How is Jesus's claim to fame any different to a Pharoah's?
926446
Different indeed as there is countless proof that the eqyptians existed. We have much in the archives about eqypt and its history.\nNot much on Jesus. A book that has had countless changes by many religions and I think America has abused and butchered the basic beliefs in Jesus as a god. \nBelieve in something. Anything you wish,as long as it never harms a soul.
605461
Even His name has changed! The letter "J" wasn't invented until 1630! Up until then, the letter "Y" was used.\nI keep trying to tell you Christian folks His name wasn't/isn't Jesus. That's simply the anglicized version of His Hebrew name.
601496
The wedding at Caana is the closest you'll find to evidence that Jesus was married.  It was Jewish tradition that the groom provide the wine for the wedding.  It makes no sense for Mary to be so concerned about the wine unless it was her son's wedding.  Notice that the story never says whose wedding it was?
333237
According to the Christian bible Jesus got angry and turned over tables in a synagogue and he also whipped people for selling birds. God does not behave like this and it contradicts Jesus' teaching according to that same bible. The doctrine of Jesus being "fully man and fully god" was not believed by the early Christians and the Roman church came to this conclusion by voting. That's right, let's vote to determine what god is. f that.
181178
You are right, the Bible doesn't say much about his childhood or early adult life.  Chances are his life during that stage was pretty ordinary and didn't make for good story telling.  The bigger picture of Jesus outside of teh Biblical description is referred to as the "Historical Jesus".  These descriptions may not always set well with Christians.  But there are plenty of historians have pieced together facts from multiples sources that paint a much broader picture of who Jesus really was.
1177672
He....   darn it.  I thought I had the recipe sitting here but I seem to have lost it.\n\nGeez, what kind of question is that any way?\n\nLet's assume for a minute that you are asking about a just a mundane operation like walking from one town to another.  The inclusion of the word "exactly" in a question about a 2000 year old event makes one wonder what your epistemelogical standard is.   \n\nThe quick and the dirty of the situation is, I don't know.  I think it probably did happen though. I'm not a fundementalist, so therefore it's not necessary for the New Testament accounts, in this case the Gospel of John, to be completly inerrant for me to sign on.  They just have to be generally historically accurate, like any other set of historical documents from the time.\n\nSome people's a priori commitment to pure materialism aside, the story seems to be authentic to me.  It has specific details that a good old propaganda story probably wouldn't contain.  Such as Jesus's disagreement with his mother and his consequent quip at her.  And then he actuallly does what she suggested.  Propaganda created from whole cloth would probably contain less contraversy in it.  \n\nThe Gospel of John is actually the New Testament book that we have the earliest documentary evidence of.  Part of it was found in the Nag Hammadi (sp?) library in Egypt and has been dated to about 130 a.d.   That's pretty darn close to the events described compared to most ancient historical documents that are considered authoritative.
556672
Jesus was not son of God, he was a prophet.
119211
Jesus is pretty famous.  When he told the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37, he was specifically stating that racism is a sin.\n\nIn the story, Jesus was explaining the commandment to "love thy neighbor" to a jewish lawyer.  Jesus described a man who had been robbed, beaten and left for dead.  The victim was ignored by priests and religious leaders and was finally helped by a Samaritan, who brought him to an inn and paid for his care.\n\nThe only person who acted like a "neighbor" was the Samaritan.  Samaritans where only half-jewish and viewed as "impure".  The jewish lawyer couldn't even say the word Samaritan.\n\nReading the story in that context, you can see that Jesus was saying racism is a sin.
634635
God and Jesus are different. God is the father and Jesus is the son of God.
31422
He was a man that might have lived around 2000 years ago (there is no ACTUAL proof of this) but is more likely a composite of many people.  He played the role of a sacred king of the Jews who died in an atonement ceremony as surrogate for the real king.  Many middle eastern traditions presented a long line of slain and cannibalized saviors, Jesus certainly not being the first.  He is similar to the Roman Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus (all eaten as bread), and similar to Attis in that he was sacrificed at the spring equinox, like Orpheus and Heracles, he harrowed "hell" and found the secret to eternal life.\n\nSo basically, he is a combination of several mythical gods that the christian (and other) belief systems chose as the savior and son of god. \n\nBy the way...to everyone who disagrees...it is important to remember that historically speaking, Jesus was not ever written about during his "lifetime".  The only historically accurate person from the bible was Pontius Pilate.  All of the gospels were written after his death and the names of the Apostles were fraudulent.  Most scholars believe that the earliest book of the New Testament was written around 51 AD by Paul who never saw Jesus in the flesh.
950882
There is plenty of historical evidence that there was a real man named Jesus that did and said the things that are recorded in the New Testament.  Some people choose to dismiss him as  a myth because it easier then to have to deal with who He was and what He taught.  Basically, you either believe He is who He claimed to be - The Son of God - or you don't.  And if you choose not to believe, you have to justify why you don't believe.  Embracing the "myth theory" is one way to justify ones unbelief.  But if you seriously study the evidence, I think you will see that it is a flimsy argument with no historical support.  Most of the people on here that claim Jesus is a myth have never examined the evidence one way or the other.  Most of them just heard someone else say it was so and they latched on to it as a way of dismissing the whole story.  At least in their own mind.
543001
Well all this bloodline business is pure speculation, however that Jesus was married to the Magdalene is more than speculation since we have evidence in the writings of the earliest christians. You are right to say the christians never thought Jesus was god and such ideas crept into christianity centuries later. Once the church voted on the divinity of Jesus, they picked & chose the writings which suited them (and it's interesting that even with all the picking & choosing the so-called NT still does not declare that Jesus is god). DC is simply stirring up the old issue again and people are sick & tired of churches dictating what god is. And no, the churches do not like people to go sniffing into the past.
277172
It's not a weird notion.  There is no evidence of a lot of things that transpired during the times of Christ.   Sure the Bible talks about it and is the ONLY accepted history of that time.   I'm inclined to think that the apostles did run with their interpretation of Christ's teachings.   I'm not so sure it was to create an alternate Jewish religion, but an alternate politically correct on of the time.   Jesus didn't come to Earth to have people worship him as God.  That was furthest from his teachings.  His teachings were to show people the way to the Father through his teachings.  Even the perverstion of "The only way to heaven is through Christ."   It simply means that to get to heaven is to be like Christ and follow his teachings.   It does not mean to worship him as God.   Never has, never did, never will.
931109
Jesus is known as Issa.   eesa
578300
Is this Jesus now or Jesus when he was in a human body.I think Jesus could handle his liquor better.(this is pure speculation at my part)You always heard of Jesus drinking wine in the bible and I never heard of moses drinking wine  (I claim to be no bible scholar, thus I could be wrong. There is too much violence in the bible and the characters are painfully one dimensional for me to get into the book) Nevertheless, at the end of Jesus's career he drank lots of wine and ate lots of fish.Fish having a better amino acid profile than desert weeds which was accessible to Moses.Thus, Jesus was younger and more buff than Moses( and being the son of god can't be a negative)----Jesus wins,  a fair bet in Vegas 5:1
340936
artistic license.  What Jesus actually looked like is unknown.  He was definately of Middle Eastern decent.  He most likely was unshaven.  He probably had shorter hair (as was the common jewish style at the time) unlike the long haired interpretations.
1163307
I think this is the low down, Jesus was having some issues with this dude Satan, he was from the dark side. One day Jesus was cruising along in his cloud convertible and Satan called him out. Jesus knew he couldn't handle Satan by himself, I mean just look at the size of the pitchfork that mofo is packing. So he thought he needed some help, so he rang up Oprah, but she was busy with a show on 101 ways to stop Tom Cruise jumping on your couch, so Oprah suggested he get in touch with Tupac. This was a brilliant idea thought Jesus, after all he owes me big time for that day I gave him awesome sunshine to have a bumper crop. So Jesus asked Tupac and reminded him of a few things he had done for him and may have even exaggerated a little saying how he wanted tupac over Oprah, because tupac is more powerful then Oprah and tupac was happy to go along. Because just like Jesus sis "Bro's before Ho's" So I wouldn't say that Jesus abducted Tupac, I just think he was to wasted to not agree to go with Jesus. That and Jesus promised him a Big Mac when they got there.