Did Jesus really exist? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 02-27-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Very solid. Not to mention that one could compare and contrast all of the stories of the ancient people's that are similar. Most noteable about the flood is the comparison between the bible version and then the story of Gilgamesh, and I even think there is an Aztec version.

Re: Gilgamesh, read the book I linked to above.

The rest: Poppycock and double poppycock.

My first college incarnation was as a geology student. I also have studying a fair bit about the Bible.

The interesting thing about the "flood" is that there IS evidence that costal areas DID suffer wide spread flooding over a large area in the Mediteranian area several thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no evidence that there was a cataclysmic world wide flood.

tecoyah · 02-27-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thagrastay
The problem here lies in the assumption by most people that the technology of the time of the flood was equal to that of about the time of the Roman Civilization. But this is far from the case. It is more credible to assume that the level of technological advancement at the time of the flood was at least equal to our own. It is also likely that most of the great mysteries of antiquity were antediluvian as well. The Sphynx was most likely built before the flood as it certainly bears signs of being covered by great flood waters. The landing strips on the Nazca Plains in Peru, the Monoliths at Easter Island, the various Stonehenge creations as well as the various other structures of questionable origin that dot our planet.
The french countryside, in some spots, is speckled with petrified stumps of equi-distant size and depth across the landscape, all snapped off at a similar level. Like modern day telephone poles would be in a similar situation.
The stories of Atlantis, or Lemuria could be about Sodom and Gommorah, or they could be about the pre-flood world. But it is silly to think that Adam and Eve's offspring who were the firstfruits, created directly by the hand of God, were anything less than Genius. Look at their accomplishments according to their generations, while also bearing in mind that these people lived centuries, rather than decades, and didn't face the modern problems of sickness and stupidity.
The legends of old- the Stories of Zeus and Odin and Hercules and such probably were based upon real exploits of the Nephilim- that race of Giants that existed as well. The Hindu sanskrits describe aerial dogfights between aircraft, and ancient artifacts have been found that look awfully close to our modern-day fighter jets.
The incredulity that Noah was faced with every day and the ridicule he endured may not have been because he was building an Ark, but because he was building an Ark in such and old-fashioned way.
To top that all off, there is no mention of rain in the Bible until the flood. That could be because they began polluting and it caused a manner of cloud-seeding. But that is pure speculation on my part. The Bible mentions that not only did the water come from above, but the wellsprings of the deep opened up and water exploded from beneath as well. This is what seperated the continents, and it was no gradual thing, either. In the end, most of the traces of pre-flood civilization were destroyed and Noah and his children were thrown into the stone age, left with their generations following, to communicate with cave paintings and animal skins and such.

That was, quite possibly, the most entertaining piece of desperate rationalization I have ever seen. I almost became disoriented reading your"theories".

This is why I declined the invitation for debate, in the first place.

hannukah harry · 02-27-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Very solid. Not to mention that one could compare and contrast all of the stories of the ancient people's that are similar. Most noteable about the flood is the comparison between the bible version and then the story of Gilgamesh, and I even think there is an Aztec version.

i think a much more logical reason would be because all ancient civilizations started out on river valley's that would flood each year. so they have a "shared" memory of what was really just a common occurance of where they lived.

also, if civilization were at current technology levels, don't you think that more than just noah's ark would have survived? what about other massive boats, like aircraft carriers? don't you think they would have made it through? with some technology so that those who were on it could have restarted their civ's at or near their previous techonological levels?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-27-2004, 07:12 PM

Well first off civilization at the time of the BC's was no where near what it is at now. One thing where they had us Astronomy. Also said cultures were extremely advanced mathematically(sp) speaking, at least more then we have given them credit. But the reason why the ark is not around is because Noah's story takes place nearly 7000 years ago, and if you want to bring Gilgamesh into it I think that dates back almost 22,000 years (correct me if I'm wrong). That having been said, metal rusts and wood rots.

hannukah harry · 02-27-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well first off civilization at the time of the BC's was no where near what it is at now. One thing where they had us Astronomy. Also said cultures were extremely advanced mathematically(sp) speaking, at least more then we have given them credit. But the reason why the ark is not around is because Noah's story takes place nearly 7000 years ago, and if you want to bring Gilgamesh into it I think that dates back almost 22,000 years (correct me if I'm wrong). That having been said, metal rusts and wood rots.

the epic of gilgamesh is from 5,000-3,000 BC, not sure exactly where in it. it's an epic of ancient mesopotamia. a "post" flood civ.

to say they had us on astronomy would also be inaccurate. we have all the knowledge they had and more. about the only things we don't know as well as ancient culture would be "magic."

/cue spooky music

Ustwo · 02-27-2004, 08:12 PM

People don't give enough credit to ancient civilizations. If they did you wouldn't have morons thinking the pyramids were built by aliens and the like.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean they had technology unknown to us.

I think any intelligent Christian will focus on the New Testament and not feel the need to explain away inconsistencies in the old testament.

iccky · 03-05-2004, 10:26 AM

Returning the thread to the original question, one of the best proofs that Jesus did indeed exist is the gospels themselves (and here I refer to not just the four canonical gospels but also "heretical" gospels like the gospel of thomas). Lets remember that they all appeared in different places, each one using different sources and quoting different material (except that mathew and luke both used mark as a source) and all coming up with a very simmilar portrait of Jesus. Either there is some truth underlying this, or there was an unbelivably effieient conspriracy allowing the early christians to get their stories straight.

The fact that we no little about Jesus' early life is of little concern. The Gospel writers was only concerned with those parts of Jesus' life that affected people's faith.

Finally, there are the non-christian sources about Jesus. The best is Josephus, and while some people think that he was edited by later christians most agree that he does, at least, mention Jesus since he uses words and phrases about him that appear nowhere in christian texts. Also, in early Jewish criticizems of Jesus, there is never the claim the Jesus didn't exist, only that he was not who he claimed to be.

FailedEagle · 09-03-2005, 07:45 PM

This may or may not come off as odd, but I'm revisiting this thread. In light of what I've been reading this seems to be a question being posed more often than not is the question of Jesus's existance. I've been reading about how nothing was written by him and nothing was written during his lifetime about him, and this and that. So, I'm going to ask that the existance of George Washington be proven. You'll hopefully catch my drift fairly quickly.

hannukah harry · 09-04-2005, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FailedEagle

This may or may not come off as odd, but I'm revisiting this thread. In light of what I've been reading this seems to be a question being posed more often than not is the question of Jesus's existance. I've been reading about how nothing was written by him and nothing was written during his lifetime about him, and this and that. So, I'm going to ask that the existance of George Washington be proven. You'll hopefully catch my drift fairly quickly.

your drift is caught, and it's a bad analogy.

we have washingtons writings. we have paintings of him that were done during his lifetime (so we know he was a whiteman that wore an english style wig) and i do believe we have his fake teeth in a museum, although i could be wrong about that part. we have his signiture on documents, we have thousands of contemporary eye-witness accounts describing events that had happened hours and days before.

with jesus we have a book compiled 300 years after he died consisting of smaller books that were written at the closest 30 years after he died. and those individual chapters are very possibly written each by multiple authors who may or may not have known jesus and been who they say they are.

if jesus was so important, why didn't his buddies have him sit for a painting? why didn't they write down and chrnonicle his life while following him around? why'd they wait 30-60 years (at minimum) before finally writing it down? why is he not mentioned anywhere else by anyone? what makes you think that the bible is inerrant when it was written so long after he died? and then with all the contradictions?

you may not be able to see or hear washington because he lived before the age of video. but we know what he looked like and what he thought and wrote about, we know what others that lived during his time thought of him. with jesus we only a white man on a cross (who wasn't white) with stories written by a few people long after he died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

jimbob · 09-04-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iccky

Lets remember that they all appeared in different places, each one using different sources and quoting different material (except that mathew and luke both used mark as a source) and all coming up with a very simmilar portrait of Jesus. Either there is some truth underlying this, or there was an unbelivably effieient conspriracy allowing the early christians to get their stories straight.

Not only were they similar to each other, they were similar to earlier stories about mythical godmen. Those stories were purely allegorical, like the stories of Zeus etc, and were recounted in societies grom Greece through to Mesopotamia. It's no great stretch of the imagination to suppose that some of the myths spread to Judea as well. Anyway, a son of god, born to a virgin after a 7 month pregnancy, who performs miracles such as turning water into wine at a wedding, gets himself a following and is then falsely accused and executed is a story which predates even the supposed birth of Jesus.

FailedEagle · 09-04-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

your drift is caught, and it's a bad analogy.

we have washingtons writings. we have paintings of him that were done during his lifetime (so we know he was a whiteman that wore an english style wig) and i do believe we have his fake teeth in a museum, although i could be wrong about that part. we have his signiture on documents, we have thousands of contemporary eye-witness accounts describing events that had happened hours and days before.

I could just as easily have made up this person years and year and years ago when storytelling was the major medium. I could have fabricated to my audience when they were sitting around me the whole story. I could have made three false paintings of what he looked like and people could have continued from what they saw and fabricated his picture also. I'm not for one second saying that George Washington didn't exist, I'm just telling you that after no one is alive that lived during the times that these things happened, they could just as easily become fictional stories that someone made up for personal gain. Eventually these stories become real. Another theory is similar to The Village. If you have seen that movie, you know that there was a small village seperated from the "outside" world in which they created their own realities.

with jesus we have a book compiled 300 years after he died consisting of smaller books that were written at the closest 30 years after he died. and those individual chapters are very possibly written each by multiple authors who may or may not have known jesus and been who they say they are.

Quote:

if jesus was so important, why didn't his buddies have him sit for a painting? why didn't they write down and chrnonicle his life while following him around? why'd they wait 30-60 years (at minimum) before finally writing it down? why is he not mentioned anywhere else by anyone? what makes you think that the bible is inerrant when it was written so long after he died? and then with all the contradictions?

My belief is that Christ was too humble for a painting. Or perhaps they just sucked at drawing. I can't draw worth a lick. I could be asked to draw my mother, and I promise you couldn't tell who she was supposed to be. The bible is the most accurate book that I have ever read. Contradictions don't exist, unless you want them too.

Quote:

you may not be able to see or hear washington because he lived before the age of video. but we know what he looked like and what he thought and wrote about, we know what others that lived during his time thought of him. with jesus we only a white man on a cross (who wasn't white) with stories written by a few people long after he died.

We know that Jesus was of Arab decent with black hair. According to you we don't even know that he was on a cross, these things weren't written before he'd been risen for 30 years. Why do we not think that perhaps these things were written down during his lifetime, and perhaps, revised or edited later? We write rough drafts, then second drafts, then third drafts, then fourth drafts, before finally getting to something that is worth publishing. Why would something as important as Christ not go under the same scruitny?

tecoyah · 09-04-2005, 07:19 AM

It would seem the difference here is compelling evidence. While indeed you could have fabricated George Washington, there is evidence available that would be very difficult to forge and the timeframe is significantly shorter since his death (thus less time for embelishment). We are also dealing with historians with a much smaller agenda as the translators of documentation. The likelyhood of accurate information surviving to this day, after the incredible amount of translation and manipulation of these texts, considering the existing evidence of changes made by those in control of the church (pick one) are slim at best.

Likely Jesus DID exist....but we will never know who he really was. Primarily due to those who made him what he is seen as today.

hannukah harry · 09-04-2005, 10:58 AM

tecoyah put it about as well as it possibly could be... we have plenty of direct evidence that george washington lived. but we have teh same amount of evidence for the boogey man as we do for a historical jesus. i think it's possible that there was a man that was the mythical jesus was partially based on, but who he was, what his name was, are things we're likely to never know or be able to find out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FailedEagle

I could just as easily have made up this person years and year and years ago when storytelling was the major medium. I could have fabricated to my audience when they were sitting around me the whole story. I could have made three false paintings of what he looked like and people could have continued from what they saw and fabricated his picture also. I'm not for one second saying that George Washington didn't exist, I'm just telling you that after no one is alive that lived during the times that these things happened, they could just as easily become fictional stories that someone made up for personal gain. Eventually these stories become real. Another theory is similar to The Village. If you have seen that movie, you know that there was a small village seperated from the "outside" world in which they created their own realities.

you could have fabricated all of the stuff you mention about telling, paintings, etc, but can you fake a 300 year old painting that will pass the scrutiny of experts? probably not. you use of the the movie 'the village' is kinda amusing... they maintain their reality by keeping those not in the know ignorant. seems a good analogy for christianity if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FailedEagle

My belief is that Christ was too humble for a painting. Or perhaps they just sucked at drawing. I can't draw worth a lick. I could be asked to draw my mother, and I promise you couldn't tell who she was supposed to be. The bible is the most accurate book that I have ever read. Contradictions don't exist, unless you want them too.

too humble for a painting? i doubt sitting for a portrait was something that required vast amounts of pride or egotism. and your thoughts on the apostle's drawing ability... well, you're really pulling outta thin air there...

again, going back to 'fabricated realities,' if you think that the bible is the most accurate book ever, then you're in your own reality. read the link i posted, it discusses just a few of the discrepancies. i guess you can say it's the most accurate since one of the many things it says on the same topic must be right, eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FailedEagle

We know that Jesus was of Arab decent with black hair. According to you we don't even know that he was on a cross, these things weren't written before he'd been risen for 30 years. Why do we not think that perhaps these things were written down during his lifetime, and perhaps, revised or edited later? We write rough drafts, then second drafts, then third drafts, then fourth drafts, before finally getting to something that is worth publishing. Why would something as important as Christ not go under the same scruitny?

well, there's no contemporary account of him being on the cross, no evidence of it, so no, we don't know that he was on it. based on the actual evidence we have for him, if that's enough for you, then we could just as well convict someone of killing someone even though no one saw it, we don't have the murder weapon. nothing but a story.

if the bible is the inerrant word of god given to us through humans, then there's no need for rewrites. maybe translations, but thats it. you can't edit or rewrite the word of god, eh?

asaris · 09-04-2005, 11:40 AM

How many paintings do we have of Jesus' contemporaries? It doesn't seem to me like portraiture was very common back in 1st century Palestine.

And your website is quite a bit off, Harry. The majority of biblical scholars, secular as well as Christian, think that the gospels were all written in the first century, with John being the latest at around 90 CE, and Mark the first, written around 60 CE. Some Christian scholars, with the theory that Matthew was written first, date them even earlier.

hannukah harry · 09-04-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

How many paintings do we have of Jesus' contemporaries? It doesn't seem to me like portraiture was very common back in 1st century Palestine.

And your website is quite a bit off, Harry. The majority of biblical scholars, secular as well as Christian, think that the gospels were all written in the first century, with John being the latest at around 90 CE, and Mark the first, written around 60 CE. Some Christian scholars, with the theory that Matthew was written first, date them even earlier.

i agree we don't have many paintings from that time especially of the non-important poeple. but there was a thriving culture of art, so that someone as important as jesus was supposed to be, don't you think someone would have taken the time to sculpt or paint him from memory?

and i agree that the page isn't great about the dates. i've always heard the dates you mentioned as well. there are a couple other things he mentions if you read the whole page that i think are logical conclusions, but by no means the only conclusions possible nor the most valid ones he could make. but some of the other things he mentions are pretty valid concerns, especially when it comes to inaccuracies in what is written and said within the bible that isn't accurate. the page has good food for thought, even if some of it seems a bit spoiled.

asaris · 09-04-2005, 12:56 PM

Well, I looked over the web page you mentioned, Harry, and I thought I'd point out a few flaws in his arguments:

Quote:

The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition

...

Quote:

But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language

This is debatable. There are biblical scholars who think that it was originally written in Aramaic -- a minority, to be sure, but it is a disputed point.

Quote:

Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ

This was really a fairly common practice in ancient literature, and doesn't necessarily indicate the same level of culpability as if someone did the same thing today. They had different views about authorship and plagiarism than what we have.

Quote:

We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology

Ah, the good old-fashioned argument from silence. Just because there's no extra-biblical evidence of Nazareth doesn't mean that there's evidence that there's no evidence.

Quote:

add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear

There's a lot of fabulous stuff in the gospels; why pick on this point, which is hardly as unlikely as, say, a guy walking on water.

Quote:

According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years

To the best of my knowledge, none of the gospels say a word about how long his ministry lasted.

Quote:

But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb?

Symbolism and tastefulness. Crucifixion was a grisly death, and especially during the time they were still being used, it might well have seemed in poor taste to portray it in art.

Quote:

In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote.

Only one explanation! Hardly -- perhaps Paul mentioned it to people in person, perhaps he thought all Christians had heard already, or perhaps he didn't think it was important.

Don't forget two things: that Jesus wasn't terribly important during his life, and that alot of art from antiquity has been lost or damaged. Maybe no one thought it important what he looked like, maybe there were pictures that have been lost, or maybe there are pictures, and we just don't know that they are pictures of Christ.

tecoyah · 09-04-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

*snip*
perhaps Paul mentioned it to people in person, perhaps he thought all Christians had heard already, or perhaps he didn't think it was important.

Don't forget two things: that Jesus wasn't terribly important during his life, and that alot of art from antiquity has been lost or damaged. Maybe no one thought it important what he looked like, maybe there were pictures that have been lost, or maybe there are pictures, and we just don't know that they are pictures of Christ.

Lets just cut to the chase here.......

Conjecture seems to be the favored choice used to defend scripture, which is all good and fine for faith.However, there are those who require a bit more Data to accept something as fact. I would ask those who follow the Christ to attempt to truly convince me that these writtings are actual documentation of the life of the Son of God.Just a quick heads up for anyone willing to attempt this:

I have three versions of the bible in my home
I will require Hard data to be swayed
I have a relatively complete memory of the bulk of Old and New Testament, as well as the King James version
I have a copy of the apocrypha....somewhere
I will tear apart the text as needed, please do not be offended

I want to be clear that I have no issue with Christianity, and am willing to do this only to try to prove a point.

Ustwo · 09-04-2005, 02:03 PM

Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax.

Jew 1 'Hey lets make up a new religion!'

Jew 2 'Cool!'

Jew 1 'Yea we will go all over the place and make up stories anyone could verify if they tried but we will assume they won't and then we can be put to death for it by the roman empire!'

Jew 2 'Totally awesome, I've always wanted to die for a hoax!'

Jew 1 'Yea it will be great.'

The point being you don’t need to believe in Jesus’s divinity to believe in Jesus. Someone started this in motion, someone effected people in such a way they were willing to die for it, someone managed to make his name as close to immortal as any. This doesn’t make him the son of god, but its going to take some real splaining to make him into a hoax.

asaris · 09-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Tecoyah -- I'm just disproving an argument for Jesus's non-existence, not arguing for his existence. The quote I was responding to specifically said there was only one possible explanation for Paul's failure to mention the virgin birth, so conjecture is a perfectly valid response.

tecoyah · 09-04-2005, 02:29 PM

I agree....it was a valid response, and I actually believe Jesus existed. I am asking for actual proof that the scriptures portray the life of "The Son of God", as this is the basis for Christianity.

As for this:"Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax."

Perhaps a bit of research into the history of Christianity, and the people who made it what it is would help clarify this for your imagination, as it was formed over the last 1000 yrs into the church we have today. The current incarnation bears little resemblance to what it was in infancy. The same can be said of the Bibles.

Including such ommisions as these:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/

Ustwo · 09-04-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Perhaps a bit of research into the history of Christianity, and the people who made it what it is would help clarify this for your imagination, as it was formed over the last 1000 yrs into the church we have today. The current incarnation bears little resemblance to what it was in infancy. The same can be said of the Bibles.

Including such ommisions as these:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/

But this has no bearing on Jesus's exsistance/non-exsistance. The evolution of christian faiths is quite interesting to me, but a totally different topic.

tecoyah · 09-04-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I actually believe Jesus existed. I am asking for actual proof that the scriptures portray the life of "The Son of God", as this is the basis for Christianity.

I will again refer to this....and have no intention of further pointless replys to your failure to understand the question.

Ustwo · 09-04-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I will again refer to this....and have no intention of further pointless replys to your failure to understand the question.

I missed you going on a tangent, my applogies, I thought we were still speaking of Jesus's exsistance.

tecoyah · 09-04-2005, 04:00 PM

Nevermind....My apologies for thread hijack. I will not attempt to do so again.

FailedEagle · 09-04-2005, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

i agree we don't have many paintings from that time especially of the non-important poeple. but there was a thriving culture of art, so that someone as important as jesus was supposed to be, don't you think someone would have taken the time to sculpt or paint him from memory?

Other than his followers, he wasn't important, he was either unknown or a fraud to the rest of the world. If I knew that I was following the Messiah, I doubt I'd take the time to write about it or draw a picture of him, after all, I was in the presence of the Son of God, I would just absorb as much as he would allow. Maybe I'm wrong. Even if you did take "notes" (What sort of medium did they use as a writing utencil? I am not sure.) What are the odds of them being found? As often as Christ traveled? Just isn't logical to be following him, writing down everything he does as he does it. It just doesn't happen.

sol1301982 · 09-04-2005, 09:31 PM

The proof for Jesus's exsistence isn't in the Bible, its in the documents used (and not used) in its compilation. As with anything one doesn't have a direct experience of, it's whether you trust the sources and/or the "experts" that analyze these sources.

hannukah harry · 09-04-2005, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FailedEagle

Other than his followers, he wasn't important, he was either unknown or a fraud to the rest of the world. If I knew that I was following the Messiah, I doubt I'd take the time to write about it or draw a picture of him, after all, I was in the presence of the Son of God, I would just absorb as much as he would allow. Maybe I'm wrong. Even if you did take "notes" (What sort of medium did they use as a writing utencil? I am not sure.) What are the odds of them being found? As often as Christ traveled? Just isn't logical to be following him, writing down everything he does as he does it. It just doesn't happen.

if he was the son of god and making all these miracles, healing the sick, feeding thousands off of a few loaves of bread and fish, don't you think he'd get pretty well known pretty quickly? if you were following around the son of god, you'd porbalby at the end of the day record anything important that happened so you wouldn't ever forget. it seems odd that his followers decided to wait 30-60 years to write it down, and two fo them had to go off of a thirds.

Willravel · 09-04-2005, 09:47 PM

Jesus could have existed. I believe He existed. I have no proof. I doubt anyone has scientific proof. Does that make the answer to the question a 'maybe'?

jimbob · 09-05-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly.

here's one:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

florida0214 · 09-29-2005, 06:45 AM

All that really matters is that people believed he existed and if you don't then so be it. I guess we will al find out in the end. I hope everybody is happy with their eternity whatever it may be. People believe he existed. Not only that but enough people believe he existed to create a whole culture around it. That is amazing. Everybody always awnts facts and proof well there are so many things out there that we simply do not know and accept as fact way does this have to be such a hot topic.
I think some people start these conversations simply to get people heated. If you don't believe Jesus or God exists than great. You better hope your right cus if were right then sucks to be you. No harm in anybody believing their right. just leave well enough alone.

02-27-2004, 07:12 PM	#44 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well first off civilization at the time of the BC's was no where near what it is at now. One thing where they had us Astronomy. Also said cultures were extremely advanced mathematically(sp) speaking, at least more then we have given them credit. But the reason why the ark is not around is because Noah's story takes place nearly 7000 years ago, and if you want to bring Gilgamesh into it I think that dates back almost 22,000 years (correct me if I'm wrong). That having been said, metal rusts and wood rots. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-27-2004, 08:12 PM	#46 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	People don't give enough credit to ancient civilizations. If they did you wouldn't have morons thinking the pyramids were built by aliens and the like. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they had technology unknown to us. I think any intelligent Christian will focus on the New Testament and not feel the need to explain away inconsistencies in the old testament. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-03-2005, 07:45 PM	#48 (permalink)
FailedEagle Crazy	This may or may not come off as odd, but I'm revisiting this thread. In light of what I've been reading this seems to be a question being posed more often than not is the question of Jesus's existance. I've been reading about how nothing was written by him and nothing was written during his lifetime about him, and this and that. So, I'm going to ask that the existance of George Washington be proven. You'll hopefully catch my drift fairly quickly. __________________ Head over to Nonsense to sign up for the newest round Of the Trivial Racing Image Game. Hurry.

09-04-2005, 07:19 AM	#52 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It would seem the difference here is compelling evidence. While indeed you could have fabricated George Washington, there is evidence available that would be very difficult to forge and the timeframe is significantly shorter since his death (thus less time for embelishment). We are also dealing with historians with a much smaller agenda as the translators of documentation. The likelyhood of accurate information surviving to this day, after the incredible amount of translation and manipulation of these texts, considering the existing evidence of changes made by those in control of the church (pick one) are slim at best. Likely Jesus DID exist....but we will never know who he really was. Primarily due to those who made him what he is seen as today. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-04-2005, 11:40 AM	#54 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	How many paintings do we have of Jesus' contemporaries? It doesn't seem to me like portraiture was very common back in 1st century Palestine. And your website is quite a bit off, Harry. The majority of biblical scholars, secular as well as Christian, think that the gospels were all written in the first century, with John being the latest at around 90 CE, and Mark the first, written around 60 CE. Some Christian scholars, with the theory that Matthew was written first, date them even earlier. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

03-05-2004, 10:26 AM	#47 (permalink)
iccky Psycho Location: Princeton, NJ	Returning the thread to the original question, one of the best proofs that Jesus did indeed exist is the gospels themselves (and here I refer to not just the four canonical gospels but also "heretical" gospels like the gospel of thomas). Lets remember that they all appeared in different places, each one using different sources and quoting different material (except that mathew and luke both used mark as a source) and all coming up with a very simmilar portrait of Jesus. Either there is some truth underlying this, or there was an unbelivably effieient conspriracy allowing the early christians to get their stories straight. The fact that we no little about Jesus' early life is of little concern. The Gospel writers was only concerned with those parts of Jesus' life that affected people's faith. Finally, there are the non-christian sources about Jesus. The best is Josephus, and while some people think that he was edited by later christians most agree that he does, at least, mention Jesus since he uses words and phrases about him that appear nowhere in christian texts. Also, in early Jewish criticizems of Jesus, there is never the claim the Jesus didn't exist, only that he was not who he claimed to be.

09-04-2005, 02:03 PM	#58 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax. Jew 1 'Hey lets make up a new religion!' Jew 2 'Cool!' Jew 1 'Yea we will go all over the place and make up stories anyone could verify if they tried but we will assume they won't and then we can be put to death for it by the roman empire!' Jew 2 'Totally awesome, I've always wanted to die for a hoax!' Jew 1 'Yea it will be great.' The point being you don’t need to believe in Jesus’s divinity to believe in Jesus. Someone started this in motion, someone effected people in such a way they were willing to die for it, someone managed to make his name as close to immortal as any. This doesn’t make him the son of god, but its going to take some real splaining to make him into a hoax. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-04-2005, 02:15 PM	#59 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Tecoyah -- I'm just disproving an argument for Jesus's non-existence, not arguing for his existence. The quote I was responding to specifically said there was only one possible explanation for Paul's failure to mention the virgin birth, so conjecture is a perfectly valid response. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

09-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#60 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I agree....it was a valid response, and I actually believe Jesus existed. I am asking for actual proof that the scriptures portray the life of "The Son of God", as this is the basis for Christianity. As for this:"Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax." Perhaps a bit of research into the history of Christianity, and the people who made it what it is would help clarify this for your imagination, as it was formed over the last 1000 yrs into the church we have today. The current incarnation bears little resemblance to what it was in infancy. The same can be said of the Bibles. Including such ommisions as these: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/ __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-04-2005, 04:00 PM	#64 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Nevermind....My apologies for thread hijack. I will not attempt to do so again. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-04-2005, 09:31 PM	#66 (permalink)
sol1301982 Upright	The proof for Jesus's exsistence isn't in the Bible, its in the documents used (and not used) in its compilation. As with anything one doesn't have a direct experience of, it's whether you trust the sources and/or the "experts" that analyze these sources.

09-04-2005, 09:47 PM	#68 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Jesus could have existed. I believe He existed. I have no proof. I doubt anyone has scientific proof. Does that make the answer to the question a 'maybe'?

09-29-2005, 06:45 AM	#70 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	All that really matters is that people believed he existed and if you don't then so be it. I guess we will al find out in the end. I hope everybody is happy with their eternity whatever it may be. People believe he existed. Not only that but enough people believe he existed to create a whole culture around it. That is amazing. Everybody always awnts facts and proof well there are so many things out there that we simply do not know and accept as fact way does this have to be such a hot topic. I think some people start these conversations simply to get people heated. If you don't believe Jesus or God exists than great. You better hope your right cus if were right then sucks to be you. No harm in anybody believing their right. just leave well enough alone.