Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an agnostic, then baptized as an adult. What convinced me about Jesus is that there are too many coincidental things that have happened in my life for there not to be a greater power behind it. I also cannot believe that if the whole thing was a myth, so many people would forward the story through history. Jesus is arguably the most significant person who ever lived. It is beyond me to think there is not at least some truth to his story.

Then why aren’t there any first-hand historical accounts if he was so significant?

Certainly his “story” is significant, but the man?

Why is the Gospel of John not a first-hand historical account? Or Peter's letters? Or Luke's account, which is nothing if not a contemporary account?

Oh, I know! If it's in the Bible, it doesn't count.

Because they aren’t independent historical accounts.

No, it's because you don't like the message.

Do you like the message of Hinduism?
Friggin hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an agnostic, then baptized as an adult. What convinced me about Jesus is that there are too many coincidental things that have happened in my life for there not to be a greater power behind it. I also cannot believe that if the whole thing was a myth, so many people would forward the story through history. Jesus is arguably the most significant person who ever lived. It is beyond me to think there is not at least some truth to his story.

Then why aren’t there any first-hand historical accounts if he was so significant?

Certainly his “story” is significant, but the man?

Why is the Gospel of John not a first-hand historical account? Or Peter's letters? Or Luke's account, which is nothing if not a contemporary account?

Oh, I know! If it's in the Bible, it doesn't count.

Because they aren’t independent historical accounts.

No, it's because you don't like the message.

We aren't talking about the message itself, we're talking about the messenger. Not known. No first hand accounts. Not reliable.

[Anonymous]

Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Which "lists"? The figure named Jesus (whether real or not) certainly played a large role in history. That doesn't mean he existed though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - I am a VP in an IT related field. I currently have five Hindus working for me. I also had a few Jains work fir me too. Going to a party tonight at my Hindu neighbors house. Been to Hindu Weddings.

Most explained there are many Gods in Hindu. But the Gods are not human. More like a Greek God. The concept of believing that someone who is human can also be a God is unusual. They assumed Jesus was a God similar to what they believe a God to be. But were unaware he was a living person also.

Most of my Hindu employe do Christmas presents and even Easter Egg hunts if they have kids. But kinda a cool crazy mash up.

In fact this Valentine's Day my Hindu manager was surprised their is a St. Valentine who was a real person. She Wikipedia it in front of me

Why do you think they need to know everything about your religion when you most likely know absolutely nothing about theirs?

Oh by the way, OP, feel free to do a little research into how pagan holidays and traditions were incorporated into Christianity. And also the similarities between the Hindu festival of holi (you know, the one that Christians frequently appropriate for so-called "color runs") and ash wednesday.

[Anonymous]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/

If you look at list of most Important figures of all time. Many are back in history and most are pre-photography, formal birth certificates or DNA etc. So should we say all of them dont exist as people.

Did Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Julius Ceasar even exist. IF we are saying people of a certain period back in history did not exist it is a bit of a wild statement.

Joan of Arc, King Arthur, Genghis Khan why not wipe them out. Heck why not go more modern was there a Vincent van Gogh. Pretty much we only heard of him after he was dead, while he was alive he was not famous. Maybe that was a scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/

If you look at list of most Important figures of all time. Many are back in history and most are pre-photography, formal birth certificates or DNA etc. So should we say all of them dont exist as people.

Did Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Julius Ceasar even exist. IF we are saying people of a certain period back in history did not exist it is a bit of a wild statement.

Joan of Arc, King Arthur, Genghis Khan why not wipe them out. Heck why not go more modern was there a Vincent van Gogh. Pretty much we only heard of him after he was dead, while he was alive he was not famous. Maybe that was a scam.

There are reliable, first-hand accounts that they existed.

It's not the time period, it's the last of reliable sources.

[Anonymous]

^ it's the LACK of reliable sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/

If you look at list of most Important figures of all time. Many are back in history and most are pre-photography, formal birth certificates or DNA etc. So should we say all of them dont exist as people.

Did Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Julius Ceasar even exist. IF we are saying people of a certain period back in history did not exist it is a bit of a wild statement.

Joan of Arc, King Arthur, Genghis Khan why not wipe them out. Heck why not go more modern was there a Vincent van Gogh. Pretty much we only heard of him after he was dead, while he was alive he was not famous. Maybe that was a scam.

How can someone be so dense? No one is saying that ancient historical figures didn't exist. Rather, that there must be sufficient historical evidence of their evidence before we accept it as such. Generally speaking, most historians do agree that Jesus was a historical figure in that there was a Jewish preacher who lived in the first century.

Btw, there is plenty of historical evidence for all the people you mentioned. We actually have far more information about all those people than we do about Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Hindus don't give a shit about Jesus why is that so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

Don't forget Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You do realize that centuries after the fact, we cannot be sure of this?

This, we really don't know what happened.

+ 100

Religion is all something we make up to give life some meaning and to let us sleep at night. None of us have any idea.

+1

I think it’s even questionable there was a dude named Jesus. People make up stories all of the time.

"Jesus" is the Greek form of Yehoshua (Joshua) - the name of the successor of Moses. There were undoubtedly LOTS of people named Joshua/Jesus at the time. The question is whether any had lives that matched at least SOME of the incidents in the gospels.

That is or used to be called "the search for the historic Jesus"? As noted above there is very very thin support outside the gospels. Whether the gospel accounts of at least the crucifixion could be made up - as noted above, it would have been a public act if it took place. On the other hand the gospels themselves were written down some years later than the event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

Don't forget Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

Ironic on your link his date of birth is 567 BC. Would that mean Buddhists believe in Jesus since they date one of their most important figures date of birth as 567 years Before Christ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You do realize that centuries after the fact, we cannot be sure of this?

This, we really don't know what happened.

+ 100

Religion is all something we make up to give life some meaning and to let us sleep at night. None of us have any idea.

+1

I think it’s even questionable there was a dude named Jesus. People make up stories all of the time.

"Jesus" is the Greek form of Yehoshua (Joshua) - the name of the successor of Moses. There were undoubtedly LOTS of people named Joshua/Jesus at the time. The question is whether any had lives that matched at least SOME of the incidents in the gospels.

That is or used to be called "the search for the historic Jesus"? As noted above there is very very thin support outside the gospels. Whether the gospel accounts of at least the crucifixion could be made up - as noted above, it would have been a public act if it took place. On the other hand the gospels themselves were written down some years later than the event.

There were lots of crucifixions in those days. Some biblical scholars think that if Jesus was crucified, he was eaten by dogs, which was common practice in those days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nhOhCTIul4 Christian apologists disagree, but no one has any proof so no one really knows.