotating around the earth.
Now, atheism is far more common, and isn't just something for scientists.
User avatar #101 to #96 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That narrows it down a little, but there's other reasons idiots decide to become atheistic, such as the bandwagon. I'm not saying atheism is wrong, I'm saying that the idiots who annoy others with their beliefs (doesn't matter what they are) are starting to be a part of atheism, and this is a gross simplification, atheism may become the new Christianity.
User avatar #102 to #101 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Eh, when generalizing religions or nonreligions, I prefer to leave out the outlying data, such as extremists and those who only do it to annoy others.
User avatar #103 to #102 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Unless you're discussing the outlying data, right?
User avatar #104 to #103 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Even then I still leave out outlying data, as when the target of a discussion is that which would, under normal circumstances, be considered outlying data, the criteria for outlying data is altered to fit the needs of the conversation.
User avatar #106 to #104 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's awfully specific.
User avatar #108 to #106 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I am, and have always been, terrible at recognizing sarcasm, but I'm pretty sure you were just being sarcastic, so I'll attempt to clarify.

In situation A, data point X is outlying data, therefor is ignored. Data point Y is the subject of the conversation, and is therefor accounted for.
In situation B, data point X is the subject of the conversation, and is therefor accounted for. Data point Y is outlying data, therefor is ignored.
User avatar #109 to #108 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
And I apologize if you weren't being sarcastic, as I assumed you were.
#113 to #109 - witislimited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I wasn't being sarcastic, but I admire your disregard for trying to appear normal.
I wasn't being sarcastic, but I admire your disregard for trying to appear normal.
User avatar #23 to #22 - biscuitsunited
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Evidence supports his existence, but the evidence of his miracles are in the bible, and so are "debatable" at best.
#258 to #22 - thasuperpimp
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I think you dropped this
#80 to #22 - anon id: e9fc6353
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
or, you know, we could just enjoy the joke for what it is.
#47 to #22 - flusteredmoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #380 to #22 - ompalomper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
jesus did most likely exist

it's what he did that is ********
User avatar #24 to #22 - Sinless
Reply +329 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No......no....he existed. That much is proven.

It's the miracles and such that are disputed.
#135 to #24 - spankcakes
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Naw man, that ***** was legit.
Naw man, that ***** was legit.
User avatar #246 to #24 - stanleys
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
What if Jesus was a time traveler and all the miracles he committed were just acts of future science
#279 to #246 - miracles
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #381 to #246 - zaxzwim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
THAT'S WHAT I KEEP SAYING!
User avatar #265 to #246 - freakstorm
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
What if Jesus was just the Doctor.
User avatar #370 to #265 - boydaranga
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
You had to, didn't you?
User avatar #179 to #24 - namesboo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I don't believe he walked on water and that he was just very good on ice skates
User avatar #398 to #179 - wtfduud
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
In the middle-east?
#367 to #24 - anon id: 07f82efc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There is not much proof either way. Don't believe me? Prove he existed then ******.
#335 to #24 - anon id: bc6a1b8b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
How is it proved he existed, and furthermore, who is his proven father?
User avatar #325 to #24 - equestriaman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
he had children as well didn't he?
User avatar #313 to #24 - joshlol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I think he may have been a grifter
#305 to #24 - darthlegolas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
your username just seems so relevant
your username just seems so relevant
#288 to #24 - conaird
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
You can't just make a statement like that and not back it up.
Personally I find it doubtful that there wasn't someone who we would call Jesus. But you can't just claim something was proven and leave it at that.
User avatar #290 to #288 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
This is the internet, me making claims without proof would be nothing new.

Besides, I meant to say "widely accepted," since it's hard to "prove" the existence of people like Jesus. I also expanded below with some links to non-christian references, which there are more of.

I didn't expect my statement to blow up like this, all I want now is for my notification box to leave me alone.
#235 to #24 - anon id: e05c72b7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
That anonymous is perhaps antichrist. So ignoring him - I believed that Gods exist, but I am following the Naturality more, which is most likely via the Science theory. Still, I believe that Gods are existing.
#227 to #24 - praythegayaway **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#217 to #24 - anon id: d2866984
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Actually there are zero historical accounts of Jesus at all. The only texts he's mentioned in are the bible and few sources written hundreds of years after the fact. No historian of Jesus' supposed time wrote about a jesus of judea.
User avatar #300 to #217 - skypatrol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There are Jewish writings, Christian writings, Greek writings, Roman records... There are THOUSANDS of artifacts that they found that proved that he EXISTED. We just argue over the whole son of god Messiah ****.

Most notable evidence is the letters from pomptious pilot (however you spell his name) and how he was so torn from having to kill an innocent man
User avatar #219 to #217 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There are records written as early as approximately 87 years after the supposed date of his death.
#272 to #219 - thessalonaki
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There is a passing reference to him in the work you are referring  This is believed by many historians to be the result of Christian interpolation.   
   
Personally, being an Atheist, I think Jesus of Nazareth is based on some Jewish historical figure, akin to being the Jewish King Arthur, but whatever.
There is a passing reference to him in the work you are referring This is believed by many historians to be the result of Christian interpolation.

Personally, being an Atheist, I think Jesus of Nazareth is based on some Jewish historical figure, akin to being the Jewish King Arthur, but whatever.
User avatar #191 to #24 - rifee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I'de hope I wouldn't have to say anything but.

he's never been roven to exist. And that's a fact. I'm not making a point, just bringing it to your intention.

NOT proven...at all.
User avatar #168 to #24 - iwishiwasazula
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No mean to offence or anything, but I agree with him, at least in some way. Latest evidence shows that the information we have about historical Jesus comes very little from trustable historicians. Besides the hole mythology around him can be seen in many other cultures around the world and with many similarities (born from a virgin, make miracles, die and come back after 3 days)...

Anyway, real or not, I'm goin to hell so
User avatar #361 to #168 - RegardsFromDeath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Hole.
User avatar #99 to #24 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Actually there is no conclusive historic proof of Jesus, but most accept his existance.
User avatar #35 to #24 - zomitlu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Link to proof please
User avatar #38 to #35 - Sinless
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
There's a couple. Let's see, there's Tacitus who was a Roman source independent of the situation, also considered one of their greatest historians. He had a few words on Christian persecution. I think I found an article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

I believe the Talmud had a reference, but I can't find a citation.

Josephus, jewish historian, also mentioned it in The Antiquities of the Jews. Here, found an article. Didn't bother to read it, but it should do fine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

User avatar #105 to #38 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
But Tacitus is generally accepted, even though he was not a contemporary.
But everything else, including the resurrection and the Zombieinvasion on Jerusalem is mentioned nowhere in historic records.
User avatar #132 to #105 - Sinless
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Of course, like I said, it's the miracles and mysticism that is disputed.

I was just pointing out some of the various sources indicating Jesus' existence, not the legitimacy of his acts. It's one thing to say he's never done a miracle, a whole other thing to say he never existed.
User avatar #136 to #132 - metalmind
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Well, there is one author, non contemporary, who mentiones him in one sentence, but no sources about anything in his life.
User avatar #149 to #136 - Sinless
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I think that's because the only people close enough to his life and capable of writing were the people who wrote of him in the Bible. So anyone who could've written about him, besides biased individuals, wouldn't know enough to write many words.

Full literacy wasn't that prevalent in those times
User avatar #154 to #149 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
You forget that the area was a part of the roman empire, which had a lot of literate people. And all the rabbis. And all those out of richer families.
Plus what about the other things, like the zombie invasion that was supposed to have happend along with jesus' ressuresction: Matthew 27:50-54
You think that the romans, that were all over Jerusalem would have noticed a full fleged zombie invasion?
I think so.
And to "many words". If there was some important person, don't you think that such an important person would have been worth more than one sentence, if that person in fact did any of the noticable things he was supposed to have done.
User avatar #164 to #154 - Sinless
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
*****, all I'm saying is that he existed.

I explicitly said that his miracles and acts were disputed. Last I checked, resurrected holy men and undead messiahs fell under the category of miracles.

The place of the crucifixion was, traditionally at least, in Israel. Even if it was under the rule of the Roman Empire, the people were still majorly Samaritans which would most likely be illiterate. Remember, according to the Bible's perspective the Rabbis and the rest of the Jews didn't like him and supposedly branded him a blasphemer.Would you write about a blasphemer? The Romans also considered him a false messiah and didn't like Christians. Would you write about that if you were a Roman?

Also, the Bible is the only text claiming him to be important. To everyone else he probably wasn't. He was crucified next to thieves in the Bible, they obviously didn't think he was too important if that was the case.

All I'm saying is the the person, Jesus, existed and it is widely accepted by scholars that he did.
User avatar #275 to #164 - thessalonaki
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Just saying, thieves weren't crucified in Ancient Rome. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for treason and rebellion. For instance, the thousands of rebels crucified along the Via Appia after Spartacus' revolt.
Probably not important to the argument but that sentence struck me as odd, is all.
User avatar #178 to #164 - metalmind
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
"*****", I already said that I think he existed, but I just think he was a fraudster, just like the thousands of others of supposed prophets.
User avatar #180 to #178 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Then we're in agreement.
User avatar #100 to #38 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Josephus is Generally considerd to be a forgery.
User avatar #152 to #100 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
It was to my knowledge that modern scholars considered it partially authentic. Though I admit I never looked into it further to know which sections were authentic.
User avatar #156 to #152 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Look into it. Even most theologans accept it to be a forgery.
User avatar #411 to #156 - forgery
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Did somebody say forgery?
User avatar #167 to #156 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Alright so the Testimonium Flavianum was most like interpolated later on, but other portions of the book have been considered authentic.
User avatar #174 to #167 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
But they don't matter for the historic authenticity of Jesus.
User avatar #176 to #174 - Sinless
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's fine. One more knocked off the list.
User avatar #31 to #24 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
All accounts of him are many years after his death. Jesus Christ as a person at least had the benefit of being mentioned in more than one book, but that doesn't make it 100% proven.
User avatar #33 to #31 - Sinless
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Perhaps not, but we can be nearly sure. Especially considering he had mentions from credible sources at the time.
User avatar #34 to #33 - YllekNayr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Annoying thing is most people don't consider the need for 3rd party credible sources and just claim that the Bible is enough proof for him. It's nice to see someone who values evidence.
User avatar #39 to #34 - Sinless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I just think that since we have minds, we should use them.

Even if you are religious, I would think that God gave you a mind to use it. I don't think blind faith was one of the requirements of religion.
User avatar #41 to #39 - YllekNayr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Unfortunately, a LOT of religious people would disagree, saying that faith is all you need. Plenty of churches discourage asking questions or thinking things that cast doubt on religion.
User avatar #44 to #41 - Sinless
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I find that funny, considering that's the kind of stuff Jesus encouraged people to do.

If you think about it, from the Bible's perspective of Jesus, he didn't require blind faith as he performed miracles to "prove" his divinity. He encouraged people to think different things, many of which were against Jewish religious law. He even invited people to ask him difficult questions concerning religion.

It's ironic that so many Christian's contradict his ideals, yet claim him as their patron figure.
User avatar #45 to #44 - YllekNayr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
You could say the same about a lot of groups with an iconic leader. Like Catholics who think pedophilia is a bad thing, but give priests a pass when they're found out, claiming they were tempted or would never do such a thing or some other ********.
User avatar #53 to #45 - Sinless
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
It's unfortunate it happens so much.
User avatar #54 to #53 - YllekNayr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
What's your particular religious affiliation, if you don't mind?
User avatar #57 to #54 - Sinless
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
It's kind of hard to categorize myself. I was raised Christian, but my beliefs don't line up with most denominations. I guess I'm some sort of agnostic, but I don't know

I believe there is a God or some divine being responsible for the creation of the world, but I am unsure about the rest. I don't know if Jesus was truly the son of God, but I respect his teachings immensely. I'm unsure of the afterlife and the ethics that result from it's possible existence. I'm just not sure of most things concerning religion. I just live a good life and hope it ends that way, hoping I find some answers along the way
User avatar #70 to #57 - YllekNayr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's most closely identified as agnostic theism.
User avatar #161 to #24 - theohnelly
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
no......no......it is not proven. check your facts before you make yourself look like an arsehole.
User avatar #202 to #199 - theohnelly
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
its not actually proven there are many references to holy people by historians around the time jesus was said to of lived but none specify to it actually being jesus
#205 to #202 - subadanus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Meh, I'm not going to argue, so keep believing what you feel is right to believe.
Meh, I'm not going to argue, so keep believing what you feel is right to believe.
User avatar #98 to #24 - drakonpunch
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
A lot of people disagree with you there, it's still being debated actually, the proof for Jesus is pretty weak.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTqyocFOMXE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1xl4vS19LI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw
#61 to #24 - dishesaredone
-2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #62 to #61 - Sinless
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I get what you're trying to imply.

But did you even read the rest of the thread?
User avatar #371 to #62 - drakonpunch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Ain't nobody got time for that
#64 to #62 - dishesaredone
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #66 to #64 - Sinless
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Cool
#67 to #66 - dishesaredone
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 - ninjamyles **User deleted account**
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
correct me if im wrong, but isn't the cross sopossed to also symbolizes the holy trinity? the father the son and the holy sprite?
User avatar #122 to #97 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No, the cross was around well before Jesus, it was used by the Romans to execute people in an excruciating way in order to set an example for would-be criminals.
User avatar #127 to #122 - ninjamyles **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
that's what it's originally practice was, im talking about the symblolicness of it.
User avatar #128 to #127 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Well it certainly doesn't symbolize the Holy Trinity, considering the Romans created it without considering Christianity in the slightest. It symbolizes Jesus Christ's death for the forgiveness of Mankind's sins, all because it was how Jesus died.

If he died via guillotine, the guillotine would be the symbol in the cross' place - however, it wouldn't be as widely used because the cross is a simpler shape that goes well on jewelry etc.
#230 to #97 - anon id: ebda2f46
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Christians do the "Sign of the Cross" before a prayer, making a cross by touching their forehead, heart, and both shoulders while saying "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

So kinda
User avatar #296 to #230 - datblkkid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
correction
Catholics do.....as far as I can tell.
#253 to #97 - anon id: ba7f54e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
no, it's just what he died on, also sprite
User avatar #261 to #97 - cookiel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I don't know if you did that on purpose or not but i busted out laughing. thumb for you
#110 to #97 - nuclearnarwhal
Reply +253 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #396 to #110 - nuclearnarwhal
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I want to thank everyone who upvoted this, I wasn't expecting this many thumbs. All of you put me into the 5th place on the comments on the front page! You are all amazing, know that!
User avatar #406 to #110 - megatheman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
All hail...
#114 to #110 - onlyonesnoopy
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #116 to #114 - nuclearnarwhal
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I just googled sprite before someone could beat me to it.
User avatar #131 to #114 - chickenspwn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That wasn't the joke..
User avatar #232 to #110 - pokemasterbaker
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
When the comments are funnier than the post....
User avatar #375 to #232 - jellybaby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#justgirlythings
#118 - sorenlolz
Reply +152 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Sorry for the crappy ms paint quality. I'm in a hurry.
User avatar #162 to #118 - jibb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
is that the skittles killer
User avatar #163 to #162 - sorenlolz
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Everyone always says Skittles, you know he had Ice tea too.
#316 to #163 - littlejewnig
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
no, he had arizona watermelon cocktail...
no, he had arizona watermelon cocktail...
#327 to #162 - flyingwalrusman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
it might just be the zim zam
#257 to #118 - niggastolemyname
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#130 to #118 - daviid
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
**daviid rolled a random image posted in comment #109 at I stole the gold, but he stole my heart ** i guess
**daviid rolled a random image posted in comment #109 at I stole the gold, but he stole my heart ** i guess
User avatar #134 to #118 - existacne
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Still way better than my MS paint skills.
#3 - javalord
-143 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #126 to #3 - naitsabesh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
What if you're the faggot?
#255 to #3 - gosh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#42 to #3 - Killerwale
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
redthumbs mean shut the **** up.
User avatar #4 to #3 - mymiddleleg [OP]
Reply +106 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
**** attempt at trying to be funny
#5 to #4 - javalord
-24 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #6 to #5 - mymiddleleg [OP]
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
made no sense, you kids have no creativity these days
#7 to #6 - javalord
-23 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #111 to #7 - teoberry
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
'Hey guys look at me im ********* lol look at how cool I am'.

If you're drunk and on the internet, that probably means you were drinking alone. What a pity
#329 to #111 - beardman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
... What did he say?
... What did he say?
User avatar #330 to #329 - teoberry
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
First comment
'what if he died from taking too much cock like op'
second one was some immature, stupid joke
third one was
'lol im online and drunk;
#331 to #330 - beardman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#354 to #329 - yutdollacwwwthree
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
#10 to #7 - anon id: 03487bc1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
giggady
User avatar #75 - OldSnake
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Are we seriously coming up with ways to kill Jesus if he was born in a different time?
User avatar #81 to #75 - woojestonie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Snake? SNAKE?! SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE
#78 to #75 - Ulmer
Reply +90 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #79 to #78 - OldSnake
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Cool.
#107 - motherfuckingkenji
Reply +84 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Jesus got 360 noscoped.
User avatar #211 to #107 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
******* campers. And jesus had so many assists that round, too.
#259 to #107 - niggastolemyname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
flash skillz off da chartz
User avatar #115 to #107 - anotherhaloguy
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Mate that guy is obviously a hard scoper
#82 - doesthislookunsure
Reply +59 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
"And let us remember the day that he was shot with a Franchi SPAS-12."
sorry
User avatar #86 to #82 - pineapplechunkss
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Good for a quick laugh ^^
#8 - grammov
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Irony when using the iron maiden, a popular torture device used by the Church to punish heretics.
User avatar #19 to #8 - mynameisgeorge
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Iron Maidens were never actually used. They were invented by people in the 18th century as a museum piece to draw in crowds to "see just how brutish the Middle Ages were"
#21 to #19 - grammov
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Huh, didn't know that.
Thanks for that, mate.
#120 to #19 - anon id: d6e8c989
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's not proven, though.
I assume you've read the english wiki article, which makes it sound like it was all clear and certain.
The german one however is more specific: There were Iron Maidens that were modified with spikes for exibition purposes, but that does not mean that the concept of the Iron Maiden was never used as a torture device.

But we can be relatively sure it was not a "popular torture device" like grammov though, otherwise there would have been more evidence.
To say they were never actually is also not necessarily true.
User avatar #88 to #19 - optimussum
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
So Heavy Metal is a lie?
#85 - Protomix
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
this got really stupid really fast   
   
   
******* jedi christ
this got really stupid really fast


******* jedi christ
#323 - EddieD
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #341 to #323 - onebadbassoonist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
What is going on there...?
#340 to #323 - darthsanti
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #345 to #340 - Kabutops
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
deserves more thumbs than there is
#343 to #340 - saxong
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
That makes me very happy.
That makes me very happy.