NationStates Jolt Archive

He did exist but probably just as political and religious figure. By no means was he really a magical being. :D

The thing is, the Roman Empire relied on a centralised bureaucracy so much that, if you look hard enough, you could theoretically find out a goldmine of information about Jesus.

As it it, a Joseph and Mary from Nazareth mentioned in the 6 BC census in Bethlehem, are mentioned again along with a son (Joshua bar Joseph) in records from Nazareth about fifteen years later, and the crucifixion of a Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth is mentioned in letters from Pontius Pilate to his wife, and Herod Antipas to the soon-to-be Emperor Claudius Caesar in 28 AD.

It is almost certain that Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is another matter entirely.

have you seen these records (copies of course, not the originals) with your own eyes? are they quoted in church on sunday? did they have the text of them quoted in your sunday school books?

no?

i wonder why not.

have you seen these records (copies of course, not the originals) with your own eyes? are they quoted in church on sunday? did they have the text of them quoted in your sunday school books?

no?

i wonder why not.

They are probably stored next to the diary of Mary, in which she confesses the child she bore was from the milkman. And called Craig.

have you seen these records (copies of course, not the originals) with your own eyes? are they quoted in church on sunday? did they have the text of them quoted in your sunday school books?

no?

i wonder why not.


the vatican library?

They are probably stored next to the diary of Mary, in which she confesses the child she bore was from the milkman. And called Craig.
:eek:
ROFLMAO

Maybe God took them away to test us, or confuse us, maybe he/she is still reading them.
Maybe the church hid them because they were scared that people would know there was a magical being, or human who actually wanted to help other people.
Maybe they got destroyed in World War one or two, or burned by Hitler or Mussolini in the Book burning.

All quite possible. But the claim is that they at least existed and that the contents is known.
So.. where were they before they were destroyed ? Why do historians not know of them ?

have you seen these records (copies of course, not the originals) with your own eyes? are they quoted in church on sunday? did they have the text of them quoted in your sunday school books?

no?

i wonder why not.

Maybe God took them away to test us, or confuse us, maybe he/she is still reading them.
Maybe the church hid them because they were scared that people would know there was a magical being, or human who actually wanted to help other people.
Maybe they got destroyed in World War one or two, or burned by Hitler or Mussolini in the Book burning.

Maybe God took them away to test us, or confuse us, maybe he/she is still reading them.
Maybe the church hid them because they were scared that people would know there was a magical being, or human who actually wanted to help other people.
Maybe they got destroyed in World War one or two, or burned by Hitler or Mussolini in the Book burning.

Lets all join hands in the great religious passtime of making exuses!!!





(I know you were joking, at least I think you were, but I couldn't help but say it)

Does God exist?

And if so, where is the logic of his creation?

Was God merely bored with the massive void that existed?

Why do humans feel God is so vain that God wishes to have worshipers?

There are more interesting questions than to ask if one philosopher/revolutionary/militant/mystic/political leader existed or not.

Does God exist?

And if so, where is the logic of his creation?

Was God merely bored with the massive void that existed?

Why do humans feel God is so vain that God wishes to have worshipers?

There are more interesting questions than to ask if one philosopher/revolutionary/militant/mystic/political leader existed or not.

Did Jesus exist? Of course, he still does. He lives just three houses down with his wife, Cecilia, and two kids, Manolito and Xinomara. Nice family. I do wish Manolito would stop leaving his bike in front of my steps, however.

There are more interesting questions than to ask if one philosopher/revolutionary/militant/mystic/political leader existed or not.

That would be true in theory.
In practice however I am amazed by the huge number of people that loudly declares with absolute certainty there are mountains of documents confirming Jesus existence without a shadow of a doubt - while in reality there simply aren't any.

I am fascinated by this. Why do these people feel the need to convince themselves that their lies are true ? Why can they not just say "I have faith Jesus existed, regardless of evidence" ?

Lets all join hands in the great religious passtime of making exuses!!!

(I know you were joking, at least I think you were, but I couldn't help but say it)exuses?

Did Jesus exist? Of course, he still does. He lives just three houses down with his wife, Cecilia, and two kids, Manolito and Xinomara. Nice family. I do wish Manolito would stop leaving his bike in front of my steps, however.Does he have a weakness for long iron nails?

That would be true in theory.
In practice however I am amazed by the huge number of people that loudly declares with absolute certainty there are mountains of documents confirming Jesus existence without a shadow of a doubt - while in reality there simply aren't any.

I am fascinated by this. Why do these people feel the need to convince themselves that their lies are true ? Why can they not just say "I have faith Jesus existed, regardless of evidence" ?

especially since there is no reason why there SHOULD be any record of jesus during his lifetime. he was an intinerant preacher in a land of many intinerant preachers. why would anyone waste their precious ink and papyrus to jot down anything about him?

especially since there is no reason why there SHOULD be any record of jesus during his lifetime. he was an intinerant preacher in a land of many intinerant preachers. why would anyone waste their precious ink and papyrus to jot down anything about him?what was a land with many itinerant preachers?

Huh, before this, I never realized there was debate about the existence of Jesus Christ. His divinity, sure, that was always debatable, but whether the person ever resided on earth I thought had been pretty well established.

Well, it seems that over the course of this discussion, all evidence originating from religious texts has been deemed "inaccurate," and hence has been discarded. Now, I find this odd, due to the fact while theologically the bible and other texts aren't taken as accurate, it is still regarded as historically accurate for the most part (this belief extends mostly toward the New Testament, where it is in recent enough history where the are comparing accounts to check it against). Wait, I think there is some support I can put here:

"It must be extremely significant that, in view of the great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the Biblical history of these periods, there exists today not one unquestionable find of archeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point" (Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science, [Chicago:ÿMoody Press, 1956]).

Now, that is fairly old, and no longer completely accurate. Amongst the supported cases of biblical accuracy, there are things that are at least questioned by lack of evidence. (The events of exodus should have left evidence, but little has been found). However, we're just looking at the existence of JEsus, so perhaps I'm a little off topic.

It should be a hint to his existence in that 1. different religious texts acknolwedge his existence, if not his divinity. 2. The Jewish religion, which would stand to gain much in the nonexistence of Jesus, says he still existed and yes, they killed him

But lets look at secular texts. So to the ever helpful wikipedia. Ah, here we go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historicity

"The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. One recent study has stated that biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[33]"

Effectively refuted? Well, lets see there a link, so lets go to that:

^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16

Does this count as acceptable evidence? Its from a non-religious source, so no inherent bias...

As for the second part of the question... Chaos theory says it does matter. But I suppose that wouldn't be accepted.

Does this count as acceptable evidence? Its from a non-religious source, so no inherent bias...


no it shouldnt count because it has no details. but it might spur you on to look up mr Van Voorst and find out just what refutation has been done and see if you agree with him that its actually refuted.

I am reserving judgement about him being the son of god until i die, but i do believe that Jesus at least as a human did exist. And yes, there are documents about him from the period. i also did some digging and found this site which contains a lot of answers to the original question asked here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Well, it seems that over the course of this discussion, all evidence originating from religious texts has been deemed "inaccurate," and hence has been discarded. Now, I find this odd, due to the fact while theologically the bible and other texts aren't taken as accurate, it is still regarded as historically accurate for the most part (this belief extends mostly toward the New Testament, where it is in recent enough history where the are comparing accounts to check it against). Wait, I think there is some support I can put here:

"It must be extremely significant that, in view of the great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the Biblical history of these periods, there exists today not one unquestionable find of archeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point" (Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science, [Chicago:ÿMoody Press, 1956]).

you offer a quote from henry morris as support for biblical historical accuracy? really?! you are aware who he is, right? that man wouldn't know accuracy if it walked up and gave him a titty-twister.

STOP.. The religious THREADS!!!!!!!!!!! I warn all of you guys to stop this. And it continues.

STOP.. The religious THREADS!!!!!!!!!!! I warn all of you guys to stop this. And it continues.

warn?

Now Jesus WAS Real, if people believe he is the savor or not its not my problem. Thread Closed.

Now Jesus WAS Real, if people believe he is the savor or not its not my problem. Thread Closed.

just asserting it isnt enough. this is a thread about proof.

thread will be closed when everyone is sick of it.

Your in denial.. There was a Jesus... if you like it or not... Whether you think he is the savor its your problem..

Now Jesus WAS Real

Prove it

Thread Closed.

Wait, who are you again?

Your in denial.. There was a Jesus... if you like it or not... Whether you think he is the savor its your problem..

denial of what? give me proof and ill look at it

The Mods ressed it, but for some reason it can no longer post on the forum so I took a break and then started this account yesterday.

What a bizarrely coincidental experience, hmmm.
<.<
>.>

He will? Has he set a date? Hope he doesn't show up this Christmas, because I won't be home. Be a pity to miss an important visitor.

I've run across a few potential dates for which a lot of people took seriously and made sure to make everyone afraid (besides Jesus' return).
Where was that again ....

What a bizarrely coincidental experience, hmmm.
<.<
>.>

Forgot to log in on The Brevious? :p

Now Jesus WAS Real, if people believe he is the savor or not its not my problem. Thread Closed.

Savor?
*ponders transubstantiation*

Forgot to log in on The Brevious? :p

Nopers.
This is the X-mass run. They gave my garland-garnished present, and i'ma gonna use it.
:)

Wait, who are you again?

Obviously "Deluded" as to importance. :p

Savor?
*ponders transubstantiation*

*Drools a la Homer Simpson*

Hmmm...transubstantiated foodstuff.

*Drools a la Homer Simpson*

Hmmm...transubstantiated foodstuff.

Jesus Christ popsicle sticks?

*Drools a la Homer Simpson*

Hmmm...transubstantiated foodstuff.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

Jesus Christ popsicle sticks?

Why not? Mother Mary waffles ....

especially since there is no reason why there SHOULD be any record of jesus during his lifetime.
Why shouldn't there be any record of Jesus?

he was an intinerant preacher in a land of many intinerant preachers.
You know this how? Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself?

BTW, it is spelt itinerant.

why would anyone waste their precious ink and papyrus to jot down anything about him?
Because Jesus wasn't just an itinerant preacher?

I don't want to minimize Paul, not by any means, but I bring to your attention the fact that we know there was a body of believers in Rome before Paul ever went there, AND we know that there was a body of believer in Egypt very early and Paul never went there. But, having said that, according to the books of Acts, Paul was selected for the purpose of reaching out to the gentiles....

I'd minimise Paul. The amount of significance modern 'christians' attach to Paul sometimes confounds, and sometimes sickens me... he's a commentator, nothing more. He never even met the living Jesus, and the only argument he has for his ministry is a claim HE himself makes about meeting the resurrection - although, even his own accounts fail to match on the details. Not a good sign.

That's not an effective trap though because you and I have different beliefs about when the gospels were written... Additionally it shows that you 'assume' you know more than you really do about what I believe.

But you don't believe that the Gospels were being written DURING Christ's life, do you? One assumes not.

And - if not - then the delay between the writing and the Gospels is certainly sufficient for all kinds of confusion, collusion, and redaction to take place, no?

I think there are a certain number of people around here that actually believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, where actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

There is no reason to assume that he wasn't working directly from one of the gospels that were already written by that time. Additionally he could have been using Josphus as a source outside of his topic, like I already said.


You're right. In all likelihood, Tacitus was, indeed, writing based on earlier writing by someone else.

Curious that you suggest it, but don't see it as a weakness in his capacity to be objective.


Secondary point, the only people that want to use Tacitus at all is because some people like to try and pretend that it's all made up in the first place...


I don't think so. No one I know would 'like to pretend it's all made up'... it's just that reality has that as it's bias - in the absence of some rpetty impressive evidence, it's hardly unusual for the kind of mythology that the New Testament is chockful of... to be taken as being little more than fiction.


...and everything was put together hundreds of years later, that there was nothing historical about it at all.... Amazing how it could all be historically 'made up' even as early as the first century. Astounding really, that if it was all made up, that the hearsay rumor was all over the Roman Empire and in Syria and Egypt too.

Amazing how? The various Mesopotamian religions were spread over fairly sizable areas. The first incarnation of Buddha was a story told at least as far as Jerusalem. The Horus story (and all it's striking resemblences to the 'Jesus' tale) circumnavigated the region.

Given Jerusalem's position as a fairly major traderoute stop, and the traffic of trade between areas like Rome, Egypt and Syria... it's really not a big surprise at all, to find that even gossip has a broad audience.

I think there are a certain number of people around here that actually believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, where actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

... Smith?
Or, Q?
John Q? *good movie*
Luke Q?
Matthew Q? *sounds good*
Mark Q?

There is all kinds of evidence, and good evidence... the fact that you aren't convinced by it is irrelevant. The existence of the church itself at such an early date is 'evidence.' The existence of so many fragments all over the ancient world even by the end of the first century, is evidence. The fact that you are not convinced is not proof that there isn't enough evidence.

Couldn't be wrong-er. There is almost no evidence - especially given the supposed 'scope' of the story. The daylight is blacked out? Temples falling apart? The dead rising from their graves and gallivanting around in a major trade town? NONE of it made it any further than the faith documents (allegedly) written (much) later by some (allegedly) VERY subjective sources.

By your logic, the fact that there are already such widespread adherents to Scientology is 'evidence' regarding the truth (truthyness?) of it.

There is absolutely NO contemporary evidence. Not by anyone - objective OR subjective. Nothing official talking about the weird shit like blacked-out suns or the rampaging zombie hordes... nothing even by his (alleged) buddies. Nothing for decades.

The earliest evidence is ALL entirely subjective. Written by adherents to the new faith. It's still hardly contemporary and it's FAR from independent.

Indeed, by the time we get to evidence that MIGHT be considered independent, it is so far from contemporry that (most likely) anyone that would have witnessed any of the literal events would be dead. Add to that the strong evidence for forged entries in Jospehus, and the strong suggestion of redaction in Tacitus - and you are left with NO real evidence at all - nothing that is worth trusting.

You wouldn't buy a car with a history so spotty.

Jesus of Nazareth existed, Roman official documentation tells us that iirc.


You don't recall correctly. Thanks for playing, though.

that Twelve Men, claiming to be his apostles

Since I keep on seeing "twelve" being brought up again and again, I feel it's important to point out that "twelve" is a literary device used by ancient writers to denote *any* group, whether or not there's actually twelve people in said group. It could very well be argued that Jesus had 13 Apostles since Paul is described as an Apostle and Mattias was voted to replace Judas Iscariot.

Very interesting, thank you.

You're welcome. :)

Fair point, but from what we know it seems that the only reason Christianity really reached a gentile audience was because of Paul, apparently the others had little interest in preaching to non-Jews. Might other groups have been more inclusive? I guess it's possible, but given their nature as religious fundamentalists it doesn't seem too likely to me.

I grant it's unsubstantiated, but I see no reason to believe none of the other messiahs attempted to reach out to the Gentiles- if there were thousands of them, then surely there must have been some who tried to reach out towards the rest of the world, if only to spur some kind of rebellion to tear apart the Roman Empire. Paul just seems to be the only successful one, that's all.

Huh, before this, I never realized there was debate about the existence of Jesus Christ. His divinity, sure, that was always debatable, but whether the person ever resided on earth I thought had been pretty well established.

Well, it seems that over the course of this discussion, all evidence originating from religious texts has been deemed "inaccurate," and hence has been discarded. Now, I find this odd, due to the fact while theologically the bible and other texts aren't taken as accurate, it is still regarded as historically accurate for the most part (this belief extends mostly toward the New Testament, where it is in recent enough history where the are comparing accounts to check it against). Wait, I think there is some support I can put here:

"It must be extremely significant that, in view of the great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the Biblical history of these periods, there exists today not one unquestionable find of archeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point" (Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science, [Chicago:ÿMoody Press, 1956]).

Now, that is fairly old, and no longer completely accurate. Amongst the supported cases of biblical accuracy, there are things that are at least questioned by lack of evidence. (The events of exodus should have left evidence, but little has been found). However, we're just looking at the existence of JEsus, so perhaps I'm a little off topic.

Archaeology has indeed refuted the Bible- the biggest example is the Kingdom of Israel. The annals of Assyria clearly label Israel as "the House of Omri" indicating that Omri, not David, was Israel's first king (since "House of" indicates who was the first king, even if the dynasty does not continue). The Bible also omits- curiously- the Battle of Qarqar, where Ahab contributed heavily to the defeat of Shalmaneser III in 853 BC. Now, it is true that there's a lot of historically accurate information in the Bible- like Hezekiah's defeat of Sennacherib- but to state that archeology hasn't refuted the Bible is flat out wrong.

It should be a hint to his existence in that 1. different religious texts acknolwedge his existence, if not his divinity. 2. The Jewish religion, which would stand to gain much in the nonexistence of Jesus, says he still existed and yes, they killed him

But lets look at secular texts. So to the ever helpful wikipedia. Ah, here we go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historicity

"The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. One recent study has stated that biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[33]"

Effectively refuted? Well, lets see there a link, so lets go to that:

^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16

Does this count as acceptable evidence? Its from a non-religious source, so no inherent bias...

As for the second part of the question... Chaos theory says it does matter. But I suppose that wouldn't be accepted.

Mr. Van Voorst is an ordained minister (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst), so he is "inherently biased". Second of all, I found his book online (at Google, but it's not complete)- his sources have already been debated (and refuted) in this thread. He seems to make a lot of sweeping generalizations only because he is obsessed with "not being wrong", the kind of gut reaction where one steadfastly and blindly defends their beliefs whenever challenged instead of being open to the idea that they can be altered, and for the better. Van Voorst has let his faith get in the way of his scholarly judgement and is typical of most Biblical inerranists- they steadfastly refuse to allow the Bible to be critically examined believing it would "destroy" the message when the truth is that a healthy examination of it only grows our knowledge of it and produces insights- and, in the end, enhances its message.

which is obvious even in the bible when you look at the gospel accounts of jesus' life and how they differ. ive read that theologians who compared the various accounts in a formal way were suprised that they really dont match up. it seems that the catholic church kept a tight grip on the bible for good reason.

You have to remember that the early history of Christianity was incredibly fractious- there were millions of Christian groups back then all claiming different sets of Gospels to be "cannon" requiring the Council of Nicaea to be called so it could all be sorted out and prevent the Christians from erupting into their own "mini-civl war". What appears to have happened since that time is that the entirely sensible decision to get together and come up with a definitive message to avoid factionalization got turned into a messy power struggle, with Christian groups happy with the Nicene decisions seeing how the Roman Emperor (of all people!) provided them support and using it to assert that they're right, culminating with the rise of Nicene Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Those opposed with the Nicene decision would be forced into defeat, since they lacked powerful allies, leaving the Nicene Christians the undisputed "interpreters" of the Bible making their version of the Bible the unquestioned one. It should come as no surprise here that the Bible gained this aura of inerrancy, since for the next 1,000 years or so the Nicene Christians vehemently stamped out any opposition without much resistance, meaning the very idea of critically examining the Bible got lost. It's probably because of this militarism that things like the glaring contradictions and errors in the Synoptic Gospels got missed, because the Nicene Christians viewed any challenge (including those to its account of the Bible) as a threat, no matter how small or "beneficial" such a challenge may be.

STOP.. The religious THREADS!!!!!!!!!!! I warn all of you guys to stop this. And it continues.warn?

Thread Closed.
Wait, who are you again?

He's my regional delegate. And yes, I will be Having a Word With.

Now Jesus WAS Real, if people believe he is the savor or not its not my problem. Thread Closed.

Or not.

Savor?
*ponders transubstantiation*

The other other white meat.

Your in denial.. There was a Jesus... if you like it or not... Whether you think he is the savor its your problem..

There were many Jesuses... Jesii?

The debate is about whether the one particular one that the Bible claims as 'real', can actually be at all verified.

Since I keep on seeing "twelve" being brought up again and again, I feel it's important to point out that "twelve" is a literary device used by ancient writers to denote *any* group, whether or not there's actually twelve people in said group. It could very well be argued that Jesus had 13 Apostles since Paul is described as an Apostle and Mattias was voted to replace Judas Iscariot.

I grant it's unsubstantiated, but I see no reason to believe none of the other messiahs attempted to reach out to the Gentiles- if there were thousands of them, then surely there must have been some who tried to reach out towards the rest of the world, if only to spur some kind of rebellion to tear apart the Roman Empire. Paul just seems to be the only successful one, that's all.

Archaeology has indeed refuted the Bible- the biggest example is the Kingdom of Israel. The annals of Assyria clearly label Israel as "the House of Omri" indicating that Omri, not David, was Israel's first king (since "House of" indicates who was the first king, even if the dynasty does not continue). The Bible also omits- curiously- the Battle of Qarqar, where Ahab contributed heavily to the defeat of Shalmaneser III in 853 BC. Now, it is true that there's a lot of historically accurate information in the Bible- like Hezekiah's defeat of Sennacherib- but to state that archeology hasn't refuted the Bible is flat out wrong.

Mr. Van Voorst is an ordained minister (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst), so he is "inherently biased". Second of all, I found his book online (at Google, but it's not complete)- his sources have already been debated (and refuted) in this thread. He seems to make a lot of sweeping generalizations only because he is obsessed with "not being wrong", the kind of gut reaction where one steadfastly and blindly defends their beliefs whenever challenged instead of being open to the idea that they can be altered, and for the better. Van Voorst has let his faith get in the way of his scholarly judgement and is typical of most Biblical inerranists- they steadfastly refuse to allow the Bible to be critically examined believing it would "destroy" the message when the truth is that a healthy examination of it only grows our knowledge of it and produces insights- and, in the end, enhances its message.

You have to remember that the early history of Christianity was incredibly fractious- there were millions of Christian groups back then all claiming different sets of Gospels to be "cannon" requiring the Council of Nicaea to be called so it could all be sorted out and prevent the Christians from erupting into their own "mini-civl war". What appears to have happened since that time is that the entirely sensible decision to get together and come up with a definitive message to avoid factionalization got turned into a messy power struggle, with Christian groups happy with the Nicene decisions seeing how the Roman Emperor (of all people!) provided them support and using it to assert that they're right, culminating with the rise of Nicene Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Those opposed with the Nicene decision would be forced into defeat, since they lacked powerful allies, leaving the Nicene Christians the undisputed "interpreters" of the Bible making their version of the Bible the unquestioned one. It should come as no surprise here that the Bible gained this aura of inerrancy, since for the next 1,000 years or so the Nicene Christians vehemently stamped out any opposition without much resistance, meaning the very idea of critically examining the Bible got lost. It's probably because of this militarism that things like the glaring contradictions and errors in the Synoptic Gospels got missed, because the Nicene Christians viewed any challenge (including those to its account of the Bible) as a threat, no matter how small or "beneficial" such a challenge may be.Just want to say that i appreciate the effort you put into your responses here ... and, if such opportunity arises, you may consider a cut & paste save of said responses, because a lot of people tend to want to continually argue this topic, and many .... MANY of them forget some of the details. You might find yourself repeating yourself a lot. :)

Because Jesus wasn't just an itinerant preacher?

Quite right. There's no reliable evidence to show he even existed, much less as a preacher. Itinerant or otherwise.

Paul just seems to be the only successful one, that's all.

Just to clarify myself- I don't mean to insinuate that Paul was a messiah, because he wasn't- I mean to say he was the most successful at spreading the Messianic message he was given (as Jesus Himself did no such spreading).

The other other white, blue-eyed meat.
Fixed? :p

You wouldn't buy a car with a history so spotty.

Unless it was their pastor or someone with equal charisma doing the selling.
The rest is a matter of faith, eh? :p

I should like to point out how ironic it is that christians believe Jesus was real, and was was crucified etc...but scoff at the idea that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni", and given magical golden tablets.

As if the latter where somehow more ridiculous than the former.

I should like to point out how ironic it is that christians believe Jesus was real, and was was crucified etc...but scoff at the idea that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni", and given magical golden tablets.

As if the latter where somehow more ridiculous than the former.

If "God" would stop being such a coward and actually come forth with a little lecture every now and again, they could straighten up their whole charade to everyone's liking.

Fixed? :p

The scholars disagree. :D

Just to clarify myself- I don't mean to insinuate that Paul was a messiah, because he wasn't- I mean to say he was the most successful at spreading the Messianic message he was given (as Jesus Himself did no such spreading).

I seem to recall something about Jesus possibly spending time in the East.
If he did exist (for sake of arguement) he certainly would have.

If "God" would stop being such a coward and actually come forth with a little lecture every now and again, they could straighten up their whole charade to everyone's liking.

Good point.

Which is why I encourage celebrity worship.
They LOVE public appreances.

Just want to say that i appreciate the effort you put into your responses here ... and, if such opportunity arises, you may consider a cut & paste save of said responses, because a lot of people tend to want to continually argue this topic, and many .... MANY of them forget some of the details. You might find yourself repeating yourself a lot. :)

Thanks. :) I have a History Degree...I could never get away without explaining myself. :D I also don't mind repeating myself a lot (unless it's in the same thread...that gets annoying)- teaching is something I hope to get into one day so I'll have to repeat myself a lot :p.

That said, I took your suggestion to heart and did indeed save it- I may never know when it'll be useful again (I predict next Christmas- IIRC, we had this thread at this time last year and it can't be a mere coincidence that this thread emerged when it did this year).

The scholars disagree. :D

Ah, true ... speaking of "scholars" ...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071124/NEWS07/711240386/1009
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=12531

I seem to recall something about Jesus possibly spending time in the East.

Jesus and the Ben-Wa balls?
*ponders*

I seem to recall something about Jesus possibly spending time in the East.
If he did exist (for sake of arguement) he certainly would have.

I don't recall anything like that- nothing I've read suggests that Jesus left Judea at all (except as a child, but that's different). Thomas, on the other hand, did go East- the Nestorian Christians got as far as Inida. Maybe you've confused the two?

Speaking of a white, blue eyed Jesus...

It seems that this particular image of Jesus, particularly his face, comes from two sources.
The Shroud of Tourin, and many stained glass artwork of the 12th and 13th centuries.

The Shroud has been called one of histories greatest forgeries.
In fact, it was probably done in the Jerusalem region, as it contains images of plants only found in that region.
Now before anyone gets all excited over that, it has also been carbon14 dated several times now, and each time it dates to the 12th century.

However, its likeness was the inspiration for much of the depictions of Jesus, across Europe. It was these folks, 800 years ago, who decided a brown haired, blue eyed, white Jesus was preferable to "a damned heathen-looking muslim".

Good point.

Which is why I encourage celebrity worship.
They LOVE public appreances.
In the old days, God sure as fuck liked the attention, what with all the bloodlust and temper tantrums and drama and such.
I think, perhaps, with the "I'ma lover not a fighter" Jesus in play, there's a bit of shame, and God doesn't really want to be looked upon for any of his/her past transgressions, for what they're worth ....

Jesus and the Ben-Wa balls?
*ponders*

Sounds like a Punk band.

Sounds like a Punk band.

*googlesearch*
Well, so far i've got Anastasia Christ ...

I don't recall anything like that- nothing I've read suggests that Jesus left Judea at all (except as a child, but that's different). Thomas, on the other hand, did go East- the Nestorian Christians got as far as Inida. Maybe you've confused the two?

No, Im pretty sure it was Jesus.
It of course, is probably doubted, and for the life of me I cant remember where I read it.

There was a fictional book based on it, its a funny read, ive heard.
Jesus learns Kung-Fu, to be " a better, more well rounded messiah".

In the old days, God sure as fuck liked the attention, what with all the bloodlust and temper tantrums and drama and such.
I think, perhaps, with the "I'ma lover not a fighter" Jesus in play, there's a bit of shame, and God doesn't really want to be looked upon for any of his/her past transgressions, for what they're worth ....

Exactly.

Might I welcome you to the First Reformed Church of Barry White?

Its aaaaaallll about the looooove, baby.

No, Im pretty sure it was Jesus.
It of course, is probably doubted, and for the life of me I cant remember where I read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

^ A quick search revealed that...I've heard of them. They believe that Jesus survived Crucifixition and died of old age in Kashmir, with His body buried under the name of "Yuz Asaf". They claim their first leader was not just the Mahdi, Shi'i Islam's version of the messiah (a story that bears a lot of resemblance to the NT stories), but also the second coming of Jesus as well. Interesting stuff.

There was a fictional book based on it, its a funny read, ive heard.
Jesus learns Kung-Fu, to be " a better, more well rounded messiah".

LOL

Hmmmnnn...so instead of "Feeding the Thousand" he "Kicked the Thousand"...me like. What is it called?

There was a fictional book based on it, its a funny read, ive heard.
Jesus learns Kung-Fu, to be " a better, more well rounded messiah".
...did Jesus desecrate the temple of the body, with a tattoo of a dragon on one arm and a tiger on the other?
And ... who played the blind sifu?

Exactly.

Might I welcome you to the First Reformed Church of Barry White?

Its aaaaaallll about the looooove, baby.

Sure, i'm alright with that!
*boogies*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

^ A quick search revealed that...I've heard of them. They believe that Jesus survived Crucifixition and died of old age in Kashmir, with His body buried under the name of "Yuz Asaf". They claim their first leader was not just the Mahdi, Shi'i Islam's version of the messiah (a story that bears a lot of resemblance to the NT stories), but also the second coming of Jesus as well. Interesting stuff.



LOL

Hmmmnnn...so instead of "Feeding the Thousand" he "Kicked the Thousand"...me like. What is it called?

"Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff (Jesus' childhood pal)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vimx2y5WKpMC&dq=lamb+the+gospel+according+to+biff+christ%27s+childhood+pal&pg=PP1&ots=qYxqyqVYJ7&sig=lDuP5KNSDMWedC86P4RmKuHtptY&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=LAMB,+the+Gospel+According+to+Biff,+Christ%27s+Childhood+Pal,+&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

Thanks. :) I have a History Degree...I could never get away without explaining myself. :D I also don't mind repeating myself a lot (unless it's in the same thread...that gets annoying)- teaching is something I hope to get into one day so I'll have to repeat myself a lot :p.Good luck with that, then. I think you do pretty well compared to a lot of others 'round these parts.

That said, I took your suggestion to heart and did indeed save it- I may never know when it'll be useful again (I predict next Christmas- IIRC, we had this thread at this time last year and it can't be a mere coincidence that this thread emerged when it did this year).It's probably because of the war we're so successfully waging against Christmas ... AGAIN.
:p


Oh, btw - i read something kinda cool today on the topic:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/245110.html

...did Jesus desecrate the temple of the body, with a tattoo of a dragon on one arm and a tiger on the other?
And ... who played the blind sifu?

Well, naturally, it was David Carridine, as he's the olnly white guy who can pass for oriental.

......sigh.....

Well, naturally, it was David Carridine, as he's the olnly white guy who can pass for oriental.

......sigh.....

So who played the sifu?
And David Carradine played Jesus AND Kwai Chang Caine? They're the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

^ A quick search revealed that...I've heard of them. They believe that Jesus survived Crucifixition and died of old age in Kashmir, with His body buried under the name of "Yuz Asaf". They claim their first leader was not just the Mahdi, Shi'i Islam's version of the messiah (a story that bears a lot of resemblance to the NT stories), but also the second coming of Jesus as well. Interesting stuff.

Yah, its crazy the stuff you hear.
I only recently learned about "Saint Sarah, the Black". (Supposedly Jesus' daughter)

Let us think, how do you prove that someone existed?

Simple, find evidence that mentions even in the faintest. With that they, history nerds, then continue to dig tib bits of into about him and find that all the writings about him started at a period of roughly the same time. Then you get enough evidence to have a logical evidence that he was alive at some point. After which point it becomes the other sides part to prove all the various bits of infromation, or in this case many pieces of wirting and other things, do not relate to him and then prove, without a doubt, that he did not exist at all. Which case shows that it belongs on the skeptics, better to say naysayers in this case, to prove that all the info had been falsely interpeted.

"Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff (Jesus' childhood pal)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vimx2y5WKpMC&dq=lamb+the+gospel+according+to+biff+christ%27s+childhood+pal&pg=PP1&ots=qYxqyqVYJ7&sig=lDuP5KNSDMWedC86P4RmKuHtptY&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=LAMB,+the+Gospel+According+to+Biff,+Christ%27s+Childhood+Pal,+&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

Thanks :). I'll check it out...or probably wait until the movie comes out, whichever comes first...:p

Good luck with that, then. I think you do pretty well compared to a lot of others 'round these parts.
It's probably because of the war we're so successfully waging against Christmas ... AGAIN.
:p

Thank you, it's highly appreciative of you. I take pride in my work so I'm happy I'm getting recognition for it. :)

As for Christmas...this is reminding me of the South Park episode on Christmas, where they tried to stage a "non-offensive" pagent and failed to produce anything. "That star offends me"...LOL

Oh, btw - i read something kinda cool today on the topic:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/245110.html

Great article. I especially like the closing paragraph:

Unlike the bloody wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on Christ, the "war on Christmas" is no more real than a war on skateboarders. We're no more entitled to stick religious symbols on public property than teenagers are entitled to skateboard on our property. Teens' brains haven't fully developed yet. What's our excuse?

I don't think I could have said it any better.

Yah, its crazy the stuff you hear.
I only recently learned about "Saint Sarah, the Black". (Supposedly Jesus' daughter)

That is nuts...but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I think it's highly possible that Jesus had a wife and children- it's not like people at the time were forbidden from having them, and Jesus DID meet a lot of women- and might have been "removed" only to augment the "pristine" image as Christ, who took no pleasures or distractions from life, not even a family, to deliver the Christian message. Not that I think a married Christ sullies His image- if anything, it'd only reinforce the notion that "He is our Father", wouldn't it?

As for Christmas...this is reminding me of the South Park episode on Christmas, where they tried to stage a "non-offensive" pagent and failed to produce anything. "That star offends me"...LOL True. Unfortunately, by association, i have to think strongly about the "War on Imagination" episode ... yes, the part with Popeye. :p

Great article. I especially like the closing paragraph
(...)
I don't think I could have said it any better.
Yeah, it's been funny in the paper of late - there's an opinion/allegiance vacuum since Veco had to pull stakes and run. They were the "conservative" viewpoint in the paper ... so now they have varying members of the community providing occasional fodder for thought. This one happened to be one of the best.
Also, from someone who is usually quite irritating and wrong, same circumstances ...:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/v-printer/story/245114.html

Yah, its crazy the stuff you hear.
I only recently learned about "Saint Sarah, the Black". (Supposedly Jesus' daughter)So her mother was black?

That is nuts...but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I think it's highly possible that Jesus had a wife and children- it's not like people at the time were forbidden from having them, and Jesus DID meet a lot of women- and might have been "removed" only to augment the "pristine" image as Christ, who took no pleasures or distractions from life, not even a family, to deliver the Christian message. Not that I think a married Christ sullies His image- if anything, it'd only reinforce the notion that "He is our Father", wouldn't it?

See, I would think that any Jewish Rabbi, who would make claims such as he may have (assuming he was real), that it would be imperative for him to have a wife and family.
Why would anyone listen to a bachelor about family values, if he had no family of his own?

The Gospel of Mary imples that he did, and that it was Mary Magdelene, and that she was the chosen succesor to Jesus, however that must be taken with a grain of salt, as there were so many factions, each with a gospel that claimed it was a different disciple, so..whos to say for sure?

Now, "Saint Sarah", is supposedly have to traveled to Africa, along with Mary, with the help of Joseph of Arimethia, "in a boat with no sails". Art from later dates imply this was a rowboat, but of course, they never explain how a smal rowboat crossed the sea...go figure.

However, to suggest any of this, brings down the "divinci code naysayers".
The book is quite fiction, but many of the theories within it, were taken from popular myths.

True. Unfortunately, by association, i have to think strongly about the "War on Imagination" episode ... yes, the part with Popeye. :p

:eek: Haven't seen that one, but it looks very interesting...I've got to find it somewhere.

Yeah, it's been funny in the paper of late - there's an opinion/allegiance vacuum since Veco had to pull stakes and run. They were the "conservative" viewpoint in the paper ... so now they have varying members of the community providing occasional fodder for thought. This one happened to be one of the best.
Also, from someone who is usually quite irritating and wrong, same circumstances ...:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/v-printer/story/245114.html

Must be the cold, I figure. I know I get very pensive during winter.

:p

So her mother was black?

Or Jesus himself.

He certainly wasnt white, and there where LOTS of people around then in area who would be considered black today.
Its entirely possible.

Or Jesus himself.

He certainly wasnt white, and there where LOTS of people around then in area who would be considered black today.
Its entirely possible.wtf? semites are brown people, always have been. they originated from the zagros/taurus. the black jesus bullshit that rastafarians like to spread should be ignored.

wtf? semites are brown people, always have been. they originated from the zagros/taurus. the black jesus bullshit that rastafarians like to spread should be ignored.

Heh, since neither you, nor I, actually believe in him anyway, who are we to say what color he was?

Incidently, the "Sarah" myth, came from brown folks.

Heh, since neither you, nor I, actually believe in him anyway, who are we to say what color he was?There is no indication that he was black whatsoever, that's just something that certain folks claim for ideological and racist reasons. cf black hebrew israelites and other demented groups.

There is no indication that he was black whatsoever, that's just something that certain folks claim for ideological and racist reasons. cf black hebrew israelites and other demented groups.

Actually, there is some.

from wiki:

In more recent times the fact that the Middle East was a meeting point of cultures and races has led to suggestions that Jesus may have been African or Arabian. The ancient Near East was a cultural crossroad, and the only land route out of Africa, where that continent physically joins the Eurasian landmass. The Roman province of Judea, where Jesus lived, had many different waves of immigrants pass through at various points in and before recorded history, with the last major group being the Arab conquest in the 7th century. As such, it is not inconceivable that Jesus could have had traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.

Actually, there is some.
Actually, there's no evidence, just supposition.

As we've been discussing in this thread, there is extremely little, if none at all, evidence to suggest the historic personage of Jesus existed at all, so to argue over whether he was white, milk or dark chocolate flavour is pointless.

It's like arguing over whether Beowulf was a redhead, blonde or a brunette.

Actually, there is some.

from wiki:Speculation without any evidence.

Woah, I didnt mean "irrefutable evidence".
More like "its a hotly debated topic", and that IF he was real, its entirely possible he was quite mixed in race.

Davis for instance, was described as "ruddy headed", meaning some think he was a redhead.

*shrug*who's davis?

Actually, there's no evidence, just supposition.

As we've been discussing in this thread, there is extremely little, if none at all, evidence to suggest the historic personage of Jesus existed at all, so to argue over whether he was white, milk or dark chocolate flavour is pointless.

It's like arguing over whether Beowulf was a redhead, blonde or a brunette.


Woah, I didnt mean "irrefutable evidence".
More like "its a hotly debated topic", and that IF he was real, its entirely possible he was quite mixed in race.

David for instance, was described as "ruddy headed", meaning some think he was a redhead.

*shrug*

Speculation without any evidence.

Well of course theres no evidence. That would require him to have actually existed.
Wich, I very much doubt

See, I would think that any Jewish Rabbi, who would make claims such as he may have (assuming he was real), that it would be imperative for him to have a wife and family.
Why would anyone listen to a bachelor about family values, if he had no family of his own?

Precisely. It's like how I laugh at priests who insists they and/or the Pope are "experts" on sex- they've never had it, so how would they know?

The Gospel of Mary imples that he did, and that it was Mary Magdelene, and that she was the chosen succesor to Jesus, however that must be taken with a grain of salt, as there were so many factions, each with a gospel that claimed it was a different disciple, so..whos to say for sure?

It's no surprise there's so many different versions of the Jesus story- He is, after all, the world's most recognizable figure. I don't think it's such a big problem to re-examine the story and "update" it as we see fit- Jesus did so much more than just what's written in the NT, and the Christian story and message can only grow if we uncover new angles, so it's pointless to reject something just because "it's somewhat different".

Now, "Saint Sarah", is supposedly have to traveled to Africa, along with Mary, with the help of Joseph of Arimethia, "in a boat with no sails". Art from later dates imply this was a rowboat, but of course, they never explain how a smal rowboat crossed the sea...go figure.

My Afro-Centrism radar goes off hearing things like that, only because there are so many wild claims made by Afrocentrists regarding the world that it's hard to seperate truth from fiction. Wiki isn't particularly helpful in terms of sources but so far the story doesn't seem "too" far-fetched, to say the least. I'll have to read more about it though.

However, to suggest any of this, brings down the "divinci code naysayers".
The book is quite fiction, but many of the theories within it, were taken from popular myths.

I found the "Da Vinci Code" came off like an excited preschooler giddy that they found a mountain of sugar and found quite a lot of the explanations to be simplistic (to say the least), but I don't think a lot of the points brought up are that far out of line- I mean, as we've already established, why *shouldn't* Mary Magdeliene be Jesus' wife? It's certainly radical to the fervent Christian but it does make you think.

who's davis?

he was a typo! :p

he was a typo! :p

I thought "Buttle" or "Ruttle" was the typo ...

Precisely. It's like how I laugh at priests who insists they and/or the Pope are "experts" on sex- they've never had it, so how would they know?

"Missionary position"....just sayin'. :p



It's no surprise there's so many different versions of the Jesus story- He is, after all, the world's most recognizable figure. I don't think it's such a big problem to re-examine the story and "update" it as we see fit- Jesus did so much more than just what's written in the NT, and the Christian story and message can only grow if we uncover new angles, so it's pointless to reject something just because "it's somewhat different".

I think many christians feel threatened somehow by the idea that he was human. (if he was, at all).
As if, somehow, having a wife and kids, makes you less "divine".
I say, Muhammed had a bunch of wives, one of wife was 9.



My Afro-Centrism radar goes off hearing things like that, only because there are so many wild claims made by Afrocentrists regarding the world that it's hard to seperate truth from fiction. Wiki isn't particularly helpful in terms of sources but so far the story doesn't seem "too" far-fetched, to say the least. I'll have to read more about it though.

I say its no different that white cultures wanting him to be white, like them.
Now, unless he was Roman, (the product of a rape?), wich may explain the "immaculate concpetion", he certainly wasnt white. (again, assuming he was real).



I found the "Da Vinci Code" came off like an excited preschooler giddy that they found a mountain of sugar and found quite a lot of the explanations to be simplistic (to say the least), but I don't think a lot of the points brought up are that far out of line- I mean, as we've already established, why *shouldn't* Mary Magdeliene be Jesus' wife? It's certainly radical to the fervent Christian but it does make you think.

Particularly since the Catholic Church recanted the whole "Mary was a prostitute" thing, it makes you wonder why exactly, they would take such an avid interest in shaming her.
Unless....they (early christian leaders) where truly afraid of a woman as a religious leader.

The other thing I have to wonder, is (a), assuming God and J.C are real, why God would sacrifice his only "son", and make him suffer alone, never to know the love of a good woman.

Course, there is the whole "was Jesus gay" question, too.
Saw that one last night on History Channel...

Course, there is the whole "was Jesus gay" question, too.
Saw that one last night on History Channel...

*THAT* was a satisfying episode. Real Men :fluffle: Jesus.

Woah, I didnt mean "irrefutable evidence".
More like "its a hotly debated topic", and that IF he was real, its entirely possible he was quite mixed in race.
Fair nuff.

It's just a bit weird to me debating the skin colour of someone you have severe doubts existed...

Absolutely, "real men love Jesus.....right in the bum!"

This is somewhat remniscient of the buttplugs twist that got mentioned not very long ago by Verdigroth and a few other posters.
*nods*

*THAT* was a satisfying episode. Real Men :fluffle: Jesus.

Absolutely, "real men love Jesus.....right in the bum!"

This is somewhat remniscient of the buttplugs twist that got mentioned not very long ago by Verdigroth and a few other posters.
*nods*

heehee!

Seen this?

http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php

heehee!

Seen this?

http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php

That's it!
Standard issue for a few of us NSr's, i suspect. *nods*

Fair nuff.

It's just a bit weird to me debating the skin colour of someone you have severe doubts existed...

Im the same guy who casually studies that sort of stuff.
"Know thy enemy", maybe?

Im no theological scholar, by any stretch of the imagination, I just learn enough to keep myself fairly well read.

Im no theological scholar, by any stretch of the imagination, I just learn enough to keep myself fairly well read.
An admirable endeavour.

I also, as an atheist, have an interest in religious studies and the philosophy of religion. Fascinating stuff.

"Missionary position"....just sayin'. :p

LOL...true.

I think many christians feel threatened somehow by the idea that he was human. (if he was, at all).
As if, somehow, having a wife and kids, makes you less "divine".
I say, Muhammed had a bunch of wives, one of wife was 9.

Agreed.

I say its no different that white cultures wanting him to be white, like them.
Now, unless he was Roman, (the product of a rape?), wich may explain the "immaculate concpetion", he certainly wasnt white. (again, assuming he was real).

Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to discredit Africans (or any other ethnic group for that matter) from the history books and I agree with you completely that Jesus being white has to do with people wanting Him to be white. I just think some of the claims go beyond an attempt at an honest portrayal and delve into an agenda-based description.

Particularly since the Catholic Church recanted the whole "Mary was a prostitute" thing, it makes you wonder why exactly, they would take such an avid interest in shaming her.
Unless....they (early christian leaders) where truly afraid of a woman as a religious leader.

The other thing I have to wonder, is (a), assuming God and J.C are real, why God would sacrifice his only "son", and make him suffer alone, never to know the love of a good woman.

True, especially considering that so few women are made to appear prominent in the Bible. You'd think in today's discrimination-conscious world the Church would do a better job of talking about prominent figures like Ruth and Esther who were not "white men".

Course, there is the whole "was Jesus gay" question, too.
Saw that one last night on History Channel...

:eek:

Does that explain Judas Iscariot's betrayal? :p

(on a more serious note, is there a place I can see that online? I'm very curious).

Does that explain Judas Iscariot's betrayal? :p
An entirely different idea of the 30-shekel whore, no? :p

(on a more serious note, is there a place I can see that online? I'm very curious).
Curious, eh? NS is the place for you! :p
http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/sp514ButtersVeryOwnEpisode.jpg

I don' know whether this came up already, i couldn't be bothered to read 550 old posts so please don't bite my head off if its already been mentioned.


Jesus was supposedly.

The Son of a God/ A God
Born of a Virgin
A Sheppard
A Savior to Mankind
Followed by 12 Disciples
Had a last meal with his Disciples
Predicted his own death and betrayal
Died to Cleanse the sins of mankind
Killed by Crucification
Reserected

To worship Jesus you are meant to take cominuion
You also Confess your sins
The Vatican city is the center of the church
Christians are baptized
The 25th of December is Jesus birthday

The Roman Cult of the Sun God Mithras worshiped Mithras who was

The Son of a God/ A God
Born of a Virgin
A Sheppard
A Savior to Mankind
Followed by 12 Disciples
Had a last meal with his Disciples
Predicted his own death and betrayal
Died to Cleanse the sins of mankind
Killed by Crucification
Reserected
Followers of Mithras are baptized
The 25th of December is Mithras's birthday

To worship Mithras you are meant to take eat bread and drink wine which was considered to be his soul and blood.
You also Confess your sins
The location where the Vatican city was built was the location of the main worship site for Mithras.

There are statues of them in the same pose, stories of them doing the same things and even identical passages taken from the texts of the cult of Mithras and can now be found in the bible.

The fact is that there is no evidence what so ever proving that Jesus existed. the founders of Christianity stole the myth of Mithras so they could create a cult for profit and power.

Here is a list of sources, evidence and more information.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0607/hyeongsu/hyeongsu.html#similar
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/originofchristianity.msnw

Heres another forum dealing with the same issues

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopict-11853.html

And here is another comparison of Christianity and every other religion that it was based on.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/index_articles.html

There is information everywhere, its official Christianity is stolen bullshit.
P.S

I don't care if i have offended you :upyours:




Online iPhone Screensaver - be the first to win!

myscreensavers.info/media/iphone.scr

Course, there is the whole "was Jesus gay" question, too.
Saw that one last night on History Channel...And? Was he?

No, Im pretty sure it was Jesus.
It of course, is probably doubted, and for the life of me I cant remember where I read it..

Yes, Jesus went to India instead of dying at the cross and is entombed somewhere in Kashmir...Don't people know this fact?

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya) at least 10 million people accept this history of Jesus as true.

Does God exist?

And if so, where is the logic of his creation?

Was God merely bored with the massive void that existed?

Why do humans feel God is so vain that God wishes to have worshipers?

There are more interesting questions than to ask if one philosopher/revolutionary/militant/mystic/political leader existed or not.

Who cares?

I asked if you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. (I'm going to assume by your response that you do)

STOP.. The religious THREADS!!!!!!!!!!! I warn all of you guys to stop this. And it continues.

Why?

Now Jesus WAS Real, if people believe he is the savor or not its not my problem. Thread Closed.

Do you have any proof/strong evidence that has not already been presented?

Why shouldn't there be any record of Jesus?


You know this how? Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself?

BTW, it is spelt itinerant.


Because Jesus wasn't just an itinerant preacher?

geee canuck, if he was so important in his lifetime WHERE ARE THE RECORDS?

seems to me that there are 3 possibilities:

there were records but they were lost to time,.

there werent records because he didnt merit recording.

there werent records because he didnt exist.

I should like to point out how ironic it is that christians believe Jesus was real, and was was crucified etc...but scoff at the idea that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni", and given magical golden tablets.

As if the latter where somehow more ridiculous than the former.

Well, it is, I mean we all know that God doesn't feel it necessary to send angels to people or appear himself anymore, that was just done in the olden days :rolleyes:

Thanks. :) I have a History Degree...I could never get away without explaining myself. :D I also don't mind repeating myself a lot (unless it's in the same thread...that gets annoying)- teaching is something I hope to get into one day so I'll have to repeat myself a lot :p.

That said, I took your suggestion to heart and did indeed save it- I may never know when it'll be useful again (I predict next Christmas- IIRC, we had this thread at this time last year and it can't be a mere coincidence that this thread emerged when it did this year).

Well, as the OP, it was kind of coincidence, more prompted by another thread than the time of year.

You know this how? Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself?


i dont contradict myself because i do not ignore evidence (or points) that tend to give a reason why my belief might be wrong.

You have to remember that the early history of Christianity was incredibly fractious- there were millions of Christian groups back then all claiming different sets of Gospels to be "cannon" requiring the Council of Nicaea to be called so it could all be sorted out and prevent the Christians from erupting into their own "mini-civl war". What appears to have happened since that time is that the entirely sensible decision to get together and come up with a definitive message to avoid factionalization got turned into a messy power struggle, with Christian groups happy with the Nicene decisions seeing how the Roman Emperor (of all people!) provided them support and using it to assert that they're right, culminating with the rise of Nicene Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Those opposed with the Nicene decision would be forced into defeat, since they lacked powerful allies, leaving the Nicene Christians the undisputed "interpreters" of the Bible making their version of the Bible the unquestioned one. It should come as no surprise here that the Bible gained this aura of inerrancy, since for the next 1,000 years or so the Nicene Christians vehemently stamped out any opposition without much resistance, meaning the very idea of critically examining the Bible got lost. It's probably because of this militarism that things like the glaring contradictions and errors in the Synoptic Gospels got missed, because the Nicene Christians viewed any challenge (including those to its account of the Bible) as a threat, no matter how small or "beneficial" such a challenge may be.

there was a "shit that got left out of the bible" show on the history channel (international?) yesterday. not that i didnt know some of them but i was most charmed by the "protoevangleion" that covers the life of mary in more detail than the current gospels do.

it has mary born of elderly parents, raised in the temple and married off to the widower joseph by lottery.

Yes, Jesus went to India instead of dying at the cross and is entombed somewhere in Kashmir...Don't people know this fact?

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya) at least 10 million people accept this history of Jesus as true.

i find that VERRRRRY doubtful since after the resurrection jesus went to JAPAN and his descendants live there to this day.

In Northern Japan, there is a village with a very strange legacy: the inhabitants adamantly claim that 2,000 years ago, after Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, He came to live in their village, known as Herai. There He lived and worked, cared for the sick and poor, married a Japanese woman with whom He had three children, died at the age of 111, and was buried in Herai. His grave and that of his mother, St. Mary, are still in existence and well maintained. In fact, the site of these graves is the focal point of a pilgrimage made each year on June 6 by the faithful of a sect that believes this story as the gospel. Moreover, they believe that Herai will become the staging area for the Rapture and the Last Judgment. However, the members of this cult, who claim a special relationship to Jesus, say they have no knowledge as to when these tumultuous events will occur.

http://www.ishipress.com/jesusjap.htm

i find that VERRRRRY doubtful since after the resurrection jesus went to JAPAN and his descendants live there to this day.

Riding there on his dinosaur no less.

there is no proof just like there is no proof that any ever existed. to question this is chasing the wind. all we have is documents. all documents could be fake. even a house with someone's name and supposed possessions could be fake, (even tombs) possibly put there by someone to keep a myth alive. we cannot conclusively say that confucius or buddha or mohammad existed, because we don't have dna of those people. therefore, this question will remain unanswered.....perhaps, until we die.....;)

that being said, according to 'history' around 40-50ad, a group of people who called themselves christians began popping up and becoming rather prominent. they were persecuted violently for some reason (as far as roman records go)
how can i has capital letter

There were 21 historical 'jesuses' in the time frame most attributed to the 'bible'.

None of which pan out to what they claim.

xtianity wasn't even an organized faith until 325 CE.

Did he exist? Nope. He was a fictional character in an invented pageantry. All the ideas were stolen from other faiths and given specific twists depending upon your sect.

There is a wonderful website and book on the subject that went through all the historical inadequacies.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

There were 21 historical 'jesuses' in the time frame most attributed to the 'bible'.

None of which pan out to what they claim.

xtianity wasn't even an organized faith until 325 CE.

Did he exist? Nope. He was a fictional character in an invented pageantry. All the ideas were stolen from other faiths and given specific twists depending upon your sect.

There is a wonderful website and book on the subject that went through all the historical inadequacies.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Christianity certainly was organized before 325. It was fairly organized even in the First Century, there were churches and congregations all through the Eastern Mediterranean. That's how St. Paul traveled around on his mission to the Gentiles. What happened in the early 4th Century was that Christianity first became a legal religion (312) and then the official imperial religion (325).

As for whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, I think that there was a single person whose life and death are at the center of Christian myth. I don't believe he was the supernatural son of God, but rather a Jewish teacher with a messianic message who collected the right disciples, who themselves were lucky enough to convert Paul of Tarsus when it mattered.

As for whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, I think that there was a single person whose life and death are at the center of Christian myth. I don't believe he was the supernatural son of God, but rather a Jewish teacher with a messianic message who collected the right disciples, who themselves were lucky enough to convert Paul of Tarsus when it mattered.

*points at Farnhamia*

See Christians ? That is a Believer. Sure, he doesn't believe in the whole son of god thing - but he does not make up stuff either.
Halleluja !

Christianity certainly was organized before 325. It was fairly organized even in the First Century, there were churches and congregations all through the Eastern Mediterranean. That's how St. Paul traveled around on his mission to the Gentiles. What happened in the early 4th Century was that Christianity first became a legal religion (312) and then the official imperial religion (325).

As for whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, I think that there was a single person whose life and death are at the center of Christian myth. I don't believe he was the supernatural son of God, but rather a Jewish teacher with a messianic message who collected the right disciples, who themselves were lucky enough to convert Paul of Tarsus when it mattered.what do the disciples have to do with paul??

Christianity certainly was organized before 325. It was fairly organized even in the First Century, there were churches and congregations all through the Eastern Mediterranean. That's how St. Paul traveled around on his mission to the Gentiles. What happened in the early 4th Century was that Christianity first became a legal religion (312) and then the official imperial religion (325).

As for whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, I think that there was a single person whose life and death are at the center of Christian myth. I don't believe he was the supernatural son of God, but rather a Jewish teacher with a messianic message who collected the right disciples, who themselves were lucky enough to convert Paul of Tarsus when it mattered.

Arguably, until the council of nicene, there was no canonized text, therefore it was a religion based upon distinct sects. Many aspects of the religion were still encased in mithraism and other elements of paganism. There really was no St. Paul either so this is all invented in church defined history, not historical fact.

As a matter of fact, most elements canonized depict historical events out of order. Therefore until canonization, and they actually believed in a 'one true text', there was no religion at all with the exception of a theme passed down from other religions...primarily judaism.

Jesus may have existed...there is about one independent Roman record of a man called Jesus that may have been the one in the bible, however as a messiah Jesus didn't even fulfil any of the prophecies, a lot of other people did at the time, a lot of other people were more popular than Jesus when it came to the son of god bit. In high school an RE teacher once told me "there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Julius Caesar existed", I sat there and thought well no not really, where were the temples dedicated too him built during his lifetime and the numerous records. The only real record we have of Jesus as a person are the Gospels which are pretty unreliable (and the grammar is beyond poor), and there person that some historians believe may have been Jesus is a poor excuse for a messiah he wasn't even related to King David as far as anybody can tell. Lets face it if he existed he wasn't the messiah and if he didn't why do we care, religion is a convenient system of control to keep people as oppressed masses instead of active members of the political system.

Jesus may have existed...there is about one independent Roman record of a man called Jesus that may have been the one in the bible, however as a messiah Jesus didn't even fulfil any of the prophecies, a lot of other people did at the time, a lot of other people were more popular than Jesus when it came to the son of god bit. In high school an RE teacher once told me "there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Julius Caesar existed", I sat there and thought well no not really, where were the temples dedicated too him built during his lifetime and the numerous records. The only real record we have of Jesus as a person are the Gospels which are pretty unreliable (and the grammar is beyond poor), and there person that some historians believe may have been Jesus is a poor excuse for a messiah he wasn't even related to King David as far as anybody can tell. Lets face it if he existed he wasn't the messiah and if he didn't why do we care, religion is a convenient system of control to keep people as oppressed masses instead of active members of the political system.

Yes, and the xtains did a lot of damage by destroying everything they could find that depicted a different history. They did all they could to ensure only thier 'bible' survived. The destruction of the great library, the 'sinification' of knowledge as heresy, etc etc.

Jesus may have existed...there is about one independent Roman record of a man called Jesus that may have been the one in the bible, however as a messiah Jesus didn't even fulfil any of the prophecies, a lot of other people did at the time, a lot of other people were more popular than Jesus when it came to the son of god bit. In high school an RE teacher once told me "there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Julius Caesar existed", I sat there and thought well no not really, where were the temples dedicated too him built during his lifetime and the numerous records. The only real record we have of Jesus as a person are the Gospels which are pretty unreliable (and the grammar is beyond poor), and there person that some historians believe may have been Jesus is a poor excuse for a messiah he wasn't even related to King David as far as anybody can tell. Lets face it if he existed he wasn't the messiah and if he didn't why do we care, religion is a convenient system of control to keep people as oppressed masses instead of active members of the political system.

Too funny. Yes we have historical evidence Julius Caesar existed. We have no evidence other than a religious text that 'jesus' existed. Big difference.

And? Was he?

If he existed, maybe.

Theres a couple of references the show pointed out, one of wich was the kiss that Judas gave Jesus to identify him to the romans. Seems some people think it may have been more than just a peck on the cheek.

The other passage, (cant remember verse and paragraph) refers to J.C in a garden with Mark, and that AMark was nekkid.
One would ask what Jesus and Mrk would be doing together, all nekkid and whatnot...


I think the liklier answer to your question is that they didnt have the same hangups we do about it, and it probably wasnt a big deal for a young man to have a couple of flings.
Or, being young, it was much more "forgiveable".

Paul, the guy who helped compose the New Testament, didn't actually know 'JC' I think Jesus existed, was a nice enough guy, but was essentially a cult leader. His miracles were complete pseudoscience and trickery, and exaggerated throughout time. I also believe that some of the 'morals' of the Bible, were created so the authors, could dictate, what they saw as moral ways of life.

Yes, and the xtains did a lot of damage by destroying everything they could find that depicted a different history. They did all they could to ensure only thier 'bible' survived. The destruction of the great library, the 'sinification' of knowledge as heresy, etc etc.the destruction of what great library??

If he existed, maybe.

Theres a couple of references the show pointed out, one of wich was the kiss that Judas gave Jesus to identify him to the romans. Seems some people think it may have been more than just a peck on the cheek.

The other passage, (cant remember verse and paragraph) refers to J.C in a garden with Mark, and that AMark was nekkid.
One would ask what Jesus and Mrk would be doing together, all nekkid and whatnot...


I think the liklier answer to your question is that they didnt have the same hangups we do about it, and it probably wasnt a big deal for a young man to have a couple of flings.
Or, being young, it was much more "forgiveable".

reminds me of David + Jonathan...

religion is a convenient system of control to keep people as oppressed masses instead of active members of the political system.

I have a religion but I do not feel oppressed or controlled in any way.

Certainly, there are people who use religion as an excuse to get people to do what they want, but this does not mean religion is there for the sole purpose of "controlling the masses".

I have a religion but I do not feel oppressed or controlled in any way.

Certainly, there are people who use religion as an excuse to get people to do what they want, but this does not mean religion is there for the sole purpose of "controlling the masses".

Sure it is! Do as you are told like a good <insert random religion name here> follower or when you die we will <insert terrible fate here> you.

Yes He Did And You Are All Going To Buuuuuuurrrrrn!!!!!!

:d

Yes He Did And You Are All Going To Buuuuuuurrrrrn!!!!!!

If God sends people to hell for being rational and thinking, God is not worth worship.

I have a religion but I do not feel oppressed or controlled in any way.That's part of the delusion.

If God sends people to hell for being rational and thinking, God is not worth worship.And you wonder why I despise christians?

I mean....I was kidding...stupid internet...

I mean....I was kidding...stupid internet...

Your statement accurately reflects the ideas of quite of few real people.
Scary, isn't it ?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

The Romans have record of Jesus' existance, and of his trial before Pilate.

The Romans have record of Jesus' existance, and of his trial before Pilate.

You may wish to read the topic.

Absolutely, "real men love Jesus.....right in the bum!"*Puts on Inquisition robes and prepares a stake.*

Sure it is! Do as you are told like a good <insert random religion name here> follower or when you die we will <insert terrible fate here> you.

There is more to religion than burning lakes and horned demons poking you with hot irons.

But I'm not going to discuss it. Apparently some atheists here are so brainwashed by their fanatic non-belief they call everyone who does not (not-)believe 'deluded'.

Hmmm, that does sound familiar...

Anyway, hope you have a good time bashing religion, just keep in mind that it makes you little to no better than the religious fanatics on the streets protesting against gay people...

Merry christmas btw.

The Romans have record of Jesus' existance, and of his trial before Pilate.Show us.

There is more to religion than burning lakes and horned demons poking you with hot irons.

But I'm not going to discuss it. Apparently some atheists here are so brainwashed by their fanatic non-belief they call everyone who does not (not-)believe 'deluded'.

Hmmm, that does sound familiar...

Anyway, hope you have a good time bashing religion, just keep in mind that it makes you little to no better than the religious fanatics on the streets protesting against gay people...

Merry christmas btw.

uhhh thank you. merry christams to you too.

The Romans have record of Jesus' existance, and of his trial before Pilate.

Really? Care to provide some reliable evidence?

Christianity certainly was organized before 325. It was fairly organized even in the First Century, there were churches and congregations all through the Eastern Mediterranean. That's how St. Paul traveled around on his mission to the Gentiles. What happened in the early 4th Century was that Christianity first became a legal religion (312) and then the official imperial religion (325).


Not entirely accurate. Christianity was fairly widespread, fairly early - but not as one uniform, organised unit. Much like today's wide variety of denominations, early 'Christianity' was a collection of some (sometimes VERY) different beliefs, sharing common links, but often radically divergent.

The idea of 'Christianity' as an organised group in the first few centuries AD, is deceptive and unrealistic. History is written by the victors, and Constantine and his ilk stamped out opposition, and pretended it was always so.

i find that VERRRRRY doubtful since after the resurrection jesus went to JAPAN and his descendants live there to this day.

http://www.ishipress.com/jesusjap.htm
Yay!!!!!
Jesus vs. Godzilla FTW

Absolutely, "real men love Jesus.....right in the bum!"
Let's see now......you state that Jesus doesn't exist, yet you are willing to suggest that if He did exist, then He might have been gay. It would therefore appear that your relevance to this thread is irrelevant. :eek:

If God sends people to hell for being rational and thinking, God is not worth worship.
What you mean by "rational and thinking" people?

You know, we always see this comparison "there is more evidence for jesus than caesar". And it never fails, it's always Julius Caesar. Not Thomas Jefferson, or Christopher Columbus, or a litinay of other figures, it is always that there's more evidence for jesus than julius.

The problem is, it's just not true is it? I mean, there is quite literally a mountain of evidence for Caesar. There are the original letters of cicero, which mention Caesar numerous times. There is contemporary art in France and Britain that depict Caesar. There is contemporary roman art that does as well. There are preserved coins from the time that have his likeness. There are imperial roman senate records that mention him. There are even his own memoirs on the Gallic War and Roman Civil War that are extremely historically accurate.

We have the original writings that refer to him, we have contemporary art and currency that depicts him, and we have the writings from the man's own hand. There is no serious doubt that the man Julius Caesar existed.

There is almost no evidence that Jesus existed. There are vague references from documents, the validity of which is highly suspect, and there is the Bible, which, by the way, also mentions Caesar himself by name ("render on to Caesar what is Caesar's"). In fact, the fact that the meticulous roman recordkeeping which provides ample evidence for Caesar is of no real help in proving Jesus, is remarkably telling in and of itself

You know, we always see this comparison "there is more evidence for jesus than caesar". And it never fails, it's always Julius Caesar. Not Thomas Jefferson, or Christopher Columbus, or a litinay of other figures, it is always that there's more evidence for jesus than julius.

The problem is, it's just not true is it? I mean, there is quite literally a mountain of evidence for Caesar. There are the original letters of cicero, which mention Caesar numerous times. There is contemporary art in France and Britain that depict Caesar. There is contemporary roman art that does as well. There are preserved coins from the time that have his likeness. There are imperial roman senate records that mention him. There are even his own memoirs on the Gallic War and Roman Civil War that are extremely historically accurate.

We have the original writings that refer to him, we have contemporary art and currency that depicts him, and we have the writings from the man's own hand. There is no serious doubt that the man Julius Caesar existed.

There is almost no evidence that Jesus existed. There are vague references from documents, the validity of which is highly suspect, and there is the Bible, which, by the way, also mentions Caesar himself by name ("render on to Caesar what is Caesar's"). In fact, the fact that the meticulous roman recordkeeping which provides ample evidence for Caesar is of no real help in proving Jesus, is remarkably telling in and of itself

"render on to Caesar what is Caesar's" does not refer to Julius Caesar, it refers to the emperor in general, although it uses Caesar's name as a title.

...
We have the original writings that refer to him, we have contemporary art and currency that depicts him, and we have the writings from the man's own hand. There is no serious doubt that the man Julius Caesar existed.
...

I was leaving all this alone, and then you go off and say silly stuff like that.

You do NOT have the original writings. You do NOT have writings from his own hand. All the art and money is nonsense as well, I can show you art and money with pyramids and floating eyes, it means nothing and is not evidence unless the same type of evidence can be used for others as well (like Jesus).

(I am not disputing that Caesar existed, I'm sure he did. In the same way we know that Jesus lived, his life left a lasting impact on the behavior of those around him while he was here and after he left)

And I think the real reason people try to argue with Caesar as an example is that they are thinking of The book, the Gallic Wars, and comparing the few copies we have of it with the evidences for the New Testament. The NT documents are astronomically superior and the comparison is silly, which is the point I'm sure.

What you mean by "rational and thinking" people?

People that are willing to honestly look at evidence, question things and think. People that do not believe that they need to make stuff up to support their faith, and definately do not believe that anyone who dares question their fabricated claims will burn in hell for all eternity.

Well, that is not an actual definition, but it conveys the point nicely. One should not need to make up all kinds of nonexisting documents to have Faith.

I can show you art and money with pyramids and floating eyes, it means nothing and is not evidence unless the same type of evidence can be used for others as well (like Jesus).

I suggest you look up what the word "contemporary" means. Now see if you can find contemporary art depicting jesus.

Until then, fail.

And people wonder why war never stops in the middle east....

:headbang: :mp5:

I suggest you look up what the word "contemporary" means. Now see if you can find contemporary art depicting jesus.

Until then, fail.

That's hilarious. Your entire point in your post is thoroughly debunked and refuted and shown to be an erroneous understanding of the topic of which you speak and all you have to say is to try and counter with an appeal for contemporary art? It would have been better for you to just to say nothing at all I think.

Let's see now......you state that Jesus doesn't exist, yet you are willing to suggest that if He did exist, then He might have been gay. It would therefore appear that your relevance to this thread is irrelevant. :eek:

And I contend that you are equally devoid of faith, as you are a sense of humor.

Seriously, get over yourself, and lighten up a little.

That's hilarious. Your entire point in your post is thoroughly debunked and refuted and shown to be an erroneous understanding of the topic of which you speak and all you have to say is to try and counter with an appeal for contemporary art? It would have been better for you to just to say nothing at all I think.

so, in other words, you completely are incapable of substantiating your point. Don't worry, I wasn't really arguing with you, I was arguing with those actually capable of understanding the point, and not folks like you who think you have "debunked" an argument you don't understand.

Once again, fail.

Which, frankly, is really all the responses your posts deserve.

That's hilarious. Your entire point in your post is thoroughly debunked and refuted and shown to be an erroneous understanding of the topic of which you speak and all you have to say is to try and counter with an appeal for contemporary art? It would have been better for you to just to say nothing at all I think.

So if someone gets painted or sculpted in his lifetime and we still have that painting or sculpture, that is no valid evidence for the portrayed person to have existed??

That's hilarious. Your entire point in your post is thoroughly debunked and refuted and shown to be an erroneous understanding of the topic of which you speak and all you have to say is to try and counter with an appeal for contemporary art? It would have been better for you to just to say nothing at all I think.

No it isnt.

We have writings of Julius Ceaser, wich are written TO him, about him, and from him, DURING the time of his life, wich no one contends.
NOTHING exists wich was written about, or concerning Jesus, during the mysterious 33 years he supposedly lived.
Further to that point is the unknown dates of wich even the few existing writings remotely concerned with him. Even the earliest gospels (wich are too biased to deem accurate) might be as late as 50-100 years after his "death".

Deal with it.

No it isnt.

We have writings of Julius Ceaser, wich are written TO him, about him, and from him, DURING the time of his life, wich no one contends.
NOTHING exists wich was written about, or concerning Jesus, during the mysterious 33 years he supposedly lived.
Further to that point is the unknown dates of wich even the few existing writings remotely concerned with him. Even the earliest gospels (wich are too biased to deem accurate) might be as late as 50-100 years after his "death".

Deal with it.And Jesus didn't conquer half of the known world so just about everybody knew him in his lifetime.

No it isnt.

We have writings of Julius Ceaser, wich are written TO him, about him, and from him, DURING the time of his life, wich no one contends.
NOTHING exists wich was written about, or concerning Jesus, during the mysterious 33 years he supposedly lived.
Further to that point is the unknown dates of wich even the few existing writings remotely concerned with him. Even the earliest gospels (wich are too biased to deem accurate) might be as late as 50-100 years after his "death".

Deal with it.
Post 666!

So if someone gets painted or sculpted in his lifetime and we still have that painting or sculpture, that is no valid evidence for the portrayed person to have existed??


No it isnt.

We have writings of Julius Ceaser, wich are written TO him, about him, and from him, DURING the time of his life, wich no one contends.
NOTHING exists wich was written about, or concerning Jesus, during the mysterious 33 years he supposedly lived.
Further to that point is the unknown dates of wich even the few existing writings remotely concerned with him. Even the earliest gospels (wich are too biased to deem accurate) might be as late as 50-100 years after his "death".

Deal with it.

No no you guys clearly misunderstand. Just because there is a record of Julius Caesar ordering coins minted to bear his image, and we have those coins bearing his image, this isn't actual evidence he existed, and, after all, if we admit that coins, minted during Caesar's lifetime, on his order, bearing his likeness, is evidence of his existance, we have to include ALL art bearing the depiction of Jesus as evidence of HIS existance, including paintings like the Last Supper, made centuries later.

And of course, the original letters of Ciccero discussing his conversations and experiences with Caesar, which are rather unflattering and rather obviously without bias are JUST as valid as the gospels, even though they are copies of copies of copies, the originals long gone, and written decades after the events supposedly occured.

After all, they are all clearly the exact same thing...

No no you guys clearly misunderstand. Just because there is a record of Julius Caesar ordering coins minted to bear his image, and we have those coins bearing his image, this isn't actual evidence he existed, and, after all, if we admit that coins, minted during Caesar's lifetime, on his order, bearing his likeness, is evidence of his existance, we have to include ALL art bearing the depiction of Jesus as evidence of HIS existance, including paintings like the Last Supper, made centuries later.

And of course, the original letters of Ciccero discussing his conversations and experiences with Caesar, which are rather unflattering and rather obviously without bias are JUST as valid as the gospels, even though they are copies of copies of copies, the originals long gone, and written decades after the events supposedly occured.

After all, they are all clearly the exact same thing...

Heh, so Baldy would have us believe.

No it isnt.

We have writings of Julius Ceaser, wich are written TO him, about him, and from him, DURING the time of his life, wich no one contends.
NOTHING exists wich was written about, or concerning Jesus, during the mysterious 33 years he supposedly lived.
Further to that point is the unknown dates of wich even the few existing writings remotely concerned with him. Even the earliest gospels (wich are too biased to deem accurate) might be as late as 50-100 years after his "death".

Deal with it.

You do NOT have those letters. You have COPIES of letters. Copies of letters written by Christian scholars hundreds of years after they were supposedly written by Caesar and his contemporaries. Interesting that you think this is proof but NT copies are no good. You have no writings by Caesar that were inked to the paper within many hundreds of years after Caesars death.

You do NOT have those letters.

Yes, we do. Several dozen original letters from and to cicero exist. We most certainly do have original documentation.

Yes, we do. Several dozen original letters from and to cicero exist. We most certainly do have original documentation.

Okay, produce them. Link to which museum I should visit to see them please.

we have much evidence, but nothing can be conclusively proven. the point is, we were not there, therefore, we cannot prove he existed..

Please prove that you are not a giant, intelligent squirrel. Now, once you fail to do that, please realize that nothing at all, absolutly nothing, can be conclusively proven. All we can do, all we can ever do, is gather evidence and decide what is the most probably outcome. We can look at the evidence and decide that this evidence creates the very strong probabilty julius caesar existed.

No, it absolutly can not be proven. But there is a very, VERY big difference between believing something exists because of very strong evidence to that effect, and believing it "on faith."

I do not need to believe "on faith", I believe Caesar existed because there is very strong evidence to suggest he existed. I don't need faith to believe Caesar existed any more than I need faith to believe gravity exists. I need only to recognize the extreme evidence that supports this conclusion.

There is no such evidence for Christ, which does, most certainly, require faith.

You do NOT have those letters. You have COPIES of letters. Copies of letters written by Christian scholars hundreds of years after they were supposedly written by Caesar and his contemporaries. Interesting that you think this is proof but NT copies are no good. You have no writings by Caesar that were inked to the paper within many hundreds of years after Caesars death.

A quick casual search labels you wrong.

Apparently, there are several fragments of letters, books, and even poetry. Original copies, wich as you say have been translated and copied.

Got any original writing by Jesus?

Got any original writing by Jesus?Jesus was illiterate. He was a goddamn carpenter.

no one contends it because caesar's life has no effect on our life. people question the existance of jesus because they don't agree with what he says and they see him as a threat.
Fail. I don't find Jesus Christ (whether he was real or not) to be a threat to me in any way.


also, how can you be sure that someone didn;t make up caesar (julius i assume?). how do you know it wasn't a story. all the evidence we have proves nothing. sculptures, pictures, documents, coins, burial site: why, i see a very funny story here where someone invented this caesar, and created a lot accessories to spread around the world(coins) to make the story seem true. we have much evidence, but nothing can be conclusively proven. the point is, we were not there, therefore, we cannot prove he existed.
True to a certain extent, but hardly the point

nor can we prove Christ existed. notice though, it is a religion of faith.
So you obviously believe that he was a real person, now for the follow-up:
Assuming that somehow someone proved that there was no historical Jesus, would that harm your faith?

No.

A quick casual search labels you wrong.

Apparently, there are several fragments of letters, books, and even poetry. Original copies, wich as you say have been translated and copied.

Got any original writing by Jesus?

You seem to misunderstand what they mean by 'preserved.' When they say somthing like, so-and-so was preserved, they mean that someone, somewhere, thought the work worthy of their efforts to copy and retain for posterities sake...

Christian monks copied texts as they wore out. Not a single complete text survives from Roman times but instead those we possess were copied and recopied from the ninth century in monastery scriptoria and onward to modern times.

Jesus was illiterate. He was a goddamn carpenter.

And what.... no carpenters could read? Is it worth pointing out that 'carpenter' isn't the only possible translation?

The argument that a (possibly non-existant) person from an earlier age must have been illiterate, is pretty ridiculous.

You seem to misunderstand what they mean by 'preserved.' When they say somthing like, so-and-so was preserved, they mean that someone, somewhere, thought the work worthy of their efforts to copy and retain for posterities sake...

Christian monks copied texts as they wore out. Not a single complete text survives from Roman times but instead those we possess were copied and recopied from the ninth century in monastery scriptoria and onward to modern times.

Even if we assume you are right (I've seen no evidence to support your claim)... the simple fact remains that we DO have evidence that can be traced straight back to the pen of Caesar himself, not just letters, but Caesar's own texts on his international campaigns.

Show me one document claimed as written by 'Jesus'?

We have a wealth of visual evidence also... not just statues (of which there are a large number, stretching all across the Roman empire), but things like money. Easy to naysay? Not so much - we have currency that is essentially 'double-header' design... with (Julius) Caesar on one side of the coin, and his successor on the other. Obviously, the entirety of the Roman establishment was suckered into believing Caesar existed.

Show me any contemporary visual evidence of Jesus?

Caesar was referred to over a broad area, during his own lifetime, and in the immediate wake of his death.

SHow me contemporary evidence for Jesus, written by anyone outside of his inner circle? Indeed - ANY contemporary evidence would be good?

No no you guys clearly misunderstand. Just because there is a record of Julius Caesar ordering coins minted to bear his image, and we have those coins bearing his image, this isn't actual evidence he existed, and, after all, if we admit that coins, minted during Caesar's lifetime, on his order, bearing his likeness, is evidence of his existance, we have to include ALL art bearing the depiction of Jesus as evidence of HIS existance, including paintings like the Last Supper, made centuries later.

And of course, the original letters of Ciccero discussing his conversations and experiences with Caesar, which are rather unflattering and rather obviously without bias are JUST as valid as the gospels, even though they are copies of copies of copies, the originals long gone, and written decades after the events supposedly occured.

After all, they are all clearly the exact same thing...

blah blah.

The likeness on a coin minted DURING the alleged lifetime of the individual in question, is in no way parallel to a painting constructed millenia after the alleged model was dead.

Fail.

I think your Sarcasm Meter broke. *checks* Yup, it's broken alright.

I think your Sarcasm Meter broke. *checks* Yup, it's broken alright.

You know... you're right. And when you're right, you're right. And you know what? You're always right.

Yeah - I took it as a serious argument, because I looked at the content and ignored the name of the poster... something I do fairly often. Perhaps, not a good thing.

The sad thing is - it looks like 'serious' posts we've had in this thread...

Ah well.

You know... you're right. And when you're right, you're right. And you know what? You're always right.

Yeah - I took it as a serious argument, because I looked at the content and ignored the name of the poster... something I do fairly often. Perhaps, not a good thing.

The sad thing is - it looks like 'serious' posts we've had in this thread...

Ah well.

The true art of sarcasm and parody is that the best of it exists just this side of absurd. The fact that you for a moment considered it serious I shall take as a compliment.

You seem to misunderstand what they mean by 'preserved.' When they say somthing like, so-and-so was preserved, they mean that someone, somewhere, thought the work worthy of their efforts to copy and retain for posterities sake...

Christian monks copied texts as they wore out. Not a single complete text survives from Roman times but instead those we possess were copied and recopied from the ninth century in monastery scriptoria and onward to modern times.

Again, a quick and casual search indicates that while much of Ceasar's writings, (he was considered one of the best and most prolific writers of his age) is lost, there are surviving fragments. Much like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are likely entirely crumbled into dust, but retain a few decipherable words.

Complete texts? No.

You seem to misunderstand what they mean by 'preserved.' When they say somthing like, so-and-so was preserved, they mean that someone, somewhere, thought the work worthy of their efforts to copy and retain for posterities sake...

Christian monks copied texts as they wore out. Not a single complete text survives from Roman times but instead those we possess were copied and recopied from the ninth century in monastery scriptoria and onward to modern times.

the problem with christian texts is NOT the copying throughout the ages. it would be lovely to have some earlier copies than we do, but we just dont.

the problem is that the texts we DO have do not match up with the historical record. not that there are many matchable stories. but those that do exist, are patently false.

when it comes to julius caesar, the stories are verifiable through archeology, the writings of contemporaries, the coins, busts and statues that all resemble each other, the flow of history of the lands around rome, etc. there may well be a few stories that are not verifiable or that can be shown to be false. those dont overshadow the overall historicity of julius caesar.

And I contend that you are equally devoid of faith,
I really don't see how you figure that, but you are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be.

as you are a sense of humor.
I do believe that I have a fairly keen sense of humour, but it is obviously a little different than yours.

Seriously, get over yourself, and lighten up a little.
It is rather strange that you should make such a comment, considering that earlier in this thread you made the following statement:

Look, no one on this forum is more staunch atheist than I am,
Yes indeed, it is I that requires a greater sense of humility. :rolleyes:

I really don't see how you figure that, but you are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be.

I say that, because you jumped to inane conclusions at the smallest (and unintentional) of provocations.


I do believe that I have a fairly keen sense of humour, but it is obviously a little different than yours.
Eh, probably.


It is rather strange that you should make such a comment, considering that earlier in this thread you made the following statement:

I see no reason not to learn as much as I can, especially about something I am so set against. I do my homework, thanks.
If the christians on this forum did as much, there wouldnt be so much arguing over creationism v evolution. They would know it for the fact that it is.
Perhaps, they could even learn incorporate it into thier own theistic beliefs, instead of feeling attacked.


You, clearly, where the one who felt somehow persecuted when I made a joke about Jesus being gay. This provoked you into making the statement that you did.
If your weak faith was stronger, you would feel no need to rebuke me for my joke.
This is why your faith, and your sense of humor...are pathetic.

Otherwise, you would simply let me "wallow in my ignorance" and feel no need to jump to Jesus defense.
Especially since if he did exist, he may have enjoyed the cock occasionally.

People that are willing to honestly look at evidence, question things and think.
So, do you consider yourself one of these "rational and thinking" people?

People that do not believe that they need to make stuff up to support their faith, and definately do not believe that anyone who dares question their fabricated claims will burn in hell for all eternity.
Since you are suggesting that people are making up "stuff" and that their claims are "fabricated", perhaps you can unequivocally prove that Jesus did not really exist?

Well, as the OP, it was kind of coincidence, more prompted by another thread than the time of year.

Oh I know- but I have a strong suspicion that the thread you based this one on was spurred by the arrival of Christmas. Hence, I think we'll be at it again come next Christmas, because that's the time of the year when the idea of Christ becomes most visible.

You know, we always see this comparison "there is more evidence for jesus than caesar". And it never fails, it's always Julius Caesar. Not Thomas Jefferson, or Christopher Columbus, or a litinay of other figures, it is always that there's more evidence for jesus than julius.

You're missing the point- the argument used there is this:

"If Jesus Christ doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence and is considered a myth, then Julius Caesar, who also doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence, should also be considered a myth, yet this is not the case. Hence, seeing how both have the same amount of supporting evidence, then they both must be real."

The fact of the matter is, this isn't even an argument. Just because the sources for Julius Caesar may have the same problems that the sources for Jesus Christ have doesn't change the fact that the problems for the sources concerning Jesus Christ's existence (historically speaking) still exist. The source material itself doesn't change just because some other unrelated historical figure also has the same kind of problem- Tacitus' Annals still say the same thing, the Letter to Trajan still says the same thing, etc. You deal with source problems on an individual by dealing with the sources themselves (and/or by finding new ones) because only then can you add to the knowledge base- you don't do it by saying "well, X also has the same problem" because that adds nothing.

By the way, I've seen the same argument using the likes of Christopher Columbus and George Washington (among others) in the place of Caesar in that argument, so it's not exclusively restricted to the last Roman dictator.

Since you are suggesting that people are making up "stuff" and that their claims are "fabricated", perhaps you can unequivocally prove that Jesus did not really exist?

Can you unequivocally prove that he did?

Based on the fact that even his alleged buddies failed to make any notes of his life or death, for like a half century after his bucket is supposed to have been kicked... it seems that the (rather exorbitant and, frankly, unbelievable) claims of Christianity require more evidence than the claims that it's a story.

Hell, 'Christianity' doesn't believe that any of the other religions are true, so why hold 'doubt' to a different standard? Pleading special exception just doesn't cut it.

I say that, because you jumped to inane conclusions at the smallest (and unintentional) of provocations.
I do believe that my conclusions were accurate and correctly stated. You may feel comfortable proclaiming that Jesus did not exist, but your posts are suggesting that you are not quite sure.

I see no reason not to learn as much as I can, especially about something I am so set against. I do my homework, thanks.
Are you certain that you have learned ALL that you need to know? You realize that scoring 99% in a test where the passing grade is 100% is still a failure?

BTW, why are you "so set against" a belief in God?

If the christians on this forum did as much, there wouldnt be so much arguing over creationism v evolution. They would know it for the fact that it is.
If you had ALL the answers/"facts" then you wouldn't be wasting your time discussing these topics on NSG. However, you don't and that is why you are here.

Perhaps, they could even learn incorporate it into thier own theistic beliefs, instead of feeling attacked.
Perhaps you could respect their beliefs instead of mocking them?

You, clearly, where the one who felt somehow persecuted when I made a joke about Jesus being gay. This provoked you into making the statement that you did.
I certainly don't feel "persecuted" by your words, but I did feel compelled to call you on your shit.

If your weak faith was stronger, you would feel no need to rebuke me for my joke.
If your joke was comical perhaps I would laugh? My reply to you had zero to do with my quantity of faith.

This is why your faith, and your sense of humor...are pathetic.
I think I touched a nerve somehow?

Otherwise, you would simply let me "wallow in my ignorance" and feel no need to jump to Jesus defense.
I really don't think I need to jump to defend Jesus. As I stated earlier, I was just calling you on your irrelevant contradictory posts.

Especially since if he did exist, he may have enjoyed the cock occasionally.
Perhaps someday, you may get to ask Him.

The idea that making a joke about Jesus implies some level of belief in his existance (or at very least, not total belief in his nonexistance) is, frankly, absurd, and rather stupid.

I can make jokes about elves unicorns and dragons, but I am quite certain none of those exist. The fact that you somehow found a joke about Jesus being gay was, in some sense, some level of belief, under the guise that in order ot assert jesus was gay requires one to believe there was a jesus is...I have no other words for it other than, as I said, really, really fucking stupid.

The amount of effort it must take to post something so bizarre and completely nonsensical is mindblowing. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may god* have mercy on your soul.

*and no, merely by saying that, there is no implication on my part that I believe in god, or a soul.

So, do you consider yourself one of these "rational and thinking" people?

No. But I aspire to be one.

Since you are suggesting that people are making up "stuff" and that their claims are "fabricated", perhaps you can unequivocally prove that Jesus did not really exist?

I am not debating whether or not Jesus existed. I am stating that the tons of contemporary documents and roman records people keep referencing throughout this topic as "proof" for the existence of Jesus do not exist - or at the very least are not public.

There is a very important difference which many people - and not just Christians - in this topic seem to be unable to grasp. Which is immensely scary.

In case it still is not clear:
If someone said:

"I believe Jesus existed because there is a 2000 year old and 50 metres high statue of him on the lawn of the white house. Why would that be if he didn't exist, hmmm ?"

and I answered with:

"There is no such statue there"

would I be saying Jesus did not exist ? Would I be right in indicating that that someone was using made-up stuff to support his claim ? Would I be right to be scared if person after person repeats the statue claim with absolute certainty and considers the denying offensive ?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

NO NO, HE DOES NOT EXIST! :D

(Sorry, but its true.)

Can you unequivocally prove that he did?
Obviously not. Threads such as these rarely accomplish anything positive.

Based on the fact that even his alleged buddies failed to make any notes of his life or death, for like a half century after his bucket is supposed to have been kicked...
Fact? Your "fact" conflicts with other accounts (http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp)?

it seems that the (rather exorbitant and, frankly, unbelievable) claims of Christianity require more evidence than the claims that it's a story.
Yet no one alive can prove that your claims are more trustworthy?

Hell, 'Christianity' doesn't believe that any of the other religions are true, so why hold 'doubt' to a different standard? Pleading special exception just doesn't cut it.
And what are these truths and when will we know them? I believe it will be an exciting day!!

Fact? Your "fact" conflicts with other accounts (http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp)?

Well, considering your own source states that the gospel of Matthew was written at the earliest, in 37 A.D., but was likely preceded by the gospel of Mark, written, at the earliest, in 40 A.D., it would appear that the first gospels were not written until at least 40 years after the supposed crucifixion, which would make his claims that it was "about half a century" pretty accurate.

So it would appear that his facts are very well supported by other accounts, and I'm sure he appreciates you citing to a page that agrees and supports his claims.

Jesus does not exist, if he did, Jesus would have come back to save the world from Global Warming :D

Jesus does not exist, if he did, Jesus would have come back to save the world from Global Warming :D

You would be surprised how much people actually believe that. The deeply ingrained belief that the end of humanity will be the second coming significantly hurts the willingness to take action against potential threats - like pollution and global warming.

You would be surprised how much people actually believe that. The deeply ingrained belief that the end of humanity will be the second coming significantly hurts the willingness to take action against potential threats - like pollution and global warming.

.........:headbang:

well, anyway, JESUS DOES NOT EXIST! Theres no proof..........

Well, considering your own source states that the gospel of Matthew was written at the earliest, in 37 A.D., but was likely preceded by the gospel of Mark, written, at the earliest, in 40 A.D., it would appear that the first gospels were not written until at least 40 years after the supposed crucifixion, which would make his claims that it was "about half a century" pretty accurate.

So it would appear that his facts are very well supported by other accounts, and I'm sure he appreciates you citing to a page that agrees and supports his claims.
Ummmm your math is a little screwy? Jesus died when?

Religious beliefs deserve respect? No sorry that's the same old 'tolerance for intolerance' argument again which holds no weight whatsoever. Why is it that whenever someone says they are a Christian or maybe a 'Pastor' or 'Priest' that their opinion suddenly holds great weight and importance, as if being someone who believes blindly without evidence is something to be proud of. Sorry people, but religion deserves mockery for being the absolute joke that it is, people should stop treading carefully and tell the truth.

And what.... no carpenters could read? Is it worth pointing out that 'carpenter' isn't the only possible translation?

The argument that a (possibly non-existant) person from an earlier age must have been illiterate, is pretty ridiculous.There were no public schools for lower class kids in those days. No craftsperson back then would have ever got the chance to learn how to read and you know that pretty well, not in a Jewish school and definitely not in any Roman school.

The idea that making a joke about Jesus implies some level of belief in his existance (or at very least, not total belief in his nonexistance) is, frankly, absurd, and rather stupid.

I can make jokes about elves unicorns and dragons, but I am quite certain none of those exist. The fact that you somehow found a joke about Jesus being gay was, in some sense, some level of belief, under the guise that in order ot assert jesus was gay requires one to believe there was a jesus is...I have no other words for it other than, as I said, really, really fucking stupid.

The amount of effort it must take to post something so bizarre and completely nonsensical is mindblowing. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may god* have mercy on your soul.

*and no, merely by saying that, there is no implication on my part that I believe in god, or a soul.

The point is that the vast majority of people thinks that there existed in fact a person named Yeshua who made some kind of impression on his contemporaries. But that does in no way say that those people also believe in what the NT says about who he was and what he did. The stories are just too fantastic and excruciatingly soaked with pathos.

Fact? Your "fact" conflicts with other accounts (http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp)

Do you have a source that's *not* written by a Christian (and thus inherently biased)? That's the first time I've ever seen such an early authorship, as everything else I've seen points to a date anywhere between AD 70-100:

Link 1 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html) Link 2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=KqsL4FACxe4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22gospel+of+matthew%22+date&source=web&ots=pk9wW-CuN_&sig=VT23bE8zTN7XRlnNJ7t8u_pBK-Q) Link 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.html) Link 4 (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=552)

Do you have a source that's *not* written by a Christian (and thus inherently biased)? That's the first time I've ever seen such an early authorship, as everything else I've seen points to a date anywhere between AD 70-100:

Link 1 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html) Link 2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=KqsL4FACxe4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22gospel+of+matthew%22+date&source=web&ots=pk9wW-CuN_&sig=VT23bE8zTN7XRlnNJ7t8u_pBK-Q) Link 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.html) Link 4 (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=552)Mark is the oldest (and incomplete) gospel and it is the only one apparently written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It is yet unclear by whom and when the gospel was completed.

Mark is the oldest (and incomplete) gospel and it is the only one apparently written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It is yet unclear by whom and when the gospel was completed.

That's what I always knew- Mark came first (anywhere between 40 to 70), Matthew was second (70-80), Luke was third (90) and John was last (100). It's also my understanding that Mark was the least detailed (as there's no birth story and it's the shortest). It's just that CanuckHeaven's post threw me off- that link puts Matthew at 37, and Mark at 28 without any explanation.

I do believe that my conclusions were accurate and correctly stated. You may feel comfortable proclaiming that Jesus did not exist, but your posts are suggesting that you are not quite sure.

Looky, silly man...
I have, as you may have noticed, no doubt whatsoever, that there is absolutely no biblical god, or any other god, there never has been, and there never will be.
Any such believe is an archaic, and primitive desire for answers to lifes unanswerable questions, brought on by fear of death, and insecurity.
Period.
As for Jesus, there may indeed have been a man named Yeshua, in that particular region, who was nothing more than a common street-preacher, and that man may have been executed as a rabble-rouser, and for speaking against the Roman and Jewish authorities of the day.
However, the more research I do into the subject, the more I surmise that he, and the stories of him, indeed, possibly even the apostles themelves, may just be a product of fabrication.
Would you like me to continue, or have you heard enough?


Are you certain that you have learned ALL that you need to know? You realize that scoring 99% in a test where the passing grade is 100% is still a failure?

What in the hell are you on about?


BTW, why are you "so set against" a belief in God?

Becuase there is nothing in wich to base any supposed belief in him, and all christianty has provided the world is pain, suffering, rape, and death. I am set against the idea that one can merely follow ignorant, primitive superstitions, and use that as justification for greed, malice and murder.


If you had ALL the answers/"facts" then you wouldn't be wasting your time discussing these topics on NSG. However, you don't and that is why you are here.

And if you had any answers, you wouldnt need "God".


Perhaps you could respect their beliefs instead of mocking them?

I shall do so, just as soon as Christianity provides me with such an example.


I certainly don't feel "persecuted" by your words, but I did feel compelled to call you on your shit.

Then do so. As of now, all I see is you, reacting to perceived persecution.
Come down of the cross brother, we need the wood for the fire.


If your joke was comical perhaps I would laugh? My reply to you had zero to do with my quantity of faith.

Geez, we covered this already. Its because you possess neither faith, nor humor, remember?


I think I touched a nerve somehow?

You arent capable of such an action. Please feel free to try.


I really don't think I need to jump to defend Jesus. As I stated earlier, I was just calling you on your irrelevant contradictory posts.

Ahh, but you did.
I made an offhand joke about jesus smokin' the bone, and you obviously felt I was attacking you, or Jesus directly.
This prompted you to post, and to direct your posts at me.

Thats why your "faith" is weak.
If it cant take a tiny joke, it has nothing.


Perhaps someday, you may get to ask Him.

Yes, along with Santa, and the Easter Bunny.
OOOH! Maybe we can get Thor, and play cribbage on sundays!

That's what I always knew- Mark came first (anywhere between 40 to 70), Matthew was second (70-80), Luke was third (90) and John was last (100). It's also my understanding that Mark was the least detailed (as there's no birth story and it's the shortest). It's just that CanuckHeaven's post threw me off- that link puts Matthew at 37, and Mark at 28 without any explanation.Mark at 28 ?? Jesus didn't even start his preaching by then...

That's what I always knew- Mark came first (anywhere between 40 to 70), Matthew was second (70-80), Luke was third (90) and John was last (100). It's also my understanding that Mark was the least detailed (as there's no birth story and it's the shortest). It's just that CanuckHeaven's post threw me off- that link puts Matthew at 37, and Mark at 28 without any explanation.

Hell, the absolute truth is that mark may not have even been written between 40-70 ad.
There are many scholars who argue against that idea, and they do have sound reasoning behind them.

All of the gospels may have not been written until late 2nd century.
We just dont know, and have no way of knowing for certain.

This is very important, especially when the bible is quoted by fools, who attempt to use it as proof of anything.

Its a collection of books, by unknown authors, with unknown origins, and re-edited several times, and translated through several languages.
It is HEARSAY, and as such, if this were something as mundane as a murder trial, it would be inadmissable evidence.
Yet, some people would take that same shoddy, poorly written evidence, and use it as proof of the most important question?

stupid.

Mark at 28 ?? Jesus didn't even start his preaching by then...

I read it wrong- I thought the section where it says what time period Mark covered was when it was written. Just a minor point in the grand scheme of things, as the site still has no proof for its dates.

Oh I know- but I have a strong suspicion that the thread you based this one on was spurred by the arrival of Christmas. Hence, I think we'll be at it again come next Christmas, because that's the time of the year when the idea of Christ becomes most visible.
<SNIP>

probably true, and a good possibility that it'll be me starting it again ;)

<SNIP>
Since you are suggesting that people are making up "stuff" and that their claims are "fabricated", perhaps you can unequivocally prove that Jesus did not really exist?

A number of the people who have stated that Jesus did exist have tried making up 'proof'. Also, unless I missed something, I don't believe anyone has stated that they can prove that Jesus didn't exist, just that there is little if any unbiased evidence of his having existed.

<SNIP>
Becuase there is nothing in wich to base any supposed belief in him, and all christianty has provided the world is pain, suffering, rape, and death. I am set against the idea that one can merely follow ignorant, primitive superstitions, and use that as justification for greed, malice and murder.
<SNIP>

I wouldn't say that that's all Christianity has done, there have been many people who have done good things in the name of Christianity also - Mother Theresa for example.

I wouldn't say that that's all Christianity has done, there have been many people who have done good things in the name of Christianity also - Mother Theresa for example.

Bad example.
On the whole however I do not know if Christianity has hurt or helped humanity.

Bad example.
On the whole however I do not know if Christianity has hurt or helped humanity.

OK, why is that a bad example?

OK, why is that a bad example?

Because Mother Theresa was not such a nice person as the media often portrays her.

Because Mother Theresa was not such a nice person as the media often portrays her.

But she did do a lot of good things, whether she was a nice, pleasant person is immaterial.

But she did do a lot of good things, whether she was a nice, pleasant person is immaterial.

She did nice things and she caused misery. I think the nice things win, but the balance should be examined.

She did nice things and she caused misery. I think the nice things win, but the balance should be examined.

OK, I can live with that.
My point is still that Christianity/Christians have done good as well as evil to the world.

Do you have a source that's *not* written by a Christian (and thus inherently biased)? That's the first time I've ever seen such an early authorship, as everything else I've seen points to a date anywhere between AD 70-100:

Link 1 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html) Link 2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=KqsL4FACxe4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22gospel+of+matthew%22+date&source=web&ots=pk9wW-CuN_&sig=VT23bE8zTN7XRlnNJ7t8u_pBK-Q) Link 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.html) Link 4 (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=552)

Actually two of your own links, links 2 and 3, say the authorship was most likely BEFORE 70 AD and becoming more and more likely as research is progressing… I can’t copy and paste from link 2 but link 3 says this:

Link 3
Without going into much detail on the dating of Mark's Gospel, [10] it was probably written somewhere between AD 50 and AD 55. Consequently, Matthew's Gospel could have reasonably been written anywhere between AD 55 and AD 60. This date allows time for Matthew to have access to Mark's Gospel, and suggests that he completed the Gospel before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, because it would seem strange for the author not to mention this event in light of chapter 24. [11] This dating also allows time for Luke to use Matthew's Gospel in composing his own Gospel, as well as its sequel (Acts, ca. AD 62).

...
All of the gospels may have not been written until late 2nd century.
We just dont know, and have no way of knowing for certain.
...

They can tell for certain about such ridiculous claims as this one (which you keep making regardless of how many times you've been show that it is an erroneous understanding that makes you think this way).

For example: we have a copy of Luke and two copies of John that are from this period and NOBODY is claiming that they are originals. We even have a copy of Luke ending and John beginning on the same page, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri). And we have a fragment for Matthew from mid to late second century as well, Papyrus 104 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104). NOBODY argues that these finds are the 'original' works. We CAN and DO know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written before the second century.

But you just keep wanting to say the same thing over and over again, as if often repeating it might somehow make it true
.

Obviously not. Threads such as these rarely accomplish anything positive.


Then your mind must be closed. I've learned a huge amount from these threads.


Fact? Your "fact" conflicts with other accounts (http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp)?


Your source honestly portrays the Gospels as being written by the people to whom each is now 'allocated'? No questions? Such hubris bodes ill.

I see no reason to assume the earliest date on any of those Gospels, and the site certainly offers no compelling evidence. Indeed, the suggestion that Matthew, Mark and Luke have basis in one (or more) earlier (but now lost) scripture, strongly suggests that erring on the side of 'earlier' is a risky proposition at best.

If we assume somewhere towards the upper end of the spectrum then - we find our selves with dates from 30 to 60 years after the alleged crucifiction... not that far from my 'like, half a century' estimation.


Yet no one alive can prove that your claims are more trustworthy?


My claims that - in absence of evidence, it is most likely that strangely earthshatteringly (literally) miraculous events never took place?

Yes. My claims are more trustworthy. Miracles are fiction until there is damn good evidence.


And what are these truths and when will we know them? I believe it will be an exciting day!!

The point is, Christians deny all other religions, believe them to be false, and don't even attempt to accomodate the possibility that they may be 'real'. And yet, apply a double standard when it is their own personal axe that is being ground.

Ummmm your math is a little screwy? Jesus died when?

Assuming he lived, at all?

Actually two of your own links, links 2 and 3, say the authorship was most likely BEFORE 70 AD and becoming more and more likely as research is progressing… I can’t copy and paste from link 2 but link 3 says this:

Link 3
Without going into much detail on the dating of Mark's Gospel, [10] it was probably written somewhere between AD 50 and AD 55. Consequently, Matthew's Gospel could have reasonably been written anywhere between AD 55 and AD 60. This date allows time for Matthew to have access to Mark's Gospel, and suggests that he completed the Gospel before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, because it would seem strange for the author not to mention this event in light of chapter 24. [11] This dating also allows time for Luke to use Matthew's Gospel in composing his own Gospel, as well as its sequel (Acts, ca. AD 62).



They can tell for certain about such ridiculous claims as this one (which you keep making regardless of how many times you've been show that it is an erroneous understanding that makes you think this way).

For example: we have a copy of Luke and two copies of John that are from this period and NOBODY is claiming that they are originals. We even have a copy of Luke ending and John beginning on the same page, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri). And we have a fragment for Matthew from mid to late second century as well, Papyrus 104 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104). NOBODY argues that these finds are the 'original' works. We CAN and DO know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written before the second century.

But you just keep wanting to say the same thing over and over again, as if often repeating it might somehow make it true
.

Just to chime in on the subject of ancient manuscripts, we have no autograph copies of any work from any Greek or Roman author, let alone from one of the Gospel writers. Nor do we have any manuscripts that are direct copies of an autograph manuscript. Everything we have is separated by at least one "generation" (for want of a better word) from the original. That means that when you're reading


Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
St. Paul
Tacitus
Cicero
Suetonius
Josephus
Caesar
Catullus
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Sallust
Ovid
Vergil
Horace
Strabo
Livy
Polybius
Thucydides
Herodotus


or any of their ilk, you're reading at best a copy of a copy of the original.

There were no public schools for lower class kids in those days. No craftsperson back then would have ever got the chance to learn how to read and you know that pretty well, not in a Jewish school and definitely not in any Roman school.

Hellenistic Greece wasn't averse to public schools, actually. Although the education systems of both Rome and Greece favoured the rich (so, what's new, eh?) that doesn't mean everyone else remained uneducated. We are discussing a time and place with strong Roman, Greek and Hebrew influences... two of the golden age cultures, which wouldn't be matched for a millenium and more... and one culture that had (and still has) a strong tradition of transmitting and evaluating certain key texts.

Again, your assertions that people who come before us must be intrinsically ignorant is (itself, ignorant), illogic, ridiculous, and pointless.

Well, theres a small cult in Japan that believes that Jesus escaped the cross, travelled across Russia and eventually settled down in Japan and became a fisherman. Whose to say they're any less correct than the Gospel writers? There's too much emotion invested in this subject for it to be studied at all subjectively, least of all by Christian researchers

For example: we have a copy of Luke and two copies of John that are from this period and NOBODY is claiming that they are originals. We even have a copy of Luke ending and John beginning on the same page, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri). And we have a fragment for Matthew from mid to late second century as well, Papyrus 104 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104). NOBODY argues that these finds are the 'original' works. We CAN and DO know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written before the second century.

But you just keep wanting to say the same thing over and over again, as if often repeating it might somehow make it true
.

So... how do you know these texts were written before the second century?

Your own sources cite c. 200 and 'late second century'.... given the fact that we are discussing fragments (at least one of which is practically blank paper)... how are you certain of the dating?

Carbon decay? That would be amusingly ironic.

So... how do you know these texts were written before the second century?

Your own sources cite c. 200 and 'late second century'.... given the fact that we are discussing fragments (at least one of which is practically blank paper)... how are you certain of the dating?

Carbon decay? That would be amusingly ironic.

Neither one is nearly blank paper, you must have been looking at the backside of P104 I think? The other side is covered with writing.

If you don't like P104 however, how about P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52)then? Its date is debated, but the range is early c 100 to late as late second century...

If I take your attitude of 'won't believe anything,' to it's logical conclusion, I'll soon be doubting that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and I'll be looking for hidden treasure maps on the back of dollar bills.

Neither one is nearly blank paper, you must have been looking at the backside of P104 I think? The other side is covered with writing.


Fragmentary writing, backed with a large blank space that looks like it might have once held characters.


If you don't like P104 however, how about P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52)then? Its date is debated, but the range is early c 100 to late as late second century...


"Didn't like"? What has "like" to do with it?

You are avoiding the issue, although through genuine ignorance, or mere disingenuousness, I've yet to divine.

How do you KNOW that the text must be earlier, given that your P52 source, like all the rest, is still well within the catchment for the 'second century' argument?

Indeed - your own source says it may be late second century... the only argument they bring to bear is stylistic, and still far more than you've offered.


If I take your attitude of 'won't believe anything,' to it's logical conclusion, I'll soon be doubting that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and I'll be looking for hidden treasure maps on the back of dollar bills.

You can do as you please. I doubt. The more extraordinary the claims of a source, the more reservations I have, and the more extraordinary evidence I'll need to place faith in it.

Looky, silly man...
More proof that I touched a nerve. Rather than prove your claims, you attack the poster. You are merely adding to your lack of credibility.

I have, as you may have noticed, no doubt whatsoever, that there is absolutely no biblical god, or any other god, there never has been, and there never will be.
You can issue as many proclamations as you wish, but until you can produce convincing evidence to support those claims, then all we are dealing with here are your opinions. Again, I maintain that if you could prove your claims, you would not be wasting your time here at NSG.

Any such believe is an archaic, and primitive desire for answers to lifes unanswerable questions, brought on by fear of death, and insecurity. Period.
Since all/most atheists believe in a finite life, I believe that they would be more prone to a fear of death then Christians.

As for Jesus, there may indeed have been a man named Yeshua, in that particular region, who was nothing more than a common street-preacher, and that man may have been executed as a rabble-rouser, and for speaking against the Roman and Jewish authorities of the day.
In other words, you simply do not know. You are playing a guessing game and expecting everyone to agree with you. Your unconvincing arguments have no redeeming value.

However, the more research I do into the subject, the more I surmise that he, and the stories of him, indeed, possibly even the apostles themelves, may just be a product of fabrication.
Would you like me to continue, or have you heard enough?
I bolded the key word in your reply. Again, your uncertainty convinces me more and more that you just don't know.

What in the hell are you on about?
I will repeat the question, and perhaps you may figure out the answer?:

Are you certain that you have learned ALL that you need to know? You realize that scoring 99% in a test where the passing grade is 100% is still a failure?

Becuase there is nothing in wich to base any supposed belief in him, and all christianty has provided the world is pain, suffering, rape, and death.
Well, that is simply not true and you know it. More irrelevance.

I am set against the idea that one can merely follow ignorant, primitive superstitions, and use that as justification for greed, malice and murder.
Perhaps you need to do some more research about these "primitive superstitions"? You can start here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Beatitudes/beatitudes.htm).

And if you had any answers, you wouldnt need "God".
Sorry, but your answers leave me out in the cold. I chose God and I am comfortable with my choice.

I shall do so, just as soon as Christianity provides me with such an example.
We can respectfully agree to disagree? Mocking my beliefs or that of other Christians will not likely lead to any useful debate on the matter?

Then do so. As of now, all I see is you, reacting to perceived persecution. Come down of the cross brother, we need the wood for the fire.
And I perceive you to be an angry person. Who is right and who is wrong?

Geez, we covered this already. Its because you possess neither faith, nor humor, remember?
Wrong on both counts squire, but you can keep trying if it makes you feel vindicated or justified.

You arent capable of such an action. Please feel free to try.
Your posts betray you.

Ahh, but you did.
I made an offhand joke about jesus smokin' the bone, and you obviously felt I was attacking you, or Jesus directly. This prompted you to post, and to direct your posts at me.
I explained my reply and I stand by it.

Thats why your "faith" is weak.
If it cant take a tiny joke, it has nothing.
My faith is strong. It is your beliefs that are weak.

There were no public schools for lower class kids in those days. No craftsperson back then would have ever got the chance to learn how to read and you know that pretty well, not in a Jewish school and definitely not in any Roman school.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong, UB. The fact that he was a carpenter would pretty much guarantee basic literacy.

Basic literacy and numeracy are required for carpentry. Carpenters were second only to stonemasons in construction and manufacturing - so they had to know how to read charts and plans, do basic mathematics, write orders and read same, and interpret diagrams. By the time we are talking about, such things as keystone construction and basic buttressing were already common.

Joseph, as a carpenter, would also have had the wherewithal to hire a tutor for his children; they would, after all, have needed to be literae in Aramaic, Greek and Latin, the three languages commonly spoken in the province of Judea. Carpentry, as a skilled labour, was well-paid, and Joseph was likely one of the town's middle class.

There is also the point that Judaism, even then, stressed study of the Holy Writings - basic literacy, while far from universal, was common.

Fragmentary writing, backed with a large blank space that looks like it might have once held characters.

Other side of P104:
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/vol64/150dpi/4404back.jpg

"Didn't like"? What has "like" to do with it?

You are avoiding the issue, although through genuine ignorance, or mere disingenuousness, I've yet to divine. Avoiding what issue? The one that shows you won't accept any proof I submit anyway.

How do you KNOW that the text must be earlier, given that your P52 source, like all the rest, is still well within the catchment for the 'second century' argument?

Unless you and BS wants to pretend that the fragments might be original works, then I will ask you to prove that assesment. I already said P104 was a fragment, if you want more fragments there are plenty, but I wanted that one for the book it is from. If you want more than fragments I already submitted Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV as evidence, a codex with 51 surviving leaves, including it's a compilation of the gospel of Luke and the gospel according to John on the the same page, which shows even at that early date at least two of the canon gospels were being compiled together by Christians.

Indeed - your own source says it may be late second century... the only argument they bring to bear is stylistic, and still far more than you've offered. You're repeating what I said, I said it was mid to late second century (for P104) and early second century (c 100) to late second century for (P52).

Again, if you want to argue that these are first editions, why would they be from Egypt and not Rome or Greece or Syria, where these books are supposed to have been written?

You can do as you please. I doubt. The more extraordinary the claims of a source, the more reservations I have, and the more extraordinary evidence I'll need to place faith in it.

Faith in what? The fragments exists, BS wants to pretend that we don't have any way of knowing when the NT books were written, I'm submitting physical evidence to the contrary of his regular and repeated false charges.

You can issue as many proclamations as you wish, but until you can produce convincing evidence to support those claims, then all we are dealing with here are your opinions.


In absence of any supportable evidence for the existence of a god or gods - especially given the conflicting nature of religions - the continued lack of gods is evidence of their non-existence.

Still a flawed argument, perhaps - but far better supported (by the ongoing lack of visible interventionist gods) than it's counter argument.

Absence isn't proof of lack... but an eternity of absence is....


Since all/most atheists believe in a finite life,


They do?


I believe that they would be more prone to a fear of death then Christians.


Not only does that not follow from your flawed assumption, it doesn't even make logical sense.

WHich is more likely a symptom of 'fear of own mortality' - an acceptance that maybe life is as we see it, or a desperate groping for greater meaning and a promise of eternity?


I chose God and I am comfortable with my choice.


Now, that's curious. The idea that one can 'choose' what to believe is a novel one.

Other side of P104:
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/vol64/150dpi/4404back.jpg


Okay... and? Did you even read what I wrote?


Avoiding what issue? The one that shows you won't accept any proof I submit anyway.


You've submitted no 'proof'. You've suggested 'evidence' (not the same thing) and failed to support it.

The 'issue' was how can you be SURE of when these documents are dated?


Unless you and BS wants to pretend that the fragments might be original works, then I will ask you to prove that assesment. I already said P104 was a fragment, if you want more fragments there are plenty, but I wanted that one for the book it is from. If you want more than fragments I already submitted Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV as evidence, a codex with 51 surviving leaves, including it's a compilation of the gospel of Luke and the gospel according to John on the the same page, which shows even at that early date at least two of the canon gospels were being compiled together by Christians.


What are you talking about?

If a document exists that was written in later 200's... the only thing we know for SURE about it is - if it's based on another document, that document was written before that point. A hundred years... or a day, we don't know.

And, you still haven't actually given a reason why we should accept that dating, anyway...


You're repeating what I said, I said it was mid to late second century (for P104) and early second century (c 100) to late second century for (P52).


That's the scary thing. You're apparently unaware that your evidence actually supports the argument you were apparently attempting to argue against, with it.


Again, if you want to argue that these are first editions, why would they be from Egypt and not Rome or Greece or Syria, where these books are supposed to have been written?


Lost me. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to attribute to me - but it's your strawman, not mine.


Faith in what? The fragments exists, BS wants to pretend that we don't have any way of knowing when the NT books were written, I'm submitting physical evidence to the contrary of his regular and repeated false charges.

Backwood said "All of the gospels may have not been written until late 2nd century... We just dont know, and have no way of knowing for certain."

Your evidence actually supports his argument.

...
If a document exists that was written in later 200's... the only thing we know for SURE about it is - if it's based on another document, that document was written before that point. A hundred years... or a day, we don't know.
...

WHAT?

Where did you get that from? Late second century is AD199. After that we call it the third century. THIS is the 21 century.

Now that you understand that you didn't understand the dating system, perhaps it's time you go back and re-read the discussion, okay?

WHAT?

Where did you get that from? Late second century is AD199. After that we call it the third century. THIS is the 21 century.

Now that you understand that you didn't understand the dating system, perhaps it's time you go back and re-read the discussion, okay?

What are you talking about?

What does the 21st century have to do with anything?

Ah - I think you miss the point. You're taking an example as a reference, I think.

I could have picked any date - the 'late 200's' thing doesn't suggest we are talking about documents written in the late 200's - it's a number typed in at random. I started with an actual date, and decided that would be too confusing, so I simplified. Apparently, I still over-estimated my audience.

It could have just as easily have been 100's, no-hundreds, 600's... or anything else.

Again - I wonder if you are just hiding, to avoid addressing issues.

If a document is written TODAY (and no, I'm not suggesting any of the scripture was written today, not even fragmentary relics of it), the only thing we can be SURE of is - if it is based on another text, that other text PROBABLY existed... well, before yesterday? Before this morning? Earlier today perhaps?

Judging SOLELY from our reference material - we certainly cannot be sure how much earlier the 'other text' was written.... maybe a day ago... a year ago... two millenia?



So - after more of your pointless prevaricating about the bush - what makes you so sure that your 'dating' is correct? And how does that conflict the assertion that "All of the gospels may have not been written until late 2nd century... We just dont know, and have no way of knowing for certain"?

The Romans have record of Jesus' existance, and of his trial before Pilate.

Which one? There are 21 historical 'jesus' mentioned in history. None of which are accreditied with being any more than a simple troublemaker.

... what makes you so sure that your 'dating' is correct? And how does that conflict the assertion that "All of the gospels may have not been written until late 2nd century... We just dont know, and have no way of knowing for certain"?

Go ahead and back peddle about what year range you think I've been talking about and giving evidence for.


I've shown physical evidence from before the period he claims they existed. You want to argue that the evidence is misdated, go take it up with Oxford where P104 is kept http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/ , and Manchester's John Rylands Library where P52 is studied, http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/.

I submit that 'they' have the artifacts, they have presented the evidence for peer review and I've shown the range that the peer review system has come up with for those artifacts. That's more than enough evidence for a forum where people say they don't believe the evidence anyway. As you have said on multiple occasions, you don't care if any of the experts agree with you, you are going to have your own opinion. I see no reason why I should start quoting experts at you when you won't believe them anyway.

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.
http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

There is more to religion than burning lakes and horned demons poking you with hot irons.


Not much though. Most of any religion is a fabrication, followed closely by a bit of plaigerized text from a previous religion anyway.


But I'm not going to discuss it.


ok


Apparently some atheists here are so brainwashed by their fanatic non-belief they call everyone who does not (not-)believe 'deluded'.


Yes well most xtains refuse facts in favor of faith. I would call that delusional. If we told you not to put your hand in a pan of hot water, you would do it thinking your 'god' would intervene somehow.


Hmmm, that does sound familiar...


Certainly does have a familiar ring to it.


Anyway, hope you have a good time bashing religion, just keep in mind that it makes you little to no better than the religious fanatics on the streets protesting against gay people...


No it makes us respondents to your delusional mind. You see, gay people do not bother me at all. They arent screaming from every streetcorner that if I do not perform a homosexual act I will burn in 'hell'. So quite a difference there.


Merry christmas btw.

Well, happy 'holidays'. Commercial holidays simply mean state sanctioned days off from basic services. May as well sleep in.

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian, Flavius Josephus.

From JesusNeverExisted.COM

-snip-

Consider, also, the anomalies:


1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on.

Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:

'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...'
Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

4. The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."
This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

REALITY CHECK
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the 'golden paragraph' in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus 'on message.'

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#dennis

Go ahead and back peddle about what year range you think I've been talking about and giving evidence for.


I've shown physical evidence from before the period he claims they existed. You want to argue that the evidence is misdated, go take it up with Oxford where P104 is kept http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/ , and Manchester's John Rylands Library where P52 is studied, http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/.

I submit that 'they' have the artifacts, they have presented the evidence for peer review and I've shown the range that the peer review system has come up with for those artifacts. That's more than enough evidence for a forum where people say they don't believe the evidence anyway. As you have said on multiple occasions, you don't care if any of the experts agree with you, you are going to have your own opinion. I see no reason why I should start quoting experts at you when you won't believe them anyway.

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.
http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

I'm not backpeddling at all. You took something as specific, that wasn't meant as specific. I've explained the rational, pointed out that the IMPORTANT part is not the specific year, but what it tells us about the earlier material... and pointed out that your sources actually reinforce BS's point, not rebuff it.

You've failed to address that point. You've failed to deal with the ramifications of what a later date tells us about an earlier one. You've failed to provide any means to verify the dating of your source.

I'm beginning to think this nothing more than a redherring to distract from the fact that nets have less holes than your argument.


The point about dating here, is about the specific means of ascertaining age. You keep ignoring that, so I assume you don't know. Your sources thus far presented have cited only 'style', and themselves admitted that stylistic evidence is far from conclusive.

I'm thinking you've got nothing.

A number of the people who have stated that Jesus did exist have tried making up 'proof'.
Who has done that?

Also, unless I missed something, I don't believe anyone has stated that they can prove that Jesus didn't exist,
This is part of the problem. Many have claimed that Jesus didn't exist, yet they cannot offer unequivocal prove of their claims.

just that there is little if any unbiased evidence of his having existed.
And here it is 2007 and we are all discussing whether He existed 2000 years ago. Don't you find that rather amazing?

Who has done that?
Not going to search through the thread for everyone that has made the claim, but one of them is Balderdash

This is part of the problem. Many have claimed that Jesus didn't exist, yet they cannot offer unequivocal proof of their claims.
True, but also none of the people who have stated their belief that he didn't exist have claimed to be able to prove, their basis is the4 lack of unbiassed evidence for his existence

And here it is 2007 and we are all discussing whether He existed 2000 years ago. Don't you find that rather amazing?
Not really

Who has done that?

Every person in this topic who claimed there are hundreds of contemporary documents and Roman records on Jesus for instance. OR that there is more evidence for Caesar than for Jesus. Such stuff.

But you know that already, since that was mentioned earlier in this topic as answer to one of your questions.

Then your mind must be closed. I've learned a huge amount from these threads.
I consider myself fairly open minded but it is difficult to learn much if one is inundated with negative opinions.

Your source honestly portrays the Gospels as being written by the people to whom each is now 'allocated'? No questions? Such hubris bodes ill.
And if the source is inaccurate then you may present your proof that they are indeed inaccurate.

I see no reason to assume the earliest date on any of those Gospels, and the site certainly offers no compelling evidence. Indeed, the suggestion that Matthew, Mark and Luke have basis in one (or more) earlier (but now lost) scripture, strongly suggests that erring on the side of 'earlier' is a risky proposition at best.
See above.

If we assume somewhere towards the upper end of the spectrum then - we find our selves with dates from 30 to 60 years after the alleged crucifiction... not that far from my 'like, half a century' estimation.
So you want me to accept your assumption regarding the dates in order to make them coincide with your earlier claim? Why would I do that?

My claims that - in absence of evidence, it is most likely that strangely earthshatteringly (literally) miraculous events never took place?
You suggest that I have a closed mind. It would appear to be the other way round. Miracles happen all the time.....maybe not of the the "strangely earthshatteringly" type, as you so need to make you a believer, but they do happen.

Yes. My claims are more trustworthy.
Yet I find your claims unconvincing as to whether Jesus existed or not.

Miracles are fiction until there is damn good evidence.
See above.

The point is, Christians deny all other religions, believe them to be false, and don't even attempt to accomodate the possibility that they may be 'real'. And yet, apply a double standard when it is their own personal axe that is being ground.
The point is that Christians believe in a God, whilst atheists don't. Until we find all the right answers, God bless them all.

Miracles happen all the time.....maybe not of the the "strangely earthshatteringly" type, as you so need to make you a believer, but they do happen.

you aren't one of those "hooray, gravity worked! a miracle!" types, are you?

Not going to search through the thread for everyone that has made the claim, but one of them is Balderdash
...

You're accusing me of fabricating evidence? What utter disingenuous poppycock....

What part of linking to sources like Oxford, http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/, and Manchester's John Rylands Library http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/, and photographs of artifacts, wiki links for quick looks at other things, quotes with sources and links, what part of any of this makes you think I've fabricated anything? Slanderous claptrap :rolleyes:

I know this is a bit early, but can you give me a hint already..? Did Jesus really exist? Any conclusions? I really don't have time to read all the posts, and since there's no poll...

I know this is a bit early, but can you give me a hint already..? Did Jesus really exist? Any conclusions? I really don't have time to read all the posts, and since there's no poll...

From the best angle, No.

If you somply believe he existed without any verifiable evidence he does.

The tooth fairy has as much evidence as the proof this 'jesus' existed.

yes,jesus did exist. in my personal opinion he is son of god savior of man.but he did exist, to say that he was just a myth is to say you're one of the most idiotic people on earth. heck, even other religions claim he existed, only they dont believe him god. go figure.

yes,jesus did exist. in my personal opinion he is son of god savior of man.but he did exist, to say that he was just a myth is to say you're one of the most idiotic people on earth. heck, even other religions claim he existed, only they dont believe him god. go figure.

Only problem is, there is no evidence to back your claim. Go figure.

There is actually more evidence to Scientology than xtainity. Isn't that a kick in the head.