Jesus never existed.

[LionheartVIII]

If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus' life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing. The very few references to Jesus that allegedly date back to his lifetime are clearly forgeries, forged no doubt hundreds of years later by people who realized this embarrassing lack of evidence needed to be rectified.

Even the earliest full account of Jesus in the Bible, the Gospel of Mark, is admitted by the Catholic Church to date to at least A.D. 70, a full 40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. (Mark makes reference to an event that happened around A.D. 70, so it could not have been written any earlier. Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170, a full 140 years after the alleged event, since no one makes any reference to a Gospel of Mark, or any other Gospel, prior to this time.)


It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus. The historical evidence is overwhelming. The Jesus of the Bible never existed.

Discuss.

[Jin]

You're right, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't exist. It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?

[Walter Sobchak]

Jesus the man existed. He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.

That is agreed upon by most historians. A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on.

The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.

[ekimeinna]

so far i cannot say much everything about this thread but one thing i can say about this opinion.... JESUS LIVES!!! (another issue that many people can hardly understand)

whether you believe or not, His purpose why He came here in this world because He loved us. The Bible says in John 3:16 is this, "For God so loved the world (talking to us) that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus) that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life..." i don't know maybe you think that i am crazy about what i am talking about... He was born here miraculously through the Virgin birth of Mary and the Bible says the Holy Spirit came to that woman (Read Matthew 2, Luke 2 and 3) He was crucified, because people rejected Him as the anointed One to save the world and was rose again in the third day, according to the scriptures. i'm not saying this by my own words, but i am depending of what th Bible says. Catholic Priest believes that they are the only one who has authority to read Bible and not a regular person who used to go to a church... that's why there's a different interpretations there.. they twisted it so people will just going to believe of what they are saying... God gave us a Bible to know His Word.... but many people believes that a Bible made by many men only...

i don't know but.. you can comment something about it.. but i believe with all of my heart that Jesus died for us to save us He was existed, even until now... think about your destiny when you die. If you don't believe on God, when you die, suppose that there is Heaven and Hell, where you going?

[Hjortkayre]

I have to agree that if you look at it in this way, it looks sceptical he existed. Maybe he was just a man who started up his own religion, a prophet of sorts, who spread the teachings. After many years (This was, after all, nrealy two millenia ago) the stories could have changed, and 2000 years is enough time for grand changes to happen!
Then again, he could have performed the miracles, but all documents of him performing them have since been lost, or possibly destroyed by those who opposed Christianity.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

so far i cannot say much everything about this thread but one thing i can say about this opinion.... JESUS LIVES!!! (another issue that many people can hardly understand)

whether you believe or not, His purpose why He came here in this world because He loved us. The Bible says in John 3:16 is this, "For God so loved the world (talking to us) that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus) that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life..." i don't know maybe you think that i am crazy about what i am talking about... He was born here miraculously through the Virgin birth of Mary and the Bible says the Holy Spirit came to that woman (Read Matthew 2, Luke 2 and 3) He was crucified, because people rejected Him as the anointed One to save the world and was rose again in the third day, according to the scriptures. i'm not saying this by my own words, but i am depending of what th Bible says. Catholic Priest believes that they are the only one who has authority to read Bible and not a regular person who used to go to a church... that's why there's a different interpretations there.. they twisted it so people will just going to believe of what they are saying... God gave us a Bible to know His Word.... but many people believes that a Bible made by many men only...

Yea what was needed was either concrete historical evidence that there the bible does refer to SOMETHING written while Jesus was around, or at least something to the fact that the bible is an accurate collection of facts.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you have not come across the concept of circular reasoning, so let me go ahead and tell you.

. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. This difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises.

Do you want an example? "I believe that the bible is true because it says so in the bible. Also, the bible says Jesus Christ was born through an 'immaculate conception' and did stuff so it has to be true as well".

i don't know but.. you can comment something about it.. but i believe with all of my heart that Jesus died for us to save us He was existed, even until now... think about your destiny when you die. If you don't believe on God, when you die, suppose that there is Heaven and Hell, where you going?

Thanks. You've admitted here that you're just doing it to cover your butt 'just in case'. Anyway, I believe that if there is, god will be the bigger person and judge us by our actions and what we have bought to this world, instead of being petty about how brainwashed we were while we were still in our formative years. Isn't that what a just, but benevolent god would do? "You've done a lot to help the poor and deceased of this world. You've been a real asset to the people around you. But you've always spoken out about me. BAM! Hell for you" yeaa..... no.

Besides, this whole premise of heaven and hell is simply to draw in people like it drew you in. Heck it's the same with my parents. 'There's no harm in believing right? What if it is all true? I'd better cover my bases anyway.' Thank god not everyone thought like you eh. Otherwise, we'd well and truly be stuck in the mechanical age. This computer and internet connection I'm speaking to you with, would not have been possible, if people didn't question things. Hell actually you know what? I'm gonna go as far and say that had the world been filled with the same mindset, we would still think the Earth is flat.


As far as my beliefs go? Well I believe a person called Jesus Christ walked this Earth at one point. He was born, like any normal kid. He went around and did.. stuff.. that touched people, at a time not unlike the great depression. This gave people hope. They revered him. And after years and years of Chinese whispers, someone decided to catelogue these remanents of what remained, and it turns into what we have today as the Bible. A piece of literature which contains highly exaggerated and probably falsely translated and incomplete accounts of what happened.

Seeing as you fancy yourself as quite familiar with Christianity, What do you think of Judas?

[Sinister]

I would like to agree with Casanova on this one. The question really isn't whether or not Jesus existed. The question is, should it have made a difference or not. And that question is fair game.

I'm a fan of Christianity in the same way that a person who lives in New York likes the Mets and Yanks. I'm rooting for them. But the truth is I think that the answer is closer and more glorious to Taoism. I hope if I'm wrong, that Casanova is right and God is the bigger person. Until then, I'll stay with what I see around me and hear from scientists as evidence for my religion.

[Sasquatch]

Yea what was needed was either concrete historical evidence that there the bible does refer to SOMETHING written while Jesus was around, or at least something to the fact that the bible is an accurate collection of facts.

The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate.

Do you want an example? "I believe that the bible is true because it says so in the bible. Also, the bible says Jesus Christ was born through an 'immaculate conception' and did stuff so it has to be true as well".

Actually, that wouldn't really be "circular reasoning". A more accurate, related example would be; "I know God created the earth. I know this because the earth is here, so only God could have created it." Your example really isn't "circular", just assuming topics from the same source to be true. Except believing the Bible to be true because it says so in the Bible -- and if that's what you were going for, I don't know why you would have added anything to it.

Thanks. You've admitted here that you're just doing it to cover your butt 'just in case'.

Actually, no. Ekimeinna never says anything remotely close to "doing it to cover [his/her] butt". You must have missed that "I believe with all of my heart..." part. The point was that others -- whoever was being addressed, in a specific or general sense -- have no reason not to believe, because if it isn't true, it won't matter either way. "Fire insurance", as it's commonly referred to as.

Anyway, I believe that if there is, god will be the bigger person and judge us by our actions and what we have bought to this world ...

You're obviously not getting your views of God from the Bible, because it mentions repeatedly that it's not what we do that controls our "afterlife" (eternal life after our earthly life), but if we are forgiven for our sins or not. If you don't believe it, you don't believe it -- don't try to mesh your beliefs of god with another religion's beliefs of its god, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

.. instead of being petty about how brainwashed we were while we were still in our formative years.

And again, the baseless claim that religious people are only religious because they were "brainwashed" while they were children. I'm sure it's the same way with politics too, right? Or is it only "brainwashing" for those that disagree with you? After all, if they disagree with you, they must not be smart enough to make up their own mind.

Isn't that what a just, but benevolent god would do? "You've done a lot to help the poor and deceased of this world. You've been a real asset to the people around you. But you've always spoken out about me. BAM! Hell for you" yeaa..... no.

Again, don't try comparing whatever god you believe in to the Christian god. You either don't understand the Biblical concept of salvation, or intentionally manipulate or ignore it. Let me explain again, and concisely. We all do things wrong (called "sins") -- all of us, even one little thing wrong -- and that's enough to keep us out of God's presence (remember, this is the Biblical God). Since we cannot keep from doing wrong things, we must be forgiven. Instead of paying for our sins (since there are only two places to live eternally, Heaven or Hell, and no sinners can enter God's presence in Heaven), Jesus paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to -- because we can't. So since we can't "earn" our way to Heaven (or, rather, out of Hell) by doing "good" things, we must be forgiven for the "bad" things we've done.

Consider people like cookies, and God wants us to be sugar cookies. Let's say God's allergic to chocolate -- can't eat it, can't touch it, can't even be around it. We all started out as sugar cookies, but throughout life, we get chocolatey, some more than others. You may be a sugar cookie with one chocolate sprinkle, or you may be an entire chocolate cake with chocolate chips and chocolate filling and chocolate icing and chocolate crust and chocolate milk on the side (did I miss some chocolate?), but either way, you're not a sugar cookie. Jesus was the only sugar cookie. And only Jesus can take all of the chocolate out of us and make us sugar cookies again, no matter how much we have, so God can ... eat us, I guess. C'mon, I'm trying to explain Christian spirituality and salvation with cookie analogies, gimme a break. Maybe cookies wasn't the best idea ... but it's understandable, right?

(But honestly, if anybody doesn't understand or has questions or just wants to learn more, PM me and I'd be happy to help.)

Besides, this whole premise of heaven and hell is simply to draw in people like it drew you in.

Right. Because all religious people are not only brainwashed, they're gullible cowards to be easily scared and tricked into believing.

Heck it's the same with my parents. 'There's no harm in believing right? What if it is all true? I'd better cover my bases anyway.'

While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them. Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue.

The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs.

Thank god not everyone thought like you eh. Otherwise, we'd well and truly be stuck in the mechanical age. This computer and internet connection I'm speaking to you with, would not have been possible, if people didn't question things. Hell actually you know what? I'm gonna go as far and say that had the world been filled with the same mindset, we would still think the Earth is flat.

Wow. Because we all know that no Christian -- or member of any religion, really, but mainly those eeeevil Christians -- ever questioned his or her beliefs, right? No Christian ever studied the Bible for accuracy or looked to outside sources, right? No Christian ever was challenged by an external -- or even internal -- issue and came back to their beliefs -- all Christians have been "brainwashed" since birth, and all Christians who have been presented with something contradicting their beliefs (say, Evolutionism) have either converted, rebuked their faith, or stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "lalalalalalala", right?

Anyway. A much simpler reply to the topic at hand. Yes, Jesus existed. It's fairly well documented. The faith issue is in regard to whether or not Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, who rose from the dead to save mankind, or just some fruitcake who started a cult, incited violence and rebellion, and eventually was punished by death.

[VengefulRonin]

The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate.

True, the Bible itself is actually a fairly accurate record of historical events in that region, especially the Old Testament. But I didn't know there was actually evidence of that trail...where was that found? o_O

We all do things wrong (called "sins") -- all of us, even one little thing wrong -- and that's enough to keep us out of God's presence (remember, this is the Biblical God). Since we cannot keep from doing wrong things, we must be forgiven. Instead of paying for our sins (since there are only two places to live eternally, Heaven or Hell, and no sinners can enter God's presence in Heaven), Jesus paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to -- because we can't. So since we can't "earn" our way to Heaven (or, rather, out of Hell) by doing "good" things, we must be forgiven for the "bad" things we've done.

This all, of course, is simply the beliefs of the Christian faith. According to it, no one will go heaven unless they accept Christ as their saviour. But what if, say, there is some isolated tribe that no one has ever been able to reach. They sin, but in general, they're fairly decent people and commit no atrocities. Yet because they do not accept Christ and subsequently cannot use him as a mediator to ask God for forgiveness, they will go to hell? I think not. How, praytell, are they supposed to know of Christ without someone telling them? And they might have beliefs of a god, but will it be the God of the Christian faith? Likely not. The Christian God is made out to be a just god, but given that scenario, he's excruciatingly unjust.

No Christian ever studied the Bible for accuracy or looked to outside sources, right? No Christian ever was challenged by an external -- or even internal -- issue and came back to their beliefs -- all Christians have been "brainwashed" since birth, and all Christians who have been presented with something contradicting their beliefs (say, Evolutionism) have either converted, rebuked their faith, or stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "lalalalalalala", right?

Au contraire, my mother is a hardcore Christian and tried to brainwash me from the time I was little. Before I was able to even formulate my arguments or question anything she was reading me Bible stories and exposing me to Christian things left and right. I'd say at around 8 or 9 years old I started to lose interest in the religion, and the older I've gotten the more I've questioned and come to realize how silly many aspects of Christianity are. My mother is still a hardcore Christian, and is not only obnoxious about it but downright insulting. One day as I was leaving for work, she was acting all worried and sad, so I asked her what she was being all weird for, she responded with "I just don't want you to get in a wreck and go to hell." Lovely, eh?

Oh and btw, nearly all Christians I've seen who are presented with the idea of evolution (or even that the world is older than 6 to 10 thousand years) DO go "lalalalalala" and refuse to even research the topics. Rather, they just immediately damn them as "Satan's lies" and keep on teaching chemistry and the periodic table as correct in school, despite denying that carbon dating is faulty and dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

This is all rather off-topic though, I think, so to the question at hand, yes, Jesus the man existed. Christianity was founded because of the Jewish faith, a Son of God was prophesied and some people saw Christ as the Son of God. Now as for whether he was actually the "Son of God" or not, no one can ever be sure of that till they die, and they can't exactly tell us from the grave either.

[Zardoch]

This all, of course, is simply the beliefs of the Christian faith. According to it, no one will go heaven unless they accept Christ as their saviour. But what if, say, there is some isolated tribe that no one has ever been able to reach. They sin, but in general, they're fairly decent people and commit no atrocities. Yet because they do not accept Christ and subsequently cannot use him as a mediator to ask God for forgiveness, they will go to hell? I think not.

You're misinterpreting the process of belief. In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future. Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell. Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit. The understanding within that historical event was it actually made it easier for one to CHOOSE to accept Jesus as their savior [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven.

How, praytell, are they supposed to know of Christ without someone telling them? And they might have beliefs of a god, but will it be the God of the Christian faith? Likely not. The Christian God is made out to be a just god, but given that scenario, he's excruciatingly unjust.

You know, the most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being. He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God. The difference between what ignorant people tell you or what snippets of verses you read of who God really is is the fact we have a choice. If God was TRULY a wrathful being that wanted everyone to believe in him [or Jesus in this case], he would NOT give you the ability to CHOOSE to believe in him. That's what people mistake these days. The fact we have the CHOICE is evident enough that what the majority of ignorant anti-Christians THINK they believe is wrong. You know what though? How about I give YOU an example of how mericful God is?

Alright, let's presume Christianity is real and every historical event regarding supernatural occurrences is true. In my example, let's say God didn't create the flood and allowed millions of people continue to rape, pillage, and kill each other. Fast forward today, what do you think the world would be like? Or hell, would there be any world left with so much chaos? Would you be alive today sitting at your computer and writing any of this out or would you be held at gun point by somebody who wants to use your body? With so much pain, suffering, and misery in that world do you really believe it was wrath that God brought upon his people?

Now of course I could probably ask question after question, but I think you [hopefully] get my point. If it wasn't mercy God gave this world in that time then I don't know what was.

Au contraire, my mother is a hardcore Christian and tried to brainwash me from the time I was little. Before I was able to even formulate my arguments or question anything she was reading me Bible stories and exposing me to Christian things left and right. I'd say at around 8 or 9 years old I started to lose interest in the religion, and the older I've gotten the more I've questioned and come to realize how silly many aspects of Christianity are. My mother is still a hardcore Christian, and is not only obnoxious about it but downright insulting. One day as I was leaving for work, she was acting all worried and sad, so I asked her what she was being all weird for, she responded with "I just don't want you to get in a wreck and go to hell." Lovely, eh?

Your mother isn't a hardcore Christian then. In fact, she's not a Christian at all for forcing it upon you. In truth, REAL Christians do not force their beliefs upon you, but rather preach the gospel and allow you to choose the same way God does to find salvation or not. Still, at least it shows she cares about you and doesn't want you to end up in an eternal life of pain.

Oh and btw, nearly all Christians I've seen who are presented with the idea of evolution (or even that the world is older than 6 to 10 thousand years) DO go "lalalalalala" and refuse to even research the topics. Rather, they just immediately damn them as "Satan's lies" and keep on teaching chemistry and the periodic table as correct in school, despite denying that carbon dating is faulty and dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Ha, that's a huge assumption to say nearly all Christians who are presented with the idea of evolution to plug their ears up and refuse to research its theory. What's even more ironic and contradicting is how many science fanboys and anti-Christians plug their ears and yell "lalalalala" becoming too stubborn to understand what a Christian has to say and in the end crying "I'm right, you're wrong!" like a child.

What's even funnier is those same science fanboys and anti-christians won't do their OWN research into evolution OR the big bang to realize the many holes in each theory. No, they eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to be judged for their sins and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because THEY become hypocrites by forcing THEIR beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way.

Anyway, I should probably stop before someone else attacks me on this issue and kick the thread off-topic. So yes, Jesus was a real person and there is documented proof that he lived.

[VengefulRonin]

You're misinterpreting the process of belief. In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future. Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell. Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit. The understanding within that historical event was it actually made it easier for one to CHOOSE to accept Jesus as their savior [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven.

Wait...what? It was difficult for people to get into heaven AND hell? I know before Christ that getting into heaven was more difficult and required animal sacrifices and such, but I have never heard that part about hell before...where did people go then? o_O Limbo or something? Because I thought that was just a Catholic belief.

Alright, let's presume Christianity is real and every historical event regarding supernatural occurrences is true. In my example, let's say God didn't create the flood and allowed millions of people continue to rape, pillage, and kill each other. Fast forward today, what do you think the world would be like? Or hell, would there be any world left with so much chaos? Would you be alive today sitting at your computer and writing any of this out or would you be held at gun point by somebody who wants to use your body? With so much pain, suffering, and misery in that world do you really believe it was wrath that God brought upon his people?

Oh I understand why he did the flood, things were so corrupt that he effectively had to hit the "restart" button. Humanity would have either become progressively more wicked or everyone would have just contracted AIDS or something and died out. But all I've seen in the Bible and heard in many churches is that Jesus is the only way into heaven, and if you don't accept him you're off to hell, regardless of how good a person you are. I'm saying that if that's true, it's not particularly fair or just of God to throw someone into hell simply because they didn't believe in Christ, especially if they never even had any way of hearing of him in their lifetime. Or are you saying that Jesus ISN'T needed and just makes the process easier? Because that's contradictory to everything I've ever heard and learned about Christianity.

Your mother isn't a hardcore Christian then. In fact, she's not a Christian at all for forcing it upon you. In truth, REAL Christians do not force their beliefs upon you, but rather preach the gospel and allow you to choose the same way God does to find salvation or not. Still, at least it shows she cares about you and doesn't want you to end up in an eternal life of pain.

Ha, I've actually told her that on a few occasions. Also I once compared her to a Pharisee by pointing out to her how she will always pray in front of me or my dad to make herself look good. At dinner she'll go into these long-winded prayers and she'll even pray out loud before driving somewhere. It's completely unnecessary to pray out loud like that, and well, when I told her all that she just quickly changed subjects.

Ha, that's a huge assumption to say nearly all Christians who are presented with the idea of evolution to plug their ears up and refuse to research its theory. What's even more ironic and contradicting is how many science fanboys and anti-Christians plug their ears and yell "lalalalala" becoming too stubborn to understand what a Christian has to say and in the end crying "I'm right, you're wrong!" like a child.

Um, you missed something:

Oh and btw, nearly all Christians I've seen who are presented with the idea of evolution (or even that the world is older than 6 to 10 thousand years) DO go "lalalalalala" and refuse to even research the topics.

Notice that "i've seen" part in there? Yep. I know there are Christians out there who don't yell "lalalalalala" and even do believe the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. There are even Christians who believe God made the evolutionary process.They just seem to be very few and far between (either that or there are alot of them and they just aren't vocal).

What's even funnier is those same science fanboys and anti-christians won't do their OWN research into evolution OR the big bang to realize the many holes in each theory. No, they eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to be judged for their sins and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because THEY become hypocrites by forcing THEIR beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way.

Aye, that is true, both sides can be pretty...pushy, shall we say. I myself actually don't believe in evolution. People didn't come from monkeys, birds didn't come from dinosaurs (I believe a few years some scientists actually discovered that, surprise, dinos didn't turn into birds! but it was kept hush hush). It's all just adaptation, I don't think all life started from a single-cell organism. The chances of that happening are so remote that there is almost certainly SOMETHING out there that spurred creation.

[Cell]

I think the point is that the existence of Jesus is a lot less certain than is widely believed. True, many historical reconstructions depend upon sometimes very indirect evidence, but the point stands. Jesus might, for instance, have been a composite of various persons.

To reiterate; the certitude with which the existence of Jesus is usually asserted is insufficiently grounded in evidence to justify that certitude.

He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.

That is agreed upon by most historians. A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on. The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.

True, if something "began" it must have begun "somewhere". But just exactly where, or exactly how, is not always as obvious as it might seem. There are various possibilities. Just because the most usual accounts of this particular "beginning" are more less in agreement with each other does not guarantee that these accounts are correct.

This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populem; "It must be true because everybody says it is."

The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate...

The Bible refers to many untruths too. Far more, I would say, than it does to truths. The Bible is a potpourri of disparate Bronze Age materials, which have subsequently be translated, retranslated, edited and in some instances fraudulently altered, bowdlerized and suppressed. Unsurprisingly, most of it really makes no sense at all.

And again, the baseless claim that religious people are only religious because they were "brainwashed" while they were children.

You call it “brainwashing”; I call it child abuse. Exploiting and preying on ignorance is a common religious tactic used to propagate the survival of the meme (which includes Christianity). Being infected with that religious and dogmatic concept of course, you wouldn’t see that. A faulty mind cannot diagnose itself (or others (ill) logically identical to it) after all.

Again, don't try comparing whatever god you believe in to the Christian god. You either don't understand the Biblical concept of salvation, or intentionally manipulate or ignore it.

First of all we don’t need to believe in any god that you or anyone conjures up. And, rather then other people not understanding your Biblical point of view, I suggest that it is your holy tripe that makes absolutely no sense. How many people have you seen walking on water these days all by themselves? How many “resurrected” bodies have you seen walking around the streets waiting to be magically lifted into “heaven”? Or, how many starving people have you seen being feed with magical bread and fish that have spontaneously appeared out of nowhere? How many blind people have you seen lately being cured of their blindness with nothing more then the wave of a person’s hand? And you actually think that this garbage makes any sense!? As you can see it would be impossible for us (logical people) to *understand* you. We don’t live in lala land after all. We live in the real world.

We all do things wrong (called "sins") -- all of us, even one little thing wrong -- and that's enough to keep us out of God's presence (remember, this is the Biblical God). Since we cannot keep from doing wrong things, we must be forgiven. Instead of paying for our sins (since there are only two places to live eternally, Heaven or Hell, and no sinners can enter God's presence in Heaven), Jesus paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to -- because we can't. So since we can't "earn" our way to Heaven (or, rather, out of Hell) by doing "good" things, we must be forgiven for the "bad" things we've done.

Bullshit logic again. If we have no choice but to sin then we have no moral responsibility for those sins. If god chose to create us this way then that's his problem. Therefore we do not need to be forgiven. Sacrificing Jesus is a complete waste of nails and wood, we do not need him to "pay" for our sins even if this was possible, which it isn't.

Consider people like cookies, and God wants us to be sugar cookies. Let's say God's allergic to chocolate -- can't eat it, can't touch it, can't even be around it. We all started out as sugar cookies, but throughout life, we get chocolaty, some more than others. You may be a sugar cookie with one chocolate sprinkle, or you may be an entire chocolate cake with chocolate chips and chocolate filling and chocolate icing and chocolate crust and chocolate milk on the side (did I miss some chocolate?), but either way, you're not a sugar cookie. Jesus was the only sugar cookie. And only Jesus can take all of the chocolate out of us and make us sugar cookies again, no matter how much we have, so God can ... eat us, I guess. C'mon, I'm trying to explain Christian spirituality and salvation with cookie analogies, gimme a break. Maybe cookies wasn't the best idea ... but it's understandable, right?.

Personally I think of myself as filled with creamy goodness, fibre for substance and added vitamins, T in particular.

Let me see if I have the hang of this one; nailing a sugar cookie onto some handy nearby woodwork causes all the chocolate cookies in the world to go white with fear (but only if they choose freely be terrified)? Hmm.

While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them. Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue.

Evidently you believe that Al Gore tells more lies than anything else. Tough to back that up with evidence. Presumably that's why you didn't do so. Please feel free to remedy the situation. Bring lots of data. Lots and lots. Most of Gores public utterances in fact. Or you could withdraw the allegation...

The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs..

Nothing to gain? Not even credits for admission to your mythical heaven? Perhaps we have been exposed to different bibles. The one's that I hear about are shrill with imprecations about spreading the word of god and what the consequences might be for failing to heed that same word of god. Perhaps they have nothing to gain, but in their eyes, "most christians" have a lot to lose. More fool them.

You're misinterpreting the process of belief.

Well it was completely flawed to begin with so what’s your point exactly?

In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future. Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell. Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit. The understanding within that historical event was it actually made it easier for one to CHOOSE to accept Jesus as their savior [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven.

This is a good example of what I mean by not making any sense at all. How can somebody "die for my sins"?

How is it possible for somebody other than the actual guilty party to repent a bad deed? If I am sentenced to spend time in jail I can't send somebody else to serve my sentence for me. The idea is preposterous unless you are sun-addled Bronze Age primitive who believes that human sacrifice has some effect on the universe apart from the death of the unfortunate victim.

Very interestingly, we note that Jesus is supposed to have died for our sins in some cases as much as 2000 years in advance of their actual commission. Wither free will? So often it is claimed that God gave us "free will" so that our love for him would be unconstrained. This seems inconsistent with the "fact" that we are doomed to be sinners no matter what we do or do not do. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

You know, the most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being. He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God. The difference between what ignorant people tell you or what snippets of verses you read of who God really is is the fact we have a choice. If God was TRULY a wrathful being that wanted everyone to believe in him [or Jesus in this case], he would NOT give you the ability to CHOOSE to believe in him. That's what people mistake these days. The fact we have the CHOICE is evident enough that what the majority of ignorant anti-Christians THINK they believe is wrong. You know what though? How about I give YOU an example of how mericful God is?

I find it hard to understand this logic, much less abide by it with my life. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether god is wrathful or not, why should it be necessary to have to choose whether to believe in god or not? I'm not faced with the choice of whether or not to believe in my own existence. The fact that the existence of "god" is not blindingly obvious suggests to me that there can be no such thing as "god". Why would the certain knowledge of the existence of god prevent anyone from loving god "freely"? I am fairly certain of the existence of many people but this knowledge does not prevent me from loving at least some of them. In fact I seriously doubt that it would be possible for me to love somebody that I had never even met or spoken to. Why would any rational god expect me to make an exception for him? It would mean that I would have to invent a completely different definition of the word "love" than has ever been used before.

The short of it is that this argument from "free love" is an abuse of language. It is nonsense.

Alright, let's presume Christianity is real and every historical event regarding supernatural occurrences is true. In my example, let's say God didn't create the flood and allowed millions of people continue to rape, pillage, and kill each other. Fast forward today, what do you think the world would be like? Or hell, would there be any world left with so much chaos? Would you be alive today sitting at your computer and writing any of this out or would you be held at gun point by somebody who wants to use your body? With so much pain, suffering, and misery in that world do you really believe it was wrath that God brought upon his people?

Now of course I could probably ask question after question, but I think you [hopefully] get my point. If it wasn't mercy God gave this world in that time then I don't know what was.

*Rubbing eyes in complete disbelief*

The world as we find it is a happy little paradise because the Biblical flood rid us of evil people? Behemoth, are there newspapers and stuff like that where you live? We know you have access to the Internet. How have you missed the fact that the world is a horrible, fucked up, evil place full of pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, disease, humiliation, subjugation and advertising?

So much so in fact, that it forms one of the main arguments against the existence of god sometimes known as the "problem of evil". This problem is so grave that many theologians have felt compelled to produce what are known as "theodicies" which are elaborate attempts to explain this problem away. Suffice it to say that nobody has succeeded so far.

Short version; what kind of a "merciful" god would create Satan? (Arguments from "free will" will not be entertained; please refer to my previous remarks on the subject). Also, if this “god” you enjoy preaching about was as perfect as you seem to think it is then all this nasty stuff you’ve described wouldn’t have existed or been necessary to begin with. As any one with half a brain can see this world is far from perfect. And if this god is supposedly meant to be omnipresent it could not be itself perfect, and thus it is flawed; therefore, it could not be considered “omnipotent” - a term which itself is logically contradictory with “omniscience” (you either know the future and are powerless to change it, or you can change the future and not know it for certain). Lacking these vital (and contradictory) necessities required for god-hood, we can deem that this imaginary thing we’re talking about cannot be a “god”.

What's even funnier is those same science fanboys and anti-christians won't do their OWN research into evolution OR the big bang to realize the many holes in each theory. No, they eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to be judged for their sins and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because THEY become hypocrites by forcing THEIR beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way.

I am not aware of Christians having beliefs "forced upon them" by scientists or anybody else other than their own priests. (Please don't even think of trying the "faith in science is the same thing as faith in god" manoeuvre. It doesn't work – something that has been demonstrated time and again in these very precincts. Please fell free to consult the archives in this regard). Despite your ramblings however it is a well-documented series of facts that the big bang, as well as the theory of evolution are well-supported scientific theories – which means being back up by empirical evidences that we can actually see, examine and explore. Wikipedia would be a good place for you to start. But where is even a single shred of the empirical evidence for this god you seem to enjoy preaching about so much? Or even that he gives a flying fuck about you (bibles and other mythical circular-reasoning methods notwithstanding).

But then perhaps you are referring to the "forcefulness" of evidence, reason and logic? If this is the case, then I'm sure you would not wish to perpetrate the same abuse as that of which you complain of by persuading me that your point of view is correct. Or is it the case that you are only prepared to play by those rules if you are allowed to win every time?

[Zardoch]

Wait...what? It was difficult for people to get into heaven AND hell? I know before Christ that getting into heaven was more difficult and required animal sacrifices and such, but I have never heard that part about hell before...where did people go then? o_O Limbo or something? Because I thought that was just a Catholic belief.

You're confused. Yes, it was difficult to go either ways before Jesus died. As such, most people went into "limbo" or "purgatory" like you suggested in the bible [Not a Catholic bible, a Christian bible btw]. Here's what happened.

After Jesus died he fled to hell to take the keys of death away from Lucifer because Lucifer could pretty much pick off any soul he pleased with such keys. Then he went to purgatory and preached to all those lost souls and brought them into heaven. THAT is something you never hear unless you read the bible.

Oh I understand why he did the flood, things were so corrupt that he effectively had to hit the "restart" button. Humanity would have either become progressively more wicked or everyone would have just contracted AIDS or something and died out. But all I've seen in the Bible and heard in many churches is that Jesus is the only way into heaven, and if you don't accept him you're off to hell, regardless of how good a person you are. I'm saying that if that's true, it's not particularly fair or just of God to throw someone into hell simply because they didn't believe in Christ, especially if they never even had any way of hearing of him in their lifetime. Or are you saying that Jesus ISN'T needed and just makes the process easier? Because that's contradictory to everything I've ever heard and learned about Christianity.

What you're hearing in the churches is, as I said, a misinterpretation. Jesus is our savior and what they say is we must allow him into our hearts so we can be saved. By doing so all our sins will be forgiven [past, present, and future], and we will be given the holy spirit. In a way, Jesus would help be our link to God. That is why he is needed. [To extend on that, Jesus IS God in Christianity. How you ask? Jesus is God born in a mortal body. Confusing I know, but that's what the truth of it is.]

Now what you're saying is exactly what you didn't understand before. It's not "Believe in him or go to hell!" because that's just stupid. Often it may seem like that, but it's really not. I explained that in my last post by the meaning of choice. God and Jesus has given us the ability to choose to accept him by our own free will. Do you know what hell is though? Maybe in some places of hell there's fire pits, cells, and demons torturing souls, but hell is mostly a world disconnected from God. Once you're in hell you forget God even exist for which all memory of him or your beliefs are swept away from you. It's a void of eternal suffering that doesn't let you pray or utter any name of God. The most of evil men are consumed in an eternal pit of suffering themselves.

But yes, in simple terms, that's what hell is. What God offers is a chance to save yourself from such things because living a life without him is selfish. By denying the chance to accept it you are admitting you want to live a sinful life for which allows Lucifer the chance to drown you in such sin that it will destroy you. This is, however, your choice and a hard one at that. I've known many people go years or decades going through that one decision, but in the end it's still YOUR decision. God, Jesus, or Lucifer doesn't pick for you, you do. You aren't forced into anything.

Ha, I've actually told her that on a few occasions. Also I once compared her to a Pharisee by pointing out to her how she will always pray in front of me or my dad to make herself look good. At dinner she'll go into these long-winded prayers and she'll even pray out loud before driving somewhere. It's completely unnecessary to pray out loud like that, and well, when I told her all that she just quickly changed subjects.

One of those traditional types, eh? They annoy me to no end. She needs to get valium or something.

Um, you missed something:

Notice that "i've seen" part in there? Yep. I know there are Christians out there who don't yell "lalalalalala" and even do believe the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. There are even Christians who believe God made the evolutionary process.They just seem to be very few and far between (either that or there are alot of them and they just aren't vocal).

I'm not sure I'll touch that subject because that would only lift the thread further away, lol.

Aye, that is true, both sides can be pretty...pushy, shall we say. I myself actually don't believe in evolution. People didn't come from monkeys, birds didn't come from dinosaurs (I believe a few years some scientists actually discovered that, surprise, dinos didn't turn into birds! but it was kept hush hush). It's all just adaptation, I don't think all life started from a single-cell organism. The chances of that happening are so remote that there is almost certainly SOMETHING out there that spurred creation.

Exactly. I, myself, actually believe in micro-evolution which is that small adaptation in a species. It's kind hard not for species not to adapt to new land and weather, lol.

Well it was completely flawed to begin with so what’s your point exactly?

The flaw is your opinion my good sir, but I expect no less from a politically correct person such as yourself.

This is a good example of what I mean by not making any sense at all. How can somebody "die for my sins"?

If you read the bible you'd know that, but I guess I'll explain it for you.

Before Jesus was sacrificed all our sins were pitted against us [ALL of them] which is why it made it difficult to get into heaven or even hell. Once Jesus died his blood washed away those sins allowing us to be forgiven for all of our sins and choose to follow Jesus into Heaven. The main result from his death was to make it easier for us to get into Heaven. Jesus' death was the key into giving us a clean slate. It forgave all our sins.

How is it possible for somebody other than the actual guilty party to repent a bad deed? If I am sentenced to spend time in jail I can't send somebody else to serve my sentence for me. The idea is preposterous unless you are sun-addled Bronze Age primitive who believes that human sacrifice has some effect on the universe apart from the death of the unfortunate victim.

You forget that Jesus, in Christianity's eyes, is not a normal man. This wasn't human sacrifice either, but an execution. Now his DEATH was a sacrifice God took so that all our sins would be, as I just said, forgiven. Saying you can't send somebody to serve your own sentence is not the same thing.

Very interestingly, we note that Jesus is supposed to have died for our sins in some cases as much as 2000 years in advance of their actual commission. Wither free will? So often it is claimed that God gave us "free will" so that our love for him would be unconstrained. This seems inconsistent with the "fact" that we are doomed to be sinners no matter what we do or do not do. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

Of course we can't have it both ways, but by believing and accepting Jesus it FORGIVES all your sins. That is why he died on the cross so we COULD have a chance AND a choice. If we did not have that kind of free will we would blindly believe in God without a chance to think it over. You wouldn't have control over your own mind. The fact you're rebelling against him in that post shows you that you have the free will to deny him. That would be a very different story if free will never existed.

[continued into a second post]

[Zardoch]

I find it hard to understand this logic, much less abide by it with my life. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether god is wrathful or not, why should it be necessary to have to choose whether to believe in god or not? I'm not faced with the choice of whether or not to believe in my own existence. The fact that the existence of "god" is not blindingly obvious suggests to me that there can be no such thing as "god". Why would the certain knowledge of the existence of god prevent anyone from loving god "freely"? I am fairly certain of the existence of many people but this knowledge does not prevent me from loving at least some of them. In fact I seriously doubt that it would be possible for me to love somebody that I had never even met or spoken to. Why would any rational god expect me to make an exception for him? It would mean that I would have to invent a completely different definition of the word "love" than has ever been used before.

You're thinking on the human level there bud. What YOU believe is rational is disrupted by the other thing that comes with religon; faith. It is your faith in Jesus and God that allows you to know them personally.

What your mistaking is a very common idea from people who believe, "If I can't see it, then it isn't real!". Well, on this physical plane of existence I'd say that's truth. If there is no cup in front of me I can't assume a cup is there, but God is ABOVE the physical plane. Trying to understand that is bigger than any math equation or scientific theory. It's something humans cannot comprehend. Thus we have faith to help us believe which has nothing to do with science or rationality. Before all that, however, we have choice or free will to accept our faith in believing in him. I think I've done enough repeating of myself too so I'll hope at this point you actually understand [that's a big IF] what I'm saying.

The short of it is that this argument from "free love" is an abuse of language. It is nonsense.

Another opinion buddy.

The world as we find it is a happy little paradise because the Biblical flood rid us of evil people? Behemoth, are there newspapers and stuff like that where you live? We know you have access to the Internet. How have you missed the fact that the world is a horrible, fucked up, evil place full of pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, disease, humiliation, subjugation and advertising?

So much so in fact, that it forms one of the main arguments against the existence of god sometimes known as the "problem of evil". This problem is so grave that many theologians have felt compelled to produce what are known as "theodicies" which are elaborate attempts to explain this problem away. Suffice it to say that nobody has succeeded so far.

Looks like you jumped the gun in assuming that I said this is a happy little paradise. I said nothing of the sort. My example merely suggested if there had been no flood then all the pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, humiliation, subjugation, and advertising would either have destroyed itself by now or turned this world into a TRUE living hell. I did not suggest a flood would rid the world of such things, however. The only thing the flood didn't kill was Lucifer or his army of demons which is the heart of all the problems of evil. Not rock'n'roll sonny or death metal, but true evil. I mean do you really know what demons and Lucifer do? They influence, suggest, and some times downright take over the human mind to cause pain and suffering. God doesn't make people suffer, Lucifer does. God doesn't create disease, Lucifer does.

Oh, then I'm sure at this point you're going to think "Well why doesn't God do something about it?!", well, he does and doesn't. The power of prayer does some times work in many situations, but that's only if it is a selfless prayer. When prayer isn't involved it becomes a chance if someone suffers or not. It's something not everyone, even Christians, entirely understands honestly. I suspect you'll attack me for that too.

Short version; what kind of a "merciful" god would create Satan? (Arguments from "free will" will not be entertained; please refer to my previous remarks on the subject).

Satan, or Lucifer, was created as an angel. In fact he was probably one of the most glorious angels God ever created, but eventually Lucifer choose to rebel against God because of his ego, took millions of angels with him, and fled into his own world where hell was eventually created by Lucifer. In the beginning, Lucifer was not evil, but the verses in the bible explains that this angel had his own choice and free will to deny God. It was his choice to do so and now there is a war over our souls. But wait, that leaves one question unanswered.

If God knew this would happen, why didn't he stop it? Because life wouldn't have happened in the way the bible has written. It's one of those time things where if you go to the past and change something it'll change the outcome of the future. If Lucifer had never rebelled against God, Lucifer wouldn't have been there to suggest Eve to sin. If Lucifer hadn't been there Jesus would've never been sacrificed for our sins because it was Lucifer who influenced men into getting him executed. Lucifer is as much apart of the grand plan God has for everyone as you or me. We are all apart of a future that wouldn't happen if none of us were alive. Everything we do has a consequence that will lead up to the second coming of Christ. Angels, demons, God, Lucifer, it's all apart of that.

Also, if this “god” you enjoy preaching about was as perfect as you seem to think it is then all this nasty stuff you’ve described wouldn’t have existed or been necessary to begin with. As any one with half a brain can see this world is far from perfect. And if this god is supposedly meant to be omnipresent it could not be itself perfect, and thus it is flawed; therefore, it could not be considered “omnipotent” - a term which itself is logically contradictory with “omniscience” (you either know the future and are powerless to change it, or you can change the future and not know it for certain). Lacking these vital (and contradictory) necessities required for god-hood, we can deem that this imaginary thing we’re talking about cannot be a “god”.

That's a childish belief I use to believe myself. If God is so perfect and merciful, why does all of this nasty stuff happen? Well, honestly it's because humans make it happen. God has no right to dictate what we do and does not involve himself with our world in the way you or many other selfish people would want. HUMANS are the true ones to blame for the suffering of mankind. HUMANS are the ones the blame for the chaos and murder they cause whether they assume it's in the name of a God or not. To pin that on God is something only a child would do.

But honestly, would you like it if God intervened on everything? Probably one of the BIGGEST reasons God doesn't jump in and help the helpless is because that would have humans WORSHIPPING him in BLIND faith. It's like if I was a rich man who owned a lot of land and there was many low to middle class people living on it. If I rode around BUYING people's faith, respect, or love by giving them things they think will make them happy, would you really like to be followed like that so blindly? Of course if you were selfish and greedy you would do that, but God does not. God wants us to have a choice in believing in him so he does not WOW us with magic tricks like so many people want him too.

I am not aware of Christians having beliefs "forced upon them" by scientists or anybody else other than their own priests. Despite your ramblings however it is a well-documented series of facts that the big bang, as well as the theory of evolution are well-supported scientific theories – which means being back up by empirical evidences that we can actually see, examine and explore. Wikipedia would be a good place for you to start. But where is even a single shred of the empirical evidence for this god you seem to enjoy preaching about so much? Or even that he gives a flying fuck about you (bibles and other mythical circular-reasoning methods notwithstanding).

Well, I was saying that scientist and people who believe in what they say attacking people's faith because they don't understand it. If faith, religion, and believing in God is so illogical then what's the point in arguing with someone about it? Because in the back of yours and many other people's minds are trivially challenged by your own belief about how the universe and life was formed. You FEAR that if all of what you believe is wrong that it'll destroy and shatter everything you've studied and assumed was truth [which goes both ways]. That is why science attacks religion when there's no real need too. You can't convert a person with faith to believe in science much like you can't convert of a person of science to follow faith. It's a paradox honestly. Even then, each types of people collide over and over in a never-ending battle where no side wins and you're just adding to that.

Anyway, again you're assuming that the evidence of God can be found in a materialistic reality. That's something you'll have to journey yourself to understand instead of asking someone else for all the answers like you scientist do.

But then perhaps you are referring to the "forcefulness" of evidence, reason and logic? If this is the case, then I'm sure you would not wish to perpetrate the same abuse as that of which you complain of by persuading me that your point of view is correct. Or is it the case that you are only prepared to play by those rules if you are allowed to win every time?

I'm not persuading to you anything, but writing out the facts of what a CHRISTIAN would believe. Yes, I probably do sound quite preachy here and there, but from my viewpoints of Christianity and how it works, that's what I've come to understand and I know there are many Christians who would agree with me. The problem is something I've already addressed when science fanboys attack religious people when there is no purpose in doing so. You're simply attacking a brick wall with your bare fist.

Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy. Who knows? Maybe someday I'll join them. Until then, have a nice day.

[Haku]

whats up bitches can i have some wanalfels bitches you all are gay asses lets have a party do do do dan dan dan woo

[Haku]

whats up bitches can i have some wanalfels bitches you all are gay asses lets have a party do do do dan dan dan woo

[Nin`]

Before most of the assertions made here are consigned to a thoroughly deserved oblivion, shall we dance a little?

To begin with antecedently, the literature observing on the weakness, generic nature and large numbers of prototypes of the "biblical Jesus" and the contradictions of the Judeo-Christian mythos by external evidence (including archaeological evidence) and internal contradictions both technical and non technical, as well as acknowledged fabrications (cf e.g. the luminous liars), is voluminous. The current academic position is well articulated in the referenced James the Brother of Jesus. I infer from the writings here that most (if not all) of you have not studied it yet. In addition, the readily accessible and previously referenced http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html references both the arguments and scores of books, numbers of them thoroughly credible (in the academic sense) works showing why an historical prototype for the biblical Jesus is a farfetched stretch requiring not one but many extensions of belief (accepting something as true despite a lack of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence) and failures of logic. I recommend that you examine both, as some of you might, as a putatively "honest searcher", no doubt find the erosion of your position by well regarded, peer reviewed, academic works, of "particular interest" too.

[A Mighty Zordon] He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.

[Nin`] Really? Please explain how you came up with this naked assertion. Affirming your Consequent again? Sources?

[A Mighty Zordon] That is agreed upon by most historians.

[Nin`] And this is an example of the True Scotsman Fallacy and the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Most historians are not historians of the origins of Christianity or even of Judea, and thus what they have to say on this issue is not relevant.

[A Mighty Zordon] A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on.

[Nin`] The correct name for arguing that because something is not proven false that it must be true is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. I could equally argue that because you have not disproved that the Universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHP*) that it is obvious that it must be true.

[A Mighty Zordon] The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.

[Nin`] To me this appears as apologetics bolstered by Argumentam ad Populam, and seasoned with a red herring on a pile of burning straw men, not argument. So far as I am aware, nobody, Christians least of all, assert that the biblical Jesus, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus was a superhuman.

[Behemoth] In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future.

[Nin`] As a point of fact, this articulation was only proposed in the 300s, and the argument over it between opposing groups of Christian fanatics arguably resulted in more so-called martyrs than any other point of dispute bar the argument of the degree of divinity possessed by this careless hodgepodge of ancient myth and contemporaneous invention by the "Luminous Liars" who forged (in both senses) Christianity. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[Behemoth] Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell.

[Nin`] Before the Christians invented the idea of hell as a place of punishment, this idea was not widely recognized, and while the Jews eschewed an afterlife, most other cultures had such, but not as we would recognize as "heaven". So your assertion while arguably true is lamentably incomplete. But if you examine the beliefs of most Christians, their entire idea of "sin" originates from gods who created amoral creatures, which they then lied to, knowing that they would break the rules, which these gods had established and for which they would be unable to forgive the humans unless the humans offered a blood sacrifice. Which was, as the babble repeatedly reminds us, and excavations confirm, "a custom in Israel" (and in many other Mediterranean nations). (cf Various JudeoChristian Sacred writings)

[Behemoth] Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit.

[Nin`] But this passive portrayal, and even alleged "sacrifice,” is altogether unsupported by the babble. Where did you get it from?

[Nin`] My understanding is that the Christians assert that their insane gods finally forgave humanity for inevitably breaking rules that the gods had made such that they would be broken after the gods supposedly "sacrificed" their supposedly own offspring on behalf of their human playthings to end the need for the gods' "chosen people" to sacrifice their own children. This assertion is countered by the fact that while those previous to this "sacrifice" and those rejecting this "sacrifice" are allegedly tortured forever by these gods for what were after all, purely temporary actions (given that nobody lives forever), unlike the tens of thousands of human sacrifices, this alleged god-thingy supposedly sacrificed on our behalf (which was only one of many such stories), did not actually die (which is defined as a permanent and irreversible cessation of life) but somehow returned to living (like all the "resurrection gods" before it). Which means that the supposed "sacrifice" was actually not a "sacrifice" in the same sense at all.

[Behemoth] The understanding within that historical event

[Nin`] Which historical event? Are you not making the logical fallacy of Assuming the Consequent here? Is not the question at hand whether there is an historical basis for the babbles mythical Jesus?

[Behemoth] was that it actually made it easier for one to choose to accept Jesus as their savoir [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless, and inspire a virtuous life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven.

[Nin`] Really? This looks to me like a serious confusion of horse and cart, or as it is more generally known, as the debating fallacy of Circulus in Demonstrando and even more egregious, some kind of inversion of the Naturalistic fallacy in that you seem to be arguing that because of a statement about virtue (a value judgment on your part) that some fact must be true. Clearly a Non Sequitur. There is also an inherent, and common, but none the less incorrect assumption, that god thingies somehow define virtue, whereas elementary logic will show that in the absence of the ability to make independent ethical evaluations, you cannot determine whether a god thingy is worthy of being worshiped, and thus gods are dependent on virtue rather than the other way around. In any event, the virtue of men has nothing to do with the historicity (or otherwise) of the biblical Jesus, meaning that this is also an example of Ignoratio Elenchi or an irrelevant conclusion.

[Behemoth] The most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being.

[Nin`] Which imaginary god are you referring to? There are many. There are also many flavours of atheism and "anti-Christianism". I cannot imagine an atheist who vests no belief in god thingies, contradicting herself by asserting generically on the characteristics of gods. To me it seems that you are engaging in both the fallacy of careless or hasty generalization coupled with the straw man of inventing words in order to be better positioned to refute them. Only, as a brief glimpse at the horrible gods you refer to below, you fail there too.

[Behemoth] He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God.

[Nin`] Huge snip of confused babble apologetics here. To summarize some of it, the Judeo-Christian god thingies are merciful because he drowned everybody except the drunken, daughter fucking old reprobate Noah from whom, presumably, according to Behemoth, we are all descended. This was to preserve the world from drunkenness and rape. In a classic example of Supressio Veri or cherry picking, Behemoth of course elided the bit about Noah being a drunken daughter-fucker as that might have spoiled his example. IMO, the rest of the apologetics Behemoth presented are of the same or worse tendentious quality.

[Behemoth] I find it funny when fans of science and anti-christians won't do their own research into evolution or the big bang to realize the many holes in each theory.

[Nin`] Here we again have Behemoth providing a very firm opinion, and an engaging in Audiatur et Altera Pars, or burying his presumptions ("the many holes"), presumably hoping that we won't notice. In addition to the afore-identified claim to Judean historical authority, we now have the implicit assertion of authority by Behemoth in the Philosophy of Science. As before, in the absence of material demonstrating his competence (and abundance of material here strongly indicating the reverse), I call for Behemoth to tender his credentials for evaluation.

[Behemoth] They’ll eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to, or fear of actually being judged for their “sins” and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because they become hypocrites by forcing their beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way I think.

[Nin`] *Weeps* When it is not possible to discern the meaning of an assemblage of words, it is not meet to attempt a response. So excuse me if I pass over this bloviation.

[Behemoth to Cell] Another opinion buddy.

[Nin` responds] This is labelled, by you, as your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the body of your writings here is small, varied and at least to my eyes does not appear to indicate that I should consider your opinion in the field of Judean History as having weight. So, in the absence of a body of work from which to evaluate the value of your opinion (or indeed, to counteract the lack of value for your opinion which perusal of your writing here to date has instilled), please provide your relevant credentials so that we can evaluate whether or not we should take your opinion sufficiently seriously to invest our time in performing this research. Please note that opinions are not evidence and in isolation neither affirm nor deny the issue under evaluation. Unless you can support your assertions in field expertise this is a logical fallacy. The specific fallacy is again Argumentum ad Verecundiam with you attempting to play the role of an authority.

[Sasquatch] The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate.

[Nin`] So does, e.g. John Norman's Chronicles of Gor (26 books apparently written to prove that the book publishing industry would print any old rubbish and that it would sell. And it completely succeeded in this goal). Badly written or not, it is more consistent in style and less self-contradictory - and takes a much less misogynistic or even anti-humanistic tenor than the babbles of the Christians; but are you seriously proposing that this is sufficient to qualify the myths of Gore as historical events in the modern sense of "historical" as opposed to the classical "fabricated stories to convey a point"? As was acknowledged by some of the most prominent apologists for the JudeoChristian myths.

[Sasquatch] While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them.

[Nin`] I preserved this because it was too good to pass up as an undisguised or naked example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as I have ever seen. Clearly Sasquatch has been disguising the fact that he is a Scientologist, given that the pulp-fiction writer, L Ron Hubbard clearly proved that unless a thetan such as Sasquatch is religiously audited he will never reach the state of "Clear", never mind become an "Operating Thetan". And as we all know, Ron Hubbard only died in 1986 and having been inspired by Xenu, was the first person to recognize the fundamental truths about mankind.

[Nin`] I leave the following screed in place to demonstrate what we are dealing with.

[Sasquach] Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue.

[Sasquatch] The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs.

[Nin`] I haven't responded, in part because there is no need to respond to such a flood of ideological assertion, Non Sequitur and Argumentam ad Hominem, but more because I would probably end up derailing the topic at hand. I will comment however that when it comes to Global Climate change, Al Gore is definitely credentialed and in field as a scientist, rather than a "lobbyist" which is how Sasquatch attempted to portray him… I am fascinated to see what credentials Sasquatch brings in support of his assertions however.

[Sasquatch] Yes, Jesus existed.

[Behemoth] So yes, Jesus was a real person…

[Nin`] Where? Quod Erat Non Demonstrandum. You have not shown this assertion to be true.

[Nin`] I assume that none of you are referring to Jesus Quintana, or Jesus Christ Allin (the punk singer), but the supposed Jesus of the babble? In which case was he the Egyptian who died in about 2600CE, or the Jewish rebel who wanted the Hasmodeans stoned for marrying their cousins and fomented rebellion in Judea including the refusal to use "tribute pennies" due to the blasphemy of granting Caesar godhood (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...)? Neither of these appears Prima Facie to be a good candidate for the Christian's biblical "Jesus." Yet unlike the clearly derivative "biblical Jesus," both of them have reasonable support. (Ibid.)

[Sasquatch] It's fairly well documented.

[Behemoth] and there is documented proof that he lived.

[Nin`] I'm going to assert the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum here as both Sasquatch and Behemoth merely reiterate their assertions and follow them up only with their previous use of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

[Nin`] Both of your assertions appear to be a Petitio principi assertion, as you are simply stating that what you seem to wish to be true, to be true in the absence of evidence (and in the face of contradictory evidence). The contemporaneous harvest of documents; or even alleged copies of documents up into the 300s is slim; and the few claimed references to the biblical Jesus do not withstand scrutiny, either being too ambiguous, blatant or even admitted falsifications. Documents prior to the late 300s display no consistent perspective and bear little relationship to the Christian's babbles of the current era which settled into forms approximating their current variants in the 500s. (Ibid.)

[Nin`] While the prototypical biblical Jesus exists, indeed the plethora of such prototypes speaks to either a much earlier person or a common myth stem, and there is a wealth of material relating to this, including the "Sermon on the Mount" (regarded by academic philologists (as opposed to theological) as the only authentic religious writings in the New Testament), and particularly the so called "Lords Prayer” dating to c 2600BCE in the tomb of Osiris, in the Pyramid texts of Unas and Pepi II and in other sources from the same era and later, while "transubstantiation", the most sacred of all the "Christian Mysteries" and its description in the babbles of the Christian sects are adopted practically word-for-word from the Osiris Sacraments, even though these pre-Christian prototypes are disavowed by most Christian bodies (although, shortly after the discovery of the, until then assumed to have been mythical, tomb of Osiris, John Paul II alluded to this in the encyclical where he stated explicitly that an historical Jesus is not a prerequisite for Christian beliefs. (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris).

[Nin`] In addition, the prototypical historical Jesus, "The Righteous Teacher", as the brother of James the Nazor, "The Just Priest" (assassinated on the Temple stairs in 62 CE), has appeared through the document caches of the militarized Q'umram "Community of the Poor," finally eradicated in 135 CE, but this Jesus was clearly a revolutionary Zealot (Zealous for the Law (of Moses), far from the Jesus of the babble - as indeed was "The Wicked Liar", better known today as Paul (or Saul) of Tarsis. (Ibid.)

the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't exist. It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?

This asserts that the words of Cicero (from multiple sources - including Aurelius Victor; Cato; Pliny the Elder and Plutarch), who ended every speech he gave "Cartago Delenda Est" (sometimes given as "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") - or "Carthage must be destroyed!" are irrelevant; that the Carthaginian towns dismantled stone by stone, the satellite images showing the abrupt halt of their civilization, the hundreds of celebratory columns over scores of years reflecting the battles, the mitochondrial tracers proving that Carthaginian women (but not men) were distributed throughout the Roman Empire after Carthage's utter defeat are all to be ignored as supporting evidence for the Punic Wars. And then uses this straw man to try to argue that in the absence of any substantive evidence, we should accept that on grounds that seems as shaky as "because" Jerusalem existed in Judea ("proof"?), we should accept that the "Son of God" "sacrificed himself" to save us from ourselves.

Thank-you for all for presenting your unfounded opinions, unfortunately they fail to begin to achieve coherency, let alone any quality of persuasion.

Nin`

[Jin]

So what happened to you not responding to me? I knew you wouldn't last that long. Your desire to have others view you as intelligent must be painful.

None of the texts you mentioned go into the details that we "know" about the Punic Wars thanks to Polybius and others, so it really doesn't disuade from the fact that our main source for the events, along with many other events in the ancient world are from historians that lived centuries later. It's really a moot point mind you as it was merely an example. The point that you missed or ignored as usual while nin-picking© the details is that someone does not not-exist simply because no one writes about them (that we have found, assuming that's even true) in their lifetime. Besides, as most people have said, most historians agree Jesus the man exists.

I missed you.

[Chez Daja]

whats up bitches can i have some wanalfels bitches you all are gay asses lets have a party do do do dan dan dan woo

Just to let everyone know, this has been warned, so no more post reports concerning this... thanks.

Anyway, Haku, this is an official warning for you... no replies need to be made toward this post of Haku's. Thanks.

[Walter Sobchak]

True, if something "began" it must have begun "somewhere". But just exactly where, or exactly how, is not always as obvious as it might seem. There are various possibilities. Just because the most usual accounts of this particular "beginning" are more less in agreement with each other does not guarantee that these accounts are correct.

This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populem; "It must be true because everybody says it is."

Is this how we do things now? You and I both know that there is more documentation of Jesus existing than not existing. The historical Jesus movement is almost three hundred years old, and people much smarter than we are have made plenty of progress in the field. Most importantly, the Jesus Seminar > us. Do I need to cite sources on a forum?

So far as I am aware, nobody, Christians least of all, assert that the biblical Jesus, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus was a superhuman.

I try to ignore you, but this is sad. Grow up. You know what I meant by the word superhuman. Don't be this way, you will find that it hurts relationships with all sorts of people.

[LionheartVIII]

It's really a moot point mind you as it was merely an example. The point that you missed or ignored as usual while nin-picking© the details is that someone does not not-exist simply because no one writes about them.

The fact that there is nothing that even alludes to Jesus's existance doesn't exactly prove that he doesn't exist. At the same time it is evidence that he may have not existed.

(that we have found, assuming that's even true) in their lifetime. Besides, as most people have said, most historians agree Jesus the man exists.

Many Historians agree that Jesus exists? I think you meant to say that historians agree that he existed. Either way what does this matter? I am pretty sure you could use the same argument for the other side. There are quite a few historians that do not believe that Hayzeus ever existed.

[Zardoch]

Dude, if you made this thread solely to attack people who believed Jesus was a real man then you've wasted a lot of people's time. You have yet to actually debate anything at all except for repeating the same shit you wrote when you started this thread. Are you just angry at Christianity or religion for that matter and are blatantly arguing, not debating, about who was who and if they were real? How is it possible to take you seriously when all you do is stubbornly sit there and throw away any legible argument someone has against you?

Either way what does this matter? I am pretty sure you could use the same argument for the other side.

Look, you just admitted you don't give a shit about what anyone else says and will ignorantly believe Jesus didn't exist in where this case there actually is proof that the MAN does [as in the actual person]. So what's the point in continuing this "debate" if all you're going to do is sit there and say the same thing over and over? Seriously dude, this is just getting stupid and there's no debate at all.

[Jin]

The fact that there is nothing that even alludes to Jesus's existance doesn't exactly prove that he doesn't exist. At the same time it is evidence that he may have not existed.

How do I say this inoffensively? If I had to choose to believe you that there is nothing that even alludes Jesus' existence or the larger historical community that says he does...well, sorry, but you can't win unless you've got some interesting new proof that everyone else seemed to miss.

Many Historians agree that Jesus exists? I think you meant to say that historians agree that he existed. Either way what does this matter? I am pretty sure you could use the same argument for the other side. There are quite a few historians that do not believe that Hayzeus ever existed.

Was this rehearsed? Are you a multiple account? I can't believe that two seperate people would have the exact same debating strategy to pick out the smallest typo in a debate and use it as content for their argument.

I'm afraid that argument does not work for the otherside as Jesus not existing is not a generally accepted fact and any historian that denies his existence needs a pretty good deal of proof to counter all the evidence that has been collected supporting his existence.

[VengefulRonin]

Look, you just admitted you don't give a shit about what anyone else says and will ignorantly believe Jesus didn't exist in where this case there actually is proof that the MAN does [as in the actual person]. So what's the point in continuing this "debate" if all you're going to do is sit there and say the same thing over and over? Seriously dude, this is just getting stupid and there's no debate at all.

Agreed. It's alot more widely accepted that Jesus the man existed, and it'd be lovely to see direct proof that he didn't. Also, I'd like to point out something: what does it MATTER if he didn't? Assuming for a minute that he didn't exist, the very idea of him was enough to start a major religion and effectively change the world (for good or for worse).

Many Historians agree that Jesus exists? I think you meant to say that historians agree that he existed. Either way what does this matter? I am pretty sure you could use the same argument for the other side. There are quite a few historians that do not believe that Hayzeus ever existed.

I'm gonna have to go with Jintatsu on this one. And who, praytell, are these "quite a few" historians? Because as far as I know, it's pretty much agreed by people that Jesus existed.

[LionheartVIII]

How do I say this inoffensively? If I had to choose to believe you that there is nothing that even alludes Jesus' existence or the larger historical community that says he does...well, sorry, but you can't win unless you've got some interesting new proof that everyone else seemed to miss.

Would you like to show me where this mythical allusion to Jesus is? I have looked and looked, but I have yet to find anything that alludes to him. If you have proof otherwise just post an article and prove me wrong.

Was this rehearsed? Are you a multiple account? I can't believe that two seperate people would have the exact same debating strategy to pick out the smallest typo in a debate and use it as content for their argument

.

This accusation seems a bit insane to me. I think you know that me and Nin' are different people and you are just saying this in an attempt to discredit me. Also if it were Nin' he would have written 30 posts worth off of what you said.

I'm afraid that argument does not work for the otherside as Jesus not existing is not a generally accepted fact and any historian that denies his existence needs a pretty good deal of proof to counter all the evidence that has been collected supporting his existence.

Again this "evidence" that has been collected to support this existance of Jesus Christ actually doesn't exist. That is why I am skeptical to as why so many mindless zombies believe that he exists and that is why I made this thread. Your problem is that you assume way to much. You assume that there is evidence, you also assume that because it is widely accepted by historians that he exists.

I'm gonna have to go with Jintatsu on this one. And who, praytell, are these "quite a few" historians? Because as far as I know, it's pretty much agreed by people that Jesus existed.

As far as you know? As far as you know Jesus's life was very well documented, and there is physical evidence supporting his existance.

Look, you just admitted you don't give a shit about what anyone else says and will ignorantly believe Jesus didn't exist in where this case there actually is proof that the MAN does [as in the actual person].

Sir, you just have proven to me how bad your reading comprehension is. Ok, before I get to mad at your failure to understand the english language, let me ask you this. Can you show me this evidence of his existence? If so show it to me, and your argument will become valid. Otherwise, quite babbling on about how I don't care about other people's assumptions.

So what's the point in continuing this "debate" if all you're going to do is sit there and say the same thing over and over? Seriously dude, this is just getting stupid and there's no debate at all.

Clearly I have to say the same thing over because you won't understand it or research it. You go on and on about how there is proof that Jesus existed, yet you never provide it.

Me: "I have done my research, and I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably didn't exist because of the lack of proof behind his existance."

You: "NO EVIDENCEZORZ WUT R U TALKIGN ABOUT? THERE IS TONS OF EVIDENCEZORZ ITS PROVED".

Me: "Nah dude no evidence".

You: "STOP REPETINGZORZ YOUR ARGUMENT THERE IS EVIDENCZORZ".

Me: "ok show me your evidence."

Validate your argument by showing me your this proof of Jesus.

[Furore]

*cue insane intro music*
I normally don't bother to do much further research on things like this, but yeah, I've pretty much spent the better part of my last few days doing two things.
1. Playing the Guitar Hero games as much as possible.
2. Checking the sources of this page and praying it wouldn't undergo any radical changes part of the way through. No joke I had to check almost 100 sources...

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

I know, I know. It's wikipedia...
Anyway, I always believed in Jesus and would have just previously argued that with the amount that was said about Jesus in various sources, it'd be highly likely his existence could be proven.

That site basically gives a whole lot of sources, all of which seem to be legimate. Take a look for yourselves.

Here are some snippets of things in favour of god's existence from that wikipedia page:

The most detailed sources of historical information about Jesus in the Bible are the four canonical Gospels: the Gospel of Matthew; the Gospel of Mark; the Gospel of Luke; and the Gospel of John.[7] These Gospels are narrative accounts of the life of Jesus. They concentrate on his ministry, and conclude with his death and resurrection. The extent to which these sources are interrelated, or used related source material, is known as the synoptic problem.

It then expands on the accuracy/inaccuracy issue, but it's all good reading...

Jesus is also the subject of the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who dictated[17] letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life, though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions.

Again, not conclusive, but this stuff adds up...

The authors whose works are contained in the New Testament sometimes quote from creeds, or confessions of faith, that obviously predate their writings. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem.

That's the first of a few paragraphs, and something I had missed myself as an example of possible evidence of Jesus' existence...

New Testament apocrypha

Jesus is a large factor in New Testament apocrypha, works excluded from the canon as it developed because they were judged not to be inspired. These texts are almost entirely dated to the mid second century or later, though a few texts, such as the Didache, may be first century in origin.

Excluded from the record in many cases, but if some does indeed date back to first century times, this could very well support Jesus' life depending on the content in question...

the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in a historical sense.

A Gnostic text, and one which while possibly fabricated like anything from those times can be, one which could very well be accurate...

Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome (c. 100),[32] Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[33] Justin Martyr,[34] and others.

These guys were around a century later. A hundred years is a long time, but they have said a few choice bits and some go into detail. Perhaps some of these ancient peeps did their homework back when the bread trail was still fresh. Or not as it's unsafe to assume anything, but it's another of those things which point at Jesus existing...

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[40] though a few have raised doubts.[41]

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[42]

A possible valid source, and one who was not Christian neither... I'd say so far he is probably the most impartial snippet I've included...
That said, the article does go on to say that the original version may have been corrupted... *sighs*

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]

Another snippet, and also one which may or may not be accurate...

And there are more sources there too as well as a section closer to the end explaining exactly why some historians refuse to believe in Jesus' existence...
I guess all I'm trying to say, is that while there's nothing conclusive either way, there seems to be a lot of snippets from various sources, which leads me to believe Jesus did exist, regardless of the issue of whether or not he was in any way 'supernatural'. Full of holes, yes. But then there's less to say Jesus never existed...

[Walter Sobchak]

As far as you know? As far as you know Jesus's life was very well documented, and there is physical evidence supporting his existance.

Are you serious? We need to find the body of a man that has been dead for 2000 years?

Validate your argument by showing me your this proof of Jesus.

Plenty of real documentation has been brought up in this forum. It isn't up to a bunch of teenagers and twenty-somethings to find you a dead body. This isn't Scooby Doo. We aren't Shaggy and the gang.

Agreed. It's alot more widely accepted that Jesus the man existed, and it'd be lovely to see direct proof that he didn't. Also, I'd like to point out something: what does it MATTER if he didn't? Assuming for a minute that he didn't exist, the very idea of him was enough to start a major religion and effectively change the world (for good or for worse).

I like this. If, by some chance, this figure was invented and most of the primary sources were duped (unlikely), then that throws most of ancient history out the window. If you want to make a case against a Biblical figure, there are plenty that are harder to find. Moses, for example.

The idea to go after Jesus feels like an anti-Christian sentiment. There are much bigger historical mysteries.

[Jin]

Would you like to show me where this mythical allusion to Jesus is? I have looked and looked, but I have yet to find anything that alludes to him. If you have proof otherwise just post an article and prove me wrong.

What's the problem here? Even 12 year olds can use Wikipedia and look at their sources.

This accusation seems a bit insane to me. I think you know that me and Nin' are different people and you are just saying this in an attempt to discredit me. Also if it were Nin' he would have written 30 posts worth off of what you said.

Are you 12? It was a hyperbole, not an accuastion.

Actually, 12 may be pushing it. 12 year olds generally wouldn't be childish enough to insert the word "poop" into someone's name while quoting them.

[LionheartVIII]

Are you serious? We need to find the body of a man that has been dead for 2000 years?

Yes I want to see a body, goddamn it.

Plenty of real documentation has been brought up in this forum. It isn't up to a bunch of teenagers and twenty-somethings to find you a dead body. This isn't Scooby Doo. We aren't Shaggy and the gang.

Yes you would be correct, there has been many bits of documentation brought up. Though none of which were written during his life. In fact all were written well after his life. My point still stands: It is inconceivealbe that no one wrote a damn thing about him during one of the most well recorded times in history... Not only that but there were 23 historians at the time who never mentioned Jesus.

Oh and I don't really care for Scooby Doo anyways.

The idea to go after Jesus feels like an anti-Christian sentiment. There are much bigger historical mysteries.

Well considering the fact that billions of people may be worshipping a man that never existed makes me want to bring it up. Also I'm not anti-Christian I used to be one myself and I have friends who are Christians as well.

ALSO: Not to mention the many fictional characters that came before Jesus with A SIMILAR STORY as Jesus. For example: Mithra or Horus. Don't you find it odd that there are so many God-like figures that came before Jesus share traits with Jesus:

-Born from a virgin
-Born on Dec. 25
-Crucified
-Rose from the dead
-And more...

Are you 12? It was a hyperbole, not an accuastion.

Actually, 12 may be pushing it. 12 year olds generally wouldn't be childish enough to insert the word "poop" into someone's name while quoting them.

Sorry for trying to add a little childish humor to lighten things up. People were getting a bit emotionally charged.

[Jin]

Yes you would be correct, there has been many bits of documentation brought up. Though none of which were written during his life. In fact all were written well after his life. My point still stands: It is inconceivealbe that no one wrote a damn thing about him during one of the most well recorded times in history... Not only that but there were 23 historians at the time who never mentioned Jesus.

Josephus (37 - 100): Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3.

Given Jesus' death in 34 or somewhere around there, this sets Josephus up to ask many witnesses. He is not a Christian historian (he's a Jewish historian), but directly mentions Christ as having been alive and having been executed by Pilate.

Tacitus also mentions him about half a century later in the Annals, albiet a brief reference.

You shouldn't assume that because we are unable to find writings about him during his life (assuming that's true at all, I haven't researched it) that none exist. This is 2000 years we're talking about here. If Josephus isn't contemporary enough for you, then you may as well throw out all ancient histories because that's as good as it gets.

ALSO: Not to mention the many fictional characters that came before Jesus with A SIMILAR STORY as Jesus. For example: Mithra or Horus. Don't you find it odd that there are so many God-like figures that came before Jesus share traits with Jesus:

-Born from a virgin
-Born on Dec. 25
-Crucified
-Rose from the dead
-And more...

That doesn't mean the man didn't exist. That means he likely wasn't the Christ. Many figures in history and religion have this issue. You can't say Rasputin didn't exist because the stories about him are fantastical and have become legend.

Seriously though, why are you wasting your time here? Go talk to an archaeologist, because you seem to want DNA proof and you aren't going to find it on this forum. It isn't up to us to prove generally accepted history; go talk to the authorities on the subject and you'll probably find out exactly why it is generally accepted by historians that Jesus the man existed.