The Christian topic  permalink

Jesus never existed

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 232
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong? 

    Oh well, Christianity bites the dust then!

    I wonder why no one realised this earlier? smiley - erm


    Are you familiar with the works of Oolon Colluphid, by the way?

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by NicholasMarks (U8070584) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong? 

    Then Jehovah didn't exist either...but it is not just the name which maketh the man...translation is precisely that. It brings into modern focus what existed before...with a few neccessary changes. But here is the accurate truth...that Jesus Christ was born, lived a righteous life, was slain and was reborn so that all those who believe in him can also follow the same pattern of behaviour and yield the same results.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Oh well, Christianity bites the dust then! 

    Well, yes. How can the Bible be the accurate word of God if we can't even spell his name correctly.

    Are you familiar with the works of Oolon Colluphid, by the way? 

    How do I break this to you? He's not real either.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Then Jehovah didn't exist either 
    Correct
    but it is not just the name which maketh the man...translation is precisely that. It brings into modern focus what existed before...with a few neccessary changes 
    I don't know what that means

    But here is the accurate truth...that Jesus Christ was born, lived a righteous life, was slain and was reborn so that all those who believe in him can also follow the same pattern of behaviour and yield the same results. 
    But that's not the accurate truth. If his name has been changed then what other details have been added or even missed out?

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by I designed the future (U10597198) on Sunday, 14th March 2010


    Didn't you ever watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Do you mean Jndiana Iones?

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by I designed the future (U10597198) on Sunday, 14th March 2010


    lol

    Very funny.

    Jehovah used to be spelt with a 'Y'.

    As in 'Yahweh'...

    Many people pronounce it in English as 'Yar-way'.

    But pronounce the Y as a J and the W as a V in a hebrew kind of breath / accent...


    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. 

    I suppose that this means that a man named Gaius Julius Caesar never existed in the first century BC (or BCE if you prefer) either.

    My God, just how much of history has been corrupted by this 'J' fabrication conspiracy?

    The public deserves the right to know. smiley - yikes

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Lux,

    Jehovah used to be spelt with a 'Y'.</quote>

    And that's my point. If the name of God has been changed then what else has been changed?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by I designed the future (U10597198) on Sunday, 14th March 2010


    The name 'Yahweh' was always in the original bible.

    I think translation issues have a lot to ask for.

    E.g. "Now I look through a glass darkly".

    Well... Me and my chums could have kicked ourselves in our teens whilst staring into a pint and wondering if we were onto something.

    It's only with realisation that we know this quote meant 'mirror', and that in the times of King James, a 'mirror' was referred to as a 'glass'.

    Same with 'divers lusts' at one point.

    You might read it and think 'well, I'm not going to be kissing her with my scuba gear on again'...

    Whereas, 'divers' is an archaic version of the word 'diverse'.

    (It's in the dictionary if you don't believe me).

    Now... See the important of precise translations?

    Both these two examples illustrate not only the importance of translating things carefully - but, especially with a language like English - into the 'right era' of English.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by NicholasMarks (U8070584) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    And that's my point. If the name of God has been changed then what else has been changed? 

    No...your point is to throw in inuendos that attack those who are comfortable with their faith and know that its accuracy depends on 'righteousness' and not clever asides...which you will probably follow with even more mockery.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    I'm going to have my whole world blown apart aren't I.
    Please don't tell me Santa doesn't exist.
    And I will be totally gutted if the tooth fairy doesn't visit me soon. The older I get the more teeth I lose.
    smiley - laugh

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    No...your point is to throw in inuendos that attack those who are comfortable with their faith and know that its accuracy depends on 'righteousness' and not clever asides...which you will probably follow with even more mockery. 

    Why does my question make you uncomfortable? Are you saying that we should accept everything without any thought at all? I've spend the last 17 year praying to someone and now I find out that it wasn't even his correct name!

    accuracy depends on 'righteousness' 
    I don't know what you mean by that. Surely "accuracy" means getting the basic facts right.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Please don't tell me Santa doesn't exist.  

    This is all just for the sake of argument - of course Santa exists

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by trippymonkey (U6090156) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Message 3

    The name Jehovah shouldn't exist anyway. It an inaccurate use of the Tetragrammaton or Y H V H.

    Yahweh is more correct but then the Jehovah's Witnesses have been getting things wrong for MANY years now.
    OH DEAR!!!!

    Nick

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    how did yahweh exist before the letters 'y' 'a' 'h' 'w' 'e' and 'h' existed

    oh what a paradox

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    how did yahweh exist before the letters 'y' 'a' 'h' 'w' 'e' and 'h' existed

    oh what a paradox 


    That's deep man!

    I mean, like, did the universe exist before we had the language to describe it?

    And if a tree falls in the woods is it likely to crush a bear going about it's daily business?

    And what about that Gaius Julius Caesar guy?

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    yahweh existed for an eternity without having a name - so it makes you wonder why he bothered naming himself

    a deeper mystery is why he gave himself such a silly name - when there are plenty of normal names like dave and steve

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    'the letter J was not invented until the 14th century.'

    ...that's probably why those who like to pretend they know him personally call him' Ya Shua' or some such variant .

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    god having a name is a stupid concept

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Trojan (U14281102) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    just a suggestion maybe his name is supposed to be spelt with a G.and over many hundreds of years maybe someone who could not spell put a J insted of G. who cares jesus did live on earth .thats all that matters.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    who cares jesus did live on earth .thats all that matters. 
    So it doesn't matter whether or not the Bible is accurate?

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    So it doesn't matter whether or not the Bible is accurate? 

    Wonderer: did a man called Gaius Julius Caesar live in the 1st century BCE?

    Did the events associated with and the actions carried out by the person called by that name in modern literature happen or not?

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    It a good job he wasn't called woger or woderwick smiley - winkeye
    And I'm so glad I can look forward to Christmas again. Only problem I can see is there isn't a chimney for Santa to climb down where I live.

    Santa shares a similarity with god.
    He's omnipresent.
    Go into any major sopping centre in December and Santa will be there (he's the one in the red suit and white beard)
    We cant prove the same thing about god though hhhmmmm.
    I think I'll stick with Santa
    smiley - smiley
    dik

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Hi, Wonderer,the Bible has been proved inaccurate again and again, and it clearly doesn't matter at all.

    Walter Scott's novels are not historically accurate but they are still full of truths about humanity. It is just the same with the Bible. So maybe truth and fact are not always the same thing.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    skillful_mcgill

    Wonderer: did a man called Gaius Julius Caesar live in the 1st century BCE? 

    If a history teacher was to tell be that the writings of, and about, Gaius Julius Caesar were actually stories written after his death in order to promote his memory. Then I could accept that.

    Could you do the same for Jesus (or whatever his actual name was)

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Wonderer

    I do not really wish to get involved with your nonsense, but you really do need to get a classical education!

    We all know that the English 'J' did not exist 2000 years ago, as English old or modern didn't exist!

    The equivalent of the English 'J' for want of an argument' could be said to be the Latin/Greek 'I' pronounced like "'Iesous" [ee_ay_sooce]

    If we take your line of reasoning, then every person whose name begins in the bible with the English 'J' didn't exist!

    The 1st BCE century Stoic philosopher Jason of Nysa, who has left us 4 books will also have to under your hammer of non-existece and therefore his grand father, the stoic philosopher Posidonius and by the way the 4 books that Jason wrote, well we have to conclude, wrote themselves, using your unuasual technique of clinical reasearch...!


    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Only problem I can see is there isn't a chimney for Santa to climb down where I live. 

    There's a good documentary - The Santa Clause - that shows him going into houses without chimneys.

    Santa shares a similarity with god.
    He's omnipresent. 


    Don't forget omniscient - he knows if you've been naughty or nice.


    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    If a history teacher was to tell be that the writings of, and about, Gaius Julius Caesar were actually stories written after his death in order to promote his memory. Then I could accept that.

    Could you do the same for Jesus (or whatever his actual name was) 


    Hang on. I thought that your argument was that the misnaming of "Jesus" is sufficient, in itself, to cast doubt on the whole Bible:
    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong? 
    And that's my point. If the name of God has been changed then what else has been changed?  

    So if that is acceptable as an argument in it's own right to undermine the existence of "Jesus" why isn't it acceptable as an argument to undermine the existence of other antiquarian figures with the letter 'J' in their names?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    letusreason
    I do not really wish to get involved with your nonsense, but you really do need to get a classical education! 
    Your on screen name is letusreason. Why not try doing that?

    If we take your line of reasoning, then every person whose name begins in the bible with the English 'J' didn't exist! 

    No, it simply shows that what we believe from reading the Bible is dependant purely on the accuracy of the translation, and not in the accurate word of God.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    No, it simply shows that what we believe from reading the Bible is dependant purely on the accuracy of the translation, and not in the accurate word of God. 

    More than that - it shows that the Bible has changed over time depending on who was in charge of it at the time.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    No, it simply shows that what we believe from reading the Bible is dependant purely on the accuracy of the translation 

    As is our understanding of any antiquarian document.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010



    more probable than a carpenter walking on water

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    As is our understanding of any antiquarian document. 

    And that's fine if we accept that the Bible is just an antiquarian document and not the accurate word of God.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by La_Torah_7 (U14383997) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Bonjour wanderer,

    [(There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. )]  

    Partially right, depending on your meaning. A man- the Messiah existed. Not under this name however.

    [(Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. )]  

    Bravo. Also, quite right.

    [(So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong?)]  

    Now, by 'we' I presume you're referring to yourself and others who are unable to "get his name right." So, firstly I'd like to disclude myself from that group.

    Also, your point on the letter 'J' is obviously correct but what exactly do you mean by questioning what else is wrong. The laws? The bible?

    A mis-translation by translators is a mistake, and this goes hand-in-hand with incorrect renderings of the Father and other textual features. But it is a transliteration mistake in its own right.

    So my question is this: how and in what circumstances do you think this type of mistake can be applied to anything else?

    A response minus the usual irony slash line-ridden sarcasm would be greatly appreciated.

    LT

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    more probable than a carpenter walking on water 

    That's a good point:

    - invading France = probable
    - becoming a zombie = not so likely

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    more probable than a carpenter walking on water 

    Yes, but the argument in the OP is that the misrendering of the "carpenter's" name in modern translations is, in itself, sufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of the accounts of His life.

    Do you agree with this argument or is it the fantastic nature of the actions attributed to Him that casts doubt on the accuracy of the accounts of His life, in your opinion?

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Hi La_Torah_7

    So my question is this: how and in what circumstances do you think this type of mistake can be applied to anything else? 

    Well, I'd use this in conjunction with such things as the two possible endings of Mark - the short and the long versions.

    This shows the Bible is not a consistent and accurate document. It's a document that's been edited and updated over time. The question then becomes - which parts are accurate and which are just stories?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    That's a good point: 

    Yes.


    It's not the point that you made in your OP though. smiley - erm

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    And that's fine if we accept that the Bible is just an antiquarian document and not the accurate word of God. 

    Yes. But you don't appear to casting doubt on the accuracy of other antiquarian documents on the basis that modern translations contain different rendering of names than that which they would have had in antiquity though. smiley - erm



    Well, I'd use this in conjunction with such things as the two possible endings of Mark - the short and the long versions.

    This shows the Bible is not a consistent and accurate document. It's a document that's been edited and updated over time. The question then becomes - which parts are accurate and which are just stories?  


    So the 'J' thing is just a bit of a red herring?

    You believe that there are more compelling reasons to doubt the accuracy of the Bible?

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    It's not the point that you made in your OP though 

    True - it has developed. You're helping me work though a number of doubts I've had recently about me as a Christian and, to be honest, these discussions are making me realise that my days as a server are over. I've been going through the motions and its just fear of disappointing people that stops me moving on.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    </quote>Message posted by skillful_mcgill

    You believe that there are more compelling reasons to doubt the accuracy of the Bible?</quote>


    Understatement of the century, as I have shown here many times. Only a creationist has no doubts about the bible.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    You're helping me work though a number of doubts I've had recently about me as a Christian and, to be honest, these discussions are making me realise that my days as a server are over. 

    As a server to whom?

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    As a server to whom? 

    It's a High Church of England - I'll not say where for obvious reasons - I do the clicky-clacky incense during the service.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Jesus was actually Joshua, spelt Yehoshua. It means messiah. Christ from christos, king. So Jesus Christ was a cypher name for a cypher character.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by SusanDoris (U2850104) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    M18 skillful_mcgill
    That's deep man!

    I mean, like, did the universe exist before we had the language to describe it?

    And if a tree falls in the woods is it likely to crush a bear going about it's daily business?

    And what about that Gaius Julius Caesar guy? 

    smiley - laugh smiley - laughWell, I seldom agree with your posts, but that one was funny! thanks for the laugh!

    Susan

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Dear Wonderer,

    You know Jesus wants you for a sunbeam.

    Gonnagle.

    PS:He also wants you to sign this petition.

    www.petitiononline.c...

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    It's a High Church of England - I'll not say where for obvious reasons - I do the clicky-clacky incense during the service. 

    So you're an alter server. Perhaps now is a time to put aside this service to you community and explore what your faith means to you (if anything at all) on a deeper level. Don't be afraid of the reactions of others. Making decisions and living with the consequences are all part of adulthood. Hopefully those around you will recognise that you are capable of making your own decisions now. Good luck!

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Hi Wonderer
    Santa shares a similarity with god.
    He's omnipresent.
    Dont forget omniscient - he knows if you've been naughty or nice 


    Do you think that there was a spelling mistake in Santa and really he is Satan?
    You know the picture word association. Red suit, chimney, fire.
    Temptation, bringing things to us that we only think we want. And then the bloomin credit card bill in January.

    How many souls are owned by the banks?
    You must have heard that saying "Money is the root of all evil"
    Absolute poppycock.
    Its the LACK of money that is the root of all evil!smiley - winkeye
    have fun
    dik

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.