Second Coming

Second Coming of Christ - Pablo Stanley

Second coming of Christ.

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed. There is disagreement on the details of his life according to the gospels; the acknowledgment of his existence does not include agreement regarding his divinity. When historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts. There are some things almost everyone agrees on, though: he was baptized, he had disciples, he had a controversy at the temple and was crucified.

One of the things that is not very much discussed is Jesus’ sexual orientation. Was Mary Magdalene his lover/wife? Was he asexual, heterosexual, gay? In this comic I play with the idea of Jesus being gay, surprising his current believers who have not followed his word of love and forgiveness. I started having this idea when I had a discussion with a catholic friend who opposes gays in general. The idea just popped in my head. What if Jesus was gay too? What if there was some evidence that proved that? What would my friend think? Of course, my friend got offended– and pretty angry at me. But why? Why is the idea so bad? We have had many great gay personalities and historical figures. Why couldn’t Jesus be one? Ever since I had that debate (back when I was only 16 years old), the idea has been stuck in my head. It’s not until now that I speak openly about it with this comic.

I suppose there might be some historical evidence disagreeing with this notion, but I’m just trying to bring an alternative idea; open your mind a bit and try to be more accepting and loving to the gay community.

Note:
Fag hag : (from wikipedia) Gay slang phrase referring to a woman who either associates mostly or exclusively with gay and bisexual men, or has gay and bisexual men as close friends (wikipedia). I’m saying Mary Magdalene could’ve been one.

  • Seajay

    Has anyone else questioned why his Jesus is white? Jesus wasn’t white ffs.

  • Crys

    I think the problem I would have with Jesus being gay is simply, it was against the religion He was preaching. If He DID come to make people more tolerant of each other AND He was gay, surely He would have mentioned it, or mentioned gayness at some point. He mentioned being nicer to prostitutes, tax collectors, thieves, and all other sorts of people. Why didn’t He mention gayness at all?

    Not that I’m saying we shouldn’t be more tolerant/kind to gays/lesbians. (We should, and I have no doubt Jesus would want that.) I’m just saying if He specifically were gay himself, He’d surely at least address the topic.

    Also, if Jesus is God (according to Christianity) and God has complete power over the universe, and if this comic were correct, why didn’t He make gayness a more biologically viable option? (Example child birth.) This isn’t uncommon in the animal kingdom (the ability for creatures to change gender in order to mate with the same sex.)

  • Joseph O Polanco

    i. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Prove your claim.

    ii. Christ never said as such.

  • Joebbowers

    The burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate their beliefs to be true not on the unbeliever to disprove them. However, this one is pretty easy. Jesus says his believers can drink poison and be unharmed. I’m sure you have some bleach or other household cleaner around somewhere. I’ll await your results.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Prove your Mythicism. Prove Christ is a “fairy tale.” Otherwise you’re just equivocating.

  • Joebbowers

    You keep believing in fairy tales, buddy. Jesus, Santa, the Easter Bunny, they’re all real if you wish hard enough.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Do courts of law settle questions of historical factualness?

    What court determined that the 1969 moon landing, for instance, was a matter of historical fact not fiction?

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Strawman. Try again.

  • Joebbowers

    Yes, more second- and third-hand reports. None of those people even lived when Jesus supposedly did. Not reliable. Wouldn’t even be admissible in a court of law.

  • Joebbowers

    You gave a list of people who are mostly still living today and expect me to accept this as evidence of Jesus? I should believe it because they believe it? That is not evidence at all, that is called the bandwagon fallacy.

  • Jim Jones

    If anyone came up with anything we’d scrutinize it in detail. But no one ever has,

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Argumentum ad lapidem. Your flouncing does not dispel the arguments presented nor the facts that support them. Try again.

  • Juan Carlos Petruza

    My only source for that statement is the TV show “Atheist Experience”, I know them to be well versed in factual critiques of christianity and the facts of the bible, so I trust them, they always say there’s no historic references of Jesus with or without the myth outside the Bible, but again this statement is as trustworthy as their sources, which I don’t know.

  • Juan Carlos Petruza

    Because Ruins and Kings are things known to exist, whereas immortal god-sons water-walking magic healers, well you know.

  • Juan Carlos Petruza

    “Experience Project is [...] the world’s largest living collection of shared experiences and the premier passions-based network”
    Thank you! that’s the kind of evidence I was looking for. Really.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Here you go: http://bit.ly/118YDjO

  • Joseph O Polanco

    In fact, there is more historical evidence for the murder and resurrection of Christ than there is for evolution. Indeed, any denial of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection is comparable to denying the US declared its independence in 1776 or that Columbus landed in America in 1492.

    In his book “The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus”, Michael Licona provides a list of scholars who attest to the historicity of Christ’s murder and resurrection which includes Brodeur, Collins, Conzelman, Fee, Gundry, Harris, Hayes, Hèring, Hurtado, Johnson, Kistemaker, Lockwood, Martin, Segal, Snyder, Thiselton, Witherington, and Wright.

    Concordantly, British scholar N. T. Wright states, “As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” (N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.

    Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)

    These are just a minute sampling of the research the massive throng of scholars who all attest to the historicity of Christ’s resurrection – http://amzn.to/13MQiTE

    Prominently, in his book, “Justifying Historical Descriptions”, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:

    1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

    2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

    3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

    4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

    5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

    6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection solution.

    As an aside, when asked, “You accept the historical Jesus?”, Albert Einstein’s reply was

    “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

    –Albert Einstein, from an interview with the Saturday Evening Post

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: “[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of “James, the brother of Jesus.”

    The influence of Jesus’ existence was felt through the activities of his followers. When the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome about 59 C.E., the principal men of the Jews told him: “As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:17-22) They called Jesus’ disciples “this sect.” If they were everywhere spoken against, secular historians would likely report about them, would they not?

    Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world’s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero’s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.

    Another writer who commented on Jesus’ followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: “There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances.” That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him.

    After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.” http://bit.ly/ZvQvvd

  • Joseph O Polanco
  • Pingback: Pablo Stanley - La seconda venuta - OLTREUOMO()

  • shel

    Troy was found, and it was by a scholar.

    The others may not have seen any positive results, but they have occurred.

  • Jim Jones

    > However, the contention being made is that there was a man called Jesus

    That’s the first, bad, assumption. All too often when myths are based on real persons, the name of the person gets changed. ‘Jesus’ has a “John Doe” connotation, FWIW, Adam means man and Eve means woman although there are arguments about this. Also, Jezebel has an interesting etymology.

    So back to the point. Even if there was some man the myth was based on, don’t assume he was called Jesus (or Yeshua).

  • Jim Jones
  • Jim Jones

    Who says serious scholars do any of this?

  • shel

    Serious scholars don’t care about mythical figures?

    Then why did anyone search for the ruins of Troy.
    Why did they search Glastonbury Abby for the possible remains of King Arthur?
    Why do they debate as to the true identity of Robin Hood?

  • Diego Juen

    Un mensaje genial!!. Ahora, la verdad desconozco de un censo que indique la gran mayoría de historiadores que aceptan a Jesus como una persona real.
    Mas allá de eso, el único texto no-bíblico que lo nombra fue el testimonio de Flavio Josefo, que está mas que demostrado haber sido falso. Existen incongruencias mil dentro de los textos bíblicos, un lapso enorme (ya generacional) de silencio entre la supuesta fecha de la muerte de Jesus y la que se escribieron los evangelio y coincidencias mas que sospechosas con personajes de otras religiones (sobre todo de la cultura egipcia, que era una influencia enorme en ese territorio y en esa epoca). Mi humilde opinión es que puede haber existido un hombre llamado Jesus nacido alrededor del año 1 así como pudo existir alguien llamado Hercules, alguien que se llamo Ra o algun rey llamado Arturo pero en todos los casos no se puede asegurar ningun aspecto de la vida de ninguno como cierto…

  • Henry Hambs

    hey the imm is vanished!! dum dum duuum o.0

  • Discordia

    Hey Jim, check this site out. Some people there are claiming that gospel Jesus was real. I could not find that list of scholars that didn’t mention Jesus that you have somewhere and was hoping that you could pop in over at Cracked and sort the sheeple out. The negative comments concern the documentary Religulous and the authors claims that Jesus was real and blah blah blah.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-documentaries-that-were-shockingly-full-crap_p2.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=081513

  • Jim Jones

    Explain why you believe in Jesus but not, (I assume) in Superman, the angel Moroni or Xenu.

  • Jim Jones

    > Who were the Gospel writers and why did they decide to invent this character?

    Every book in the bible, except Revelation, is anonymous.

    IMO the gospels were written after the end of the Bar Kochba revolt because the ‘Christians’ (or whatever they were known as) didn’t want any part of what the Romans were going to do to the Jews. That’s why the gospels are pro Roman and anti Jew.

  • Jim Jones

    > he doesn’t show up in any census; there is no record of his birth;

    That’s not particularly disturbing. What is disturbing is that not one person jotted down the date or even year of his birth. Not one noted the year of his death, and even the day is different in different gospels.

    That’s what you get in comic books about superheroes, not in any sort of biography. The parallels between the gospels and Superman comic books are striking.

  • Fake Name

    Spiderman comics make mentions of things in New York City which actually happened, but that’s not evidence for Spiderman. It’s not evidence that there ever was a Peter Parker that the Spiderman story was based on. Even though there are real verifiable facts in the Spiderman comic, you don’t believe (at least I hope you don’t) that the Peter Parker character is anything but fiction.

    What I’m saying is, I get that the Spiderman comics (the bible) gets some things right. There might even be some real person that Peter Parker (Jesus) is based off of. But it’s more likely to be completely made up. It would be silly of me to run around saying that Peter Parker is a real person.

    The bible gets the odd thing right, great. But that doesn’t mean it’s right about anything else. A proper skeptic is only justified in believing a claim once evidence has been presented. A broken clock is right twice a day; but that’s not evidence that it’s right 3 times a day.

    Yes it’s important to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

  • rookierookie

    I feel sorry for you. Hope you’re only a kid.

  • Fake Name

    Now you committed the argument from popularity fallacy. I don’t care what historians think. I care if they have evidence to back up their claims. Telling me to read a book which we both know doesn’t have any evidence is an argument from authority.

    Obviously you and your historians have no evidence so why would I read a dozen books where there is no evidence? If you have actual hard evidence, post it. Otherwise don’t try to waste my time and money on even longer rationalizations.

  • rookierookie

    Well as you’ve avoided addressing the majority of my points, I’m done. I’m sorry my rationalizations were too long-winded, but I did not commit the argument from authority fallacy. I was trying to explain why the majority secular opinion is for historicity, not telling you that position is correct because it is the consensus.

    If you’re really interested in the subject I’d suggest reading some books on the debate, from both sides of the argument. I’d suggest Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman and The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty for a good contrast. Both authors are probably amongst the most reputable scholars of both positions.

  • Fake Name

    -I understand the difference between knowledge and belief.
    -I’m not denying that jesus could possibly have existed.
    -I don’t have to answer any questions because I’m not making a positive claim.
    -I’m asking for evidence from those who make claims that jesus was a historical figure.

    The fact that I get long winded rationalizations and arguments from authority instead of actual evidence is telling.

  • rookierookie

    Again, historians don’t claim to ‘know’ Jesus existed, I guess this idea comes from the confusion between genuine historians and Christian apologists.

    Equally if you ‘know’ he doesn’t exist then you believe without evidence that Paul/Gospel writers fabricated the entire thing from scratch. (Which incidentally is not analogous to Old testament writers and God, we’re talking about the simple existence of an insignificant mortal man, not a supernatural superbeing).

    You have to weigh up the probabilities of both using all the available evidence and come to a conclusion as to which is more plausible, but ultimately the position retained is an agnostic one.

  • rookierookie

    Maybe an analogy will help explain the scholarly position: If I tell you that I know a man who only ever wears a yellow shirt, do you believe he exists?

    Certainly, you have no reliable evidence of his existence, the only source is anonymous and unreliable. Thus, you cannot in any meaningful way ‘know’ he exists.

    However, it would be equally irrational to _deny_ he exists, you do not have the evidence to prove beyond doubt that he is fictional.

    Thus you are left with the agnostic standpoint, you accept that there is a chance that it is true but do not claim to know either way.

    This is pretty much the position for everything that ever happened in ancient history, beyond very basic stuff. Does this mean that historians throw their hands up and say ‘fuck it we don’t know’? No. They evaluate the likelihoods of certain events.

    In the case of Jesus – discounting the idea of his divinity – he was either a real figure who was later made legendary, or a pure invention of unknown writers for little-known reasons. Historians do not claim to ‘know’ Jesus existed, but it is the mainstream perspective that it is more _likely_ than his existence being pure fantasy.

    Jesus Myth advocates have to answer the questions; Who were the Gospel writers and why did they decide to invent this character? If their intention was to glorify a Messiah-figure, why not choose from one of the _abundant_ claimants of that role from 1st century Judea, instead of deliberately fabricating a figure? If they were intending people to believe the tale, why not set it further back in history, when there would be 0% chance of any eye-witnesses still being alive?

    I’m not arguing that there isn’t a scholarly case for the Myth theory. There is. But you seem to be labouring under several misconceptions about why the most popular scholarly viewpoint is for historicity. It’s not ‘just because it’s Jesus’, don’t worry.

  • Discordia

    How about Hercules? There are myths about him and no one believes he was real. And there are statues also! Does that mean he really existed?

  • ifeito

    Hi dumbf*ck. Did you know that the AD notation was not used until around the year 725 in Ireland and didn’t become common practice until around the 9th Century?

    Also, celebrations around the winter solstice are older than christianity, almost certainly as old as civilization itself.

    Please read a little before putting your foot in your mouth again.

  • ifeito

    Perhaps many historians consider Jesus to be an actual person, however the mythological hypothesis is gaining ground and there are more and more historians who recognize that the “historical Jesus” is most likely a fabrication.

  • Jim Jones

    > the Bible is not an action book, it contains teachings

    The gospels are Superman comic books.

  • Jim Jones

    > Actually the bible does say that a man shall not lay with another man as a man lies with a woman

    No, it says that if a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is banned because they are, say, father and daughter, then it is also banned between father and son.

  • Jim Jones

    Tacitus merely states that Christians existed and repeats the Jesus myth – in 115 CE. There are still people trying to repeat the Cassie Bernall myth. It proves nothing.

  • Jim Jones

    > There’s actually quite a lot of historical record from back then, since the Romans were excellent record keepers.

    The Romans record no such person. “Quite a lot” turns out to be none.

  • Jim Jones

    > Bart Erhman['s] latest book
    disproves your contention that Jesus is a myth.

    No it doesn’t. His arguments are weak and are just his personal opinion. I disagree.

  • Jim Jones

    Look up John Frum and Ned Ludd – not to mention King Arthur and Robin Hood.

  • Jim Jones

    You might as well claim that the existence of railway systems in Great Britain makes the existence of Harry Potter plausible.

  • Fredrik Kolstø

    Pardon me, I did not intend to offend. I believe homosexuality is quite alright, I just said something I read off a debate on debate.org.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    No, you misunderstood.
    I just mention you that we call it a ‘Christmas Tree’.
    Have a tree which carry a name, that is surprising. Nothing else.

  • cantake8

    I didn’t. You suggested Christmas trees are an exhibit of “his power.” Now do you understand?

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    Christmas trees are there to keep your christmas gifts, kid !
    Don’t search a spiritual meaning, you will be upset.

  • cantake8

    Yeah, he has the “power” to assume any form necessary for popularity. Let’s judge that power by the HOLY NATURE of Christmas trees: are they objects of worship and spiritual awe? Oops: fail. Christmas trees are decorative: flashy tinsel and waste.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    “Christmas Trees (pagan origin)”
    yeps, pagan origin, and now we call it “Christmas Trees”.
    Next time, try to call your tree ‘cantake8mas tree’ and your birthday ‘cantake8mas day’…

    Do you understand now ?

  • cantake8

    @Michael Wiggins: AMEN! It’s amazing how religious people seek to prop up their beliefs, but rarely challenge them.

  • cantake8

    That’s like saying a guy named Bill lived in the United States in 1990.

  • cantake8

    @Jim Jones: Just as serious historians haven’t attempted to verify the existence of Zeus or the Tooth Fairy.

  • cantake8

    I don’t dispute the existence of Jesus, just the miracles and the raising from the dead. But it’s a lovely fable to comfort those who have screwed up this life so badly they dream of another life where they get a perfect body free from disease and body odor.

  • cantake8

    Yeah, because Jesus’ birthday celebration is so spectacularly sacred. Number one time of the year for suicides, domestic violence and abuse to children: Happy Birthday Jesus! Most households have Christmas Trees (pagan origin) and the gift exchange is anything but sacred, nor is the gorging and drinking.

  • disqus_qrAmknfK16

    Precisely. I work in the field of psychology and what toy a child chooses is largely gender-neutral. Regardless, this does not relate to romantic and/or sexual impulse.

  • Fake Name

    The default skeptical position is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is presented. A complete lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. If you just randomly believe things because you have no reason not to, then you are forced to accept all sorts of crazy garbage.

  • Fake Name

    We have letters and diaries from Alex. We have statues built during his reign. He even named cities and libraries after himself. All the artifacts that a conqueror would make.

    The problem with jesus is we don’t even have second hand accounts; we have a game of Chinese whispers. We don’t have a reliable record of execution (which you think would exist); he doesn’t show up in any census; there is no record of his birth; and to make it worse a number of events in the story apparently never happened either. We have basically nothing at all.

  • ZombieMatt

    Fake Name, do you ask for the same standard of proof for all historical figures? Do you doubt that Alexander the Great existed, because there are no contemporary first hand records of his life, either? All I’m trying to get across here is that the standard you are applying to historicity is not the standard that modern scholars apply, and is an unreasonable limitation in the search for knowledge. Sometimes second hand accounts are all that are available, and historians work with what they have available. When virtually all second hand accounts agree on something, it is likely true, or at least based in truth.

  • Fake Name

    Annals was written decades later and Tacitus wasn’t alive at the same time Jesus was. Annals is not a contemporary first hand account of Jesus and should not be considered evidence for his existence.

  • rookierookie
  • Fake Name

    A record of someone named jesus being crucified is exactly the sort of thing I’m asking for. Do you have some sort of scanned in copy of the record? Or some way of verifying that this actually exists and is authentic? All I can find on google is more assertions that it exists and other apologist BS.

  • Nelson

    Historians agree that Jesus existed?
    You’re as ridiculous as these creationists.

  • ZombieMatt

    I get what you’re saying, I really do. But I never said there was evidence, or proof. I said it was dismissive to say that “most historians are Christians, and simply assume Jesus is real.” That said, we do know from Roman records that a man named Jesus was crucified. And we know from other Roman records that crucifixion was reserved almost entirely for sedition-related crimes like rebellion, banditry, and the like. Scholars disagree on many things, but you can extrapolate quite a lot about a person called Jesus who was crucified.

    What I’m trying to say is that historical scholarly research doesn’t work the way you think it does. An actual first person account of Jesus, signed by a witness might not exist. But enough second hand accounts, Roman recordkeepings, etc, might. This is not my direct area of study, I’m just sad to see people being so dismissive of an area of study that many people have worked for many years, not because I have any religious ties (again, atheist), but because I value research into history.

  • Fake Name

    People ITT keep saying “omg so much evidence and research and quotes” yet no one has actually presented any evidence. Nobody has pointed to a document (other than the bible) saying “yes a guy named jesus was here at this time and I am a first hand witness”. Or some chunk of pottery that had the name jesus scribbled on it. Anything like that.

    It’s because the evidence doesn’t exist. There is 0 evidence outside of the bible for the existence of someone named jesus living at the correct place and time. The only evidence that comes close wasn’t a first hand account and was written 100 years later.

  • Fake Name

    That’s a lot of quotes but no actual evidence.

  • Fake Name

    Throw out the old testament and you throw out the entire justification for the jesus story. No fall -> no sin -> no need for the bizarre human sacrifice to forgive the sins.

    If you need to pick which parts you like then you don’t need the book at all. You are using your own morality to decide what is right anyways.

  • Fake Name

    Picking and choosing at it’s finest.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    Julius Ceasar, CE and BCE is just an alternative for people who are not comfortable with BC/AD.

  • XX

    Still wrong. It’s CE and BCE now. And some people don’t even use the same calendar.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    That is what i said (the accuracy is not perfect). But the idea (bc/ad) is still the same

  • ZombieMatt

    Man, you’re really dismissing LOADS of in depth scholarly research here. Reza Aslan’s most recent book is called Zealot, and is based on years of research into the man Jesus (NOT the god Jesus. Just the guy). Reza is not a Christian, and has over 20 years of religious history knowledge. There’s actually quite a lot of historical record from back then, since the Romans were excellent record keepers…

    I’m an atheist, and a historian, and while not every scholar agrees that Jesus existed, the vast majority do. It is dismissive of decades of cumulative research for you to suggest otherwise.

  • Dok

    You know they got the date wrong don’t you? They totally guessed at the year and it’s a known fact (that can be checked just by actually reading the bible) that Jesus was not born in December at all.

  • Dok

    but Islam was taken from the same stories that the Christian bible was written from. this isn’t proof he existed, only proof that both groups read the same stories.

  • Petruza

    I don’t know about “we people”, but I myself am very aware of the importance of Jesus in Islam, nevertheless when I say historical evidence of Jesus I’m ruling out all religious texts because I don’t consider them factual historical evidence.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    Sorry, i don’t read spanish.
    In fact, my post is not a response to your post :p

    Anyway, i just want to tell you (guys) that we celebrate Jesus’ birthday every year and we count his age every day, every minute (2013 years 7 months and 31 days after Jesus, even if the accuracy is not perfect). Believe or not, you have to live with that, Dudes !!!

  • Gaby!

    ?????

  • Michael Wiggins

    You could very well make up a book called ‘The Super Magical Dave’ set in London in 2013 with a supreme being and his son Dave. Pointing out the people who lived in London also called dave whilst having no proof any of them did anything as written in ‘The Super Magical Dave’ is not proof for this being true or prove the character of Dave being historical it just proves the name existed at that point of time.

  • Alim Echa

    Om, it isnt only in christianity that jesus is mentioned, You people always forget that jesus was a prophet in islam, we just dont believe he was the son of god among other things. But it isnt only christians that believe he existed

  • rookierookie

    You need to make clear the distinction between the man and the myth. The only evidence of his works are the Bible, which is an extremely flawed source historically. Saying Historians do not accept the ‘Gospel Jesus’ is correct.

    However, the contention being made is that there was a man called Jesus, who gained a cult following, and inspired these myths. Notwithstanding that this is a far more likely scenario than him being a pure invention due to the commonplace nature of messianic Jewish leaders in 1st century Palestine, we have references to Jesus in the non-Christian works of Tacitus and Josephus.

    The default scholarly position is to accept the historicity of Jesus as a man because there is no good evidence to suggest he is merely a fabricated story, and the fact of his existence is not in any way extraordinary or fantastical (in comparison to, for example, his resurrection). One would have to rely on what sources _don’t_ say, which is bad History.

  • Albert Zuckerberg

    Believe or not, today we are the july 31st 2013 (AD <- do you know what that means ?)
    The 25th december (yes, you love this day, do you ?), you will receive your gift and your cup of champagne, you have to live with that, Dude !!!

  • Joebbowers

    Not concluded, assumed. They have not done the research. Most historians are Christians, they simply assume Jesus is real and stop looking for proof.

  • niloburgh

    Reza Aslan – Zealot

  • Joebbowers

    There are some second- or third- hand reports that a Jewish person with that name lived in that time period, that is likely the person the Bible of the Jesus is based on. However, there are no first-hand accounts, no real evidence of any kind. And even if there was a guy that the Biblical Jesus is based on, there is absolutely no evidence for any of the things he said or did in the Bible.

  • Eric Morgan

    Thanks for this cartoon. I am a Christian and I don’t really give a toss about Christ’s sexuality. What I do care about is being the kind of person I believe he taught about. That means that I love and accept ALL people. I don’t care who you are or what you believe; I know everyone has value and is important. Because of that I won’t treat anyone with less respect. Peace.

  • Andrew

    Hate to say it, but there is evidence for such a person. I’m an atheist and think christianity is stupid and whatnot but the existence of jesus, not his godliness, is accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

  • alejandro

    “They put 9 year old boys and girls in a room with… at that age, children’s gender can’t yet be affected by their parents”

    ^^ That is complete crap. I am no biologist or psychiatrist, but I can guarantee that children are picking up anything and everything from their parents as soon as they are self-aware, if not earlier.

  • Lauren

    Interracial marriage was deemed immoral by the Bible at one time–in our present-day understanding of human rights, it would now be considered unethical to say that interracial marriage is any less than a same-race marriage.

    Let’s stay hopeful that, in 50 years or so, the Church will once again further modify its stance on the issue. What the pope has said is a step in the right direction, yet it still does not represent ‘loving others as yourself;’ saying that ‘same-sex attraction’ is a sin needing abstention devalues the love between homosexual couples.

    As Pope Francis said–only God can judge others.
    Let’s hope this message will continue to resonate as human rights become more prevalent in a just society.

  • disqus_qrAmknfK16

    “(also: gay people die about 8-20 yrs earlier and most of them are gay
    because of a childhood trauma and don’t actually want to be gay, but
    psychiatric treatment of unwanted homosexual orientation is being
    attacked by the same psychiatrists whose basic rules allow EVERY
    psychiatric patient to have the right for treatment, it’s like forcing
    fat people to eat two big macs for breakfast)” – There is absolutely no scientific research whatsoever to support your ridiculous assumptions about gay people. Homosexuality is an impulse of nature, not a response to trauma. Your whole argument fell apart the second you spewed this shit.

  • Steven Broccolo

    Bart Erhman is both a serious scholar and an agnostic. His latest book disproves your contention that Jesus (the person) is a myth. Whether or not he was who others claimed him to be is another discussion altogether.

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/5890/

  • Péter Prónai

    then let me answer it as one attending a catholic school as a non-catholic:

    our divinity teachers (there were two so far, one of them is also a priest) said that the two gods portrayed are distinctly different and we should follow the New testament’s teachings.

    my view is this: if we rip off the stuff about god and rituals, the New testament is morally a perfect set of rules and teachings, while the Old testament is either degenerated bull$h!t or sex&violence.

  • Péter Prónai

    sorry if I will offend you or anyone else with this, but compared to the comic, it’s barely offensive:
    the Bible is not an action book, it contains teachings

  • Confused Dude

    Wasn’t Jesus the one in the old testament saying gays should be put to death? And people that work on the Sabbath with them? Oh, and women if they are not virgins when you marry them…. and anyone that mixes cotton with rayon…. or anyone that eats shrimp! Don’t forget about that one? He’s the same god, isn’t he? I’m confused, aren’t we supposed to all still hate everyone?

  • Péter Prónai

    first, I should state that I’m NOT catholic, but I do believe in some sort of transcendental existence

    second: I know this from professionals whom I spoke with personally/heard live presentations from, not from some random anti-gay-long-live-the-pope forum

    I really appreciate original ideas (heck, even my teachers and classmates hate me for my ideas), but Jesus (or at least the Bible) teaches/taught about
    traditional families are much more endangered and there is a huge problem here: accepting gays is not the same as promoting homosexuality
    (also: gay people die about 8-20 yrs earlier and most of them are gay because of a childhood trauma and don’t actually want to be gay, but psychiatric treatment of unwanted homosexual orientation is being attacked by the same psychiatrists whose basic rules allow EVERY psychiatric patient to have the right for treatment, it’s like forcing fat people to eat two big macs for breakfast)

    and for closing: here is a test from one of the most gay-friendly countries (I believe it was in Sweden, but that’s not important):
    they put 9 year old boys and girls in a room with boy toys on the one side and girl toys on the other side (even their colours were boyish/girlish accordingly)
    at that age, children’s gender can’t yet be affected by their parents
    and guess what: every single child picked a toy that’s fitting to their sex
    I’m sure the research documentation can be found somewhere, but I’m not a professional so I’m not sure if I’ll find it. However, if I do, I will post it here and elsewhere.

  • Petruza

    “A few modern writers, … question whether Jesus ever existed, … This position, put forward in works such as the movies Religulous and The God Who Wasn’t There, is not held by most professional historians”
    You’re right, I guess I read biased work.

  • disqus_qrAmknfK16

    1. That entire passage from Leviticus was in the context of goat demons and cult temple shrine prostitution.

    2. Jesus died to absolve the people of their sins and free them from the law Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. (Galatians 3:13). To hold homosexuality, bisexuality etc. to those laws to which others are not considered bound is precisely what is meant by “a dog returning to its own vomit”. You are essentially saying that Jesus died for nothing. His crucifixion removed him from the impossibility of “serving two masters”. Basically, Leviticus means squat. Quit using it as defense for your own bigotry.

  • Pablo Stanley

    Did you read my post? Most scholars don’t believe what the gospels say of him as someone ‘divine’, but the fact that he, Jesus, a person existed is very plausible.

  • theraywong

    Everyone should watch ‘Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God’ to see how ‘great’ the Catholic Church are. Who truly has an open mind?

  • Jim Jones

    > “… no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.”

    Serious scholars don’t care about mythical figures.

    > “The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency”

    There is exactly zero historical evidence for gospel Jesus.

  • Jim Jones

    >Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.

    Nope. Wishful thinking. There’s no evidence for such a person, even ignoring the silly contradictions of his life stories. You might as well claim that Ned Ludd and John Frum existed.

  • Pablo Stanley

    Thank you Petruza!
    If you do a quick google search, you’ll find that in fact the vast majority of historians and scholars have concluded that Jesus did indeed exist.
    Michael Grant:
    “[That Jesus was a myth] has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars …. no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.”
    Tom Wright:
    “The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency”
    :D

  • wirkkala

    That’s why I call bullshit on everything the bible says.

  • Petruza

    Is there a source to back this statement: “Today nearly all historians … accept that Jesus existed” ?
    I really doubt it, as there are practically no references about jesus in any historical documents except for the Bible.

  • Eric Ryckaert

    IIRC that is in Leviticus, which is not applicable to Christians under the Council of Nicaea. That is because they were trying to figure out how in integrate the Gentile population into Christianity at the time, their solution was to decree the Jewish laws, Leviticus, not applicable to Christians at large in order to not alienate the new Gentile Christians.

  • the_maple_kind

    That’s brilliantly heretical! Nice work dude! :)

  • Saibo

    World population would drop very fast then

  • disqus_Cfzw7Etl3h

    cool. hehe :)

  • wirkkala

    If you take what the bible says as true, my guess is that if you actually have sex with another man but you’re not laying down, it’s totally fine. Shower sex maybe?

    Oh, and also we should stone to death any woman that doesn’t marry being a virgin, the bible also says that.

  • David

    so.. you’re the one representing gay human rights i suppose?

  • http://oldtimes-software.com/ Mark Sowden

    That’s pretty boring.

  • Fredrik Kolstø

    Actually the bible does say that a man shall not lay with another man as a man lies with a woman :p so it’s okay to be gay according to the bible, just not to have intercourse with the same sex.

  • Gaby!

    Como católica, nunca se me había ocurrido pensar en un Jesús Gay, pero lo mas perturbador es que suena lógico… Damn you pablo stanely!
    Igual tengo la firme Teoría de que si aparece Jesús hoy, sería un pobre barbudo, sucio, rarito (quien no ha tenido relaciones hoy en día a los 33 años??), que viviría con la madre, al cual miraríamos con desconfianza pensando que seguramente nos esta engañando y que algo nos quiere sacar! Y hasta los mismos extremistas católicos discriminarían, por uso de la magia y la predilección que son ciencias paganas.

  • Rodrigo Cabrera

    LOL, well that escalated quicly.
    Hey pablo actually you can say to your ignorant catholic friends that the pope all ready accepted all gay comunitie, and talk about respecting them and treat them like brothers and part of the catholic church, so FUCK THEM ALL!