How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

Don't forget that we don't have accounts of actual witnesses. Everything in the NT is third or fourth hand at best.

This makes no sense, thousands of people died on crosses, it was a common method of execution.

RE: OP . . . . 'cause the Bible tells me so (music here)

Well it is Jesus so he easily could have slipped away.

Well it is Jesus so he easily could have slipped away.
But then he wouldn't have died for our sins and fulfilled God's holy plan, making the whole thing a fraud and God a liar...

But then he wouldn't have died for our sins and fulfilled God's holy plan, making the whole thing a fraud and God a liar...

No. Making the church a liar.. again... and again.

No. Making the church a liar.. again... and again.
You tell us to hear what the lord hath said, then you deny the book that claims to be his message. So where are we supposed to hear what the lord hath said? Are we supposed to listen to you?

I don't think so...

You tell us to hear what the lord hath said, then you deny the book that claims to be his message. So where are we supposed to hear what the lord hath said? Are we supposed to listen to you?

I don't think so...


Applause. You sir win todays internets... :)


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

You tell us to hear what the lord hath said, then you deny the book that claims to be his message. So where are we supposed to hear what the lord hath said? Are we supposed to listen to you?

I don't think so...

If you want to you can listen to me, I wouldn't force you. Who preaches the book? The church. The bible is not, and I repeat not God's message. God's message is safe with a woman. We are you suppose to hear what the LORD says? Does thee hath a ear?

You would not be saying any of this without the Bible, so I don't know who you think you are fooling.

The bible is not, and I repeat not God's message.
Why should we believe you?


God's message is safe with a woman.
Yeah, right.

You would not be saying any of this without the Bible, so I don't know who you think you are fooling.

Himself. :p

Why should we believe you?


Yeah, right.

You have no reason to, and you clearly don't. No skin off my nose.

On topic!!

You tell us to hear what the lord hath said, then you deny the book that claims to be his message. So where are we supposed to hear what the lord hath said? Are we supposed to listen to you?

I don't think so...

naa..your supposed to listen to me..:rolleyes:

On topic!!

the only response to the OP is 'I don't know'

You would not be saying any of this without the Bible, so I don't know who you think you are fooling.

As I said, the bible is the book of good and evil.

Oh, I see, like the novels of Thomas Harris.

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?
To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross is to disregard the witness of two thousand years of Christian testimony -- what G. K. Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead" -- that says that Jesus did die on the cross. Who is more likely to be right? All orthodox Christians over the past two thousand years or a few controversialists who started pushing the claim less than two hundred years ago?

To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross also requires disproving the Gospels' status as historical documents, something that has never been done. The Gospels are unequivocal that Jesus did die, with John (an eyewitness) insisting that a Roman centurion thrust a spear into Jesus' side to make sure that he was dead (cf John 19:32-37 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=John&chapno=19&startverse=32&endverse=37).

I recommend reading Who Moved the Stone? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310295610/002-5986220-8687206?v=glance) by Frank Morison. In the book the Anglican author, originally a skeptic of the Resurrection, takes apart the various theories that purport to disprove the Resurrection.

I'm going to address Signal's questions in slightly different order than she asked them. (It makes more sense to me that way.)


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don't think that we can know that.


How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?

Do we have any way of knowing who Jesus was, or of referring to him at all, independent of the Gospel accounts?

It seems to me that we can only say something like...

For all X, if X satisfies descriptions A, B and C, then X is Jesus.

(Where A, B and C are descriptions of Jesus and his activities from the New Testament.)

In other words, Jesus is whoever corresponds to the descriptions of the person in the Bible stories. (Assuming that anyone does.)

If the stories aren't accurate, then all we are left with is an uninterpreted variable, and there doesn't really seem to be any reason left why we should continue to call that unknown individual 'Jesus'. He certainly wouldn't be the Jesus of the Bible.


How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

We seem to be fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus', at least in part, as referring to whoever it was that died on the cross. (Assuming that anyone did die on the cross in the manner and circumstances described.)

In other words, the issue that I'm trying to raise here is figuring out what the role of the myth is in fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus' to a particular individual who may or may not have existed in history.

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

Jesus had a brother by the name James , and his mother was a life .

Why don't you ask me were was Cristobal Colon buried and were was he transported , and are we sure that his bones were transplanted .

Are we sure Osama Binladen was killed and dumped into the sea
Are we sure Oswald killed Kennedy, I know a fellow in jail he claims he kille3d Kennedy.
Up to my age of 15 years old there was no record that I was born, there are no papers, but my mother and my family we all grew up together .
I can ask more dumb question

If you want to you can listen to me, I wouldn't force you. Who preaches the book? The church. The bible is not, and I repeat not God's message. God's message is safe with a woman. We are you suppose to hear what the LORD says? Does thee hath a ear?

And who is this woman of whom you speak?

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?

You can't KNOW of course, it is called faith.

Personally I find "It could all be a fairy tail" to be a more compelling argument against it and I believe!

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?


I don't know if this is my repeat.

Would you believe Jesus had brothers an a mother .
Would you believe the brother of Jesus was the leader of the church of Jerusalem, before the destruction of Jerusalem ,
Would you believe Saul of Tarsus meat James in Jerusalem ?
Would you believe Saul (Paul) preached the teaching of Jesus .
I can continue giving you steps of history on how Christianity grew until now.

I'm going to address Signal's questions in slightly different order than she asked them. (It makes more sense to me that way.)



How do we know that the gospel accounts are eye-witness testimony at all, as opposed to imaginative accounts that were written years later in order to make theological points?

I don't think that we can know that.



Do we have any way of knowing who Jesus was, or of referring to him at all, independent of the Gospel accounts?

It seems to me that we can only say something like...

For all X, if X satisfies descriptions A, B and C, then X is Jesus.

(Where A, B and C are descriptions of Jesus and his activities from the New Testament.)

In other words, Jesus is whoever corresponds to the descriptions of the person in the Bible stories. (Assuming that anyone does.)

If the stories aren't accurate, then all we are left with is an uninterpreted variable, and there doesn't really seem to be any reason left why we should continue to call that unknown individual 'Jesus'. He certainly wouldn't be the Jesus of the Bible.



We seem to be fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus', at least in part, as referring to whoever it was that died on the cross. (Assuming that anyone did die on the cross in the manner and circumstances described.)

In other words, the issue that I'm trying to raise here is figuring out what the role of the myth is in fixing the reference of the name 'Jesus' to a particular individual who may or may not have existed in history.
OR --novel concept--we could accept the historicity as countless generations have done, including the ones who actually were eyewitnesses and certainly in a position to refute a 'myth' or legend.

We could have faith that what was 'written' and 'spoken' really was written and spoken, and not try to 'overthink'.

Heck, most of us here are under 100 years old, right. . . So NONE of us in a position to state that U.S. Grant (President of the U.S. 1868-1876) actually lived (since he died in I believe 1881 at Mount Marcy in NY).

We have 'pictures' but they could have been faked. Ditto with 'letters'. Ditto with the 'eyewitness reports' of people who likewise were all pretty much dead and gone before any of us were born.

So, why do you trust in U.S. Grant? He was 'known' by thousands of people? How many of THEM do you know and trust? Couldn't THEY have been 'fooled' if a small group of people decided to 'fake a president?' Sure they could. And you'll never know for sure. . .but I'll bet you're willing to trust in good old U.S.'s existence and not relegate him to a need for a 'myth' to represent the triumph of the Union forces.

like the ppl who claim the moon landing was faked..

@MOM --


All orthodox Christians over the past two thousand years or a few controversialists who started pushing the claim less than two hundred years ago?

Argumentum ad populum, fallacy. Whose more likely to be right, the billions of humans who thought that the Earth was flat, or the few controversialists who say differently now? Oh wait, the popularity of an idea is absolutely and completely irrelevant to how true it is. Or have you failed to grasp even that simple concept?


To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross also requires disproving the Gospels' status as historical documents, something that has never been done.

Oh really now? I thought it just meant noting that we have absolutely no evidence that the bible is historically accurate. Even biblical archaeologists, archaeologists who are actively trying to prove the bible right, can't find any actual evidence. In fact we've found evidence to the contrary, we've discovered that the Gospels were written some fifty to a hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. This means that they're not first hand accounts and they're very unlikely to have been even second or third hand accounts.

OR --novel concept--we could accept the historicity as countless generations have done, including the ones who actually were eyewitnesses and certainly in a position to refute a 'myth' or legend.

Apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.

I was addressing Signal's question about how we can be sure that it was Jesus that died on the cross and not somebody else.

My suggestion was that the name 'Jesus' appears to get its reference from, and essentially be defined as, 'whoever corresponds to the accounts of Jesus' activities in the gospels'. And as far as conventional Christianity is concerned, a crucial part of that story is Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.

So, if the crucifixion really happened and X is the individual who died on the cross in the circumstances described in the gospels, then it's hard to see how X could have been anyone but Jesus.

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.


We could have faith that what was 'written' and 'spoken' really was written and spoken, and not try to 'overthink'.

I'm just speculating about the logic of how the names of historical figures get their reference.


Heck, most of us here are under 100 years old, right. . . So NONE of us in a position to state that U.S. Grant (President of the U.S. 1868-1876) actually lived (since he died in I believe 1881 at Mount Marcy in NY).

Is that really the issue of this thread?

This thread is imagining a situation analgous to imagining that the famous Civil War general and subsequent president of the United States might not have really been Ulysses S. Grant at all, but somebody else instead.

I'm saying that if our only way of identifying Ulysses Grant, of determining who the name refers to in other words, is specifying that Grant was the general and the president, then the general and the president seemingly couldn't have been anyone else but Grant. Because whoever happened to be the general and the president, that person would have been Grant.

Even if Jesus didn't die on the cross that doesn't change anything, he was still Jesus. His death doesn't mean anything. When people said he "died for our sins," its not literal. He didn't die and sin was dead too...

To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross is to disregard the witness of two thousand years of Christian testimony .

If there is a mistake in a book, and millions of people quote from that book, for thousands of years - that does not make the mistake go away.

So, why do you trust in U.S. Grant? He was 'known' by thousands of people? How many of THEM do you know and trust? Couldn't THEY have been 'fooled' if a small group of people decided to 'fake a president?' Sure they could. And you'll never know for sure. . .but I'll bet you're willing to trust in good old U.S.'s existence and not relegate him to a need for a 'myth' to represent the triumph of the Union forces.

We do not believe that the existence of President Grant affects our eternal destiny, nor are we expected to believe so.

The same is not the case with Jesus, whom we are expected to believe is the one and only path to salvation.

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.

This is in fact a line of reasoning that Muslims present to refute Christianity.
And it is a reasoning as old as the Koran.


Surah 4:157:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

The problem is that none of it is known for certain. The most evidence that exists is the accounts of those who knew him or knew those who knew him. If that's insufficient, then you must believe as you choose to believe. And frankly, the Quran, being derived almost seven hundred years later, has no intelligent commentary to offer on this; "for certain" is laughable in the context.

This is in fact a line of reasoning that Muslims present to refute Christianity.
And it is a reasoning as old as the Koran.


Surah 4:157:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Ahh Surah 4:157 You know i had a discussion with a muslim once and he ( or she not quite sure on that one) was arguing hard that subsidiary punishment was evil and that only those charged with a crime should face punishment for it.. I showed him/ her good old surah 4:157 where it says that God placed another in the place of Jesus to die for the crime Jesus had been convicted of. And i even pointed out that Not only according to the surah did God substitute the punishment to another man but also deceived the jews by making him look like Jesus. This makes their allah both a deceiver and one who causes one man to take the death penalty for another mans conviction.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Mary and John the Apostle stood at the foot of the Cross. I should think they would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

The Pharisees at the bottom of the Cross deried and taunted Jesus. They would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

The Good Thief knew who Jesus was on the Cross too.

Too many eyewitnesses who were very close.

Of course if the gospel accounts aren't accurate and if there was no actual individual who corresponded to the gospel accouts, we might have the outline of an argument that Christianity's Jesus never existed.

An argument which is still confronted with the origin of His teaching......

@MOM --


Mary and John the Apostle stood at the foot of the Cross.

Do we have their account? Nope, because all of the Gospels were written about a hundred years after Jesus supposedly died, well after everyone involved was dead. So we have no first hand accounts of the event in question, we have third or fourth hand accounts at best.


I should think they would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

And then I should think that they would be able to get their stories straight. But they couldn't so it's likely that we don't actually have "their" accounts.


The Pharisees at the bottom of the Cross deried and taunted Jesus. They would have known had it not been Jesus who died on the Cross.

Would they have? And how do you know this? Have you read their accounts? Oh no wait, you couldn't have because they don't exist!


The Good Thief knew who Jesus was on the Cross too.

Was he? We don't have his account on this so you can't say that for sure.


Too many eyewitnesses who were very close.

But all of this is according to the bible which was written close to a century after the supposed events took place, which means that we don't have any eyewitness accounts because all of the eyewitnesses were dead when the Gospels were written!

How is this at all hard to understand?

Arioch,

Let's no forget common sense. Do you think the Roman authorities certainly knew who it was they crucified, the same person they had on trial and scourged just hours earlier? I know it was 2000 years ago, but give the Romans credit, they knew who they were supposed to execute.

If it wasn't Jesus who was crucified and yet everyone was going around saying it was, don't you think the Roman governor Pontius Pilate would have dispelled this false rumor?

The evidence is overwhelming. Try -

Secular References to Jesus between the first and fifth centuries:
-Josephus
-Pliny the Younger
-Tacitus
-Mara Bar-Serapion
-Lucian
-Seutonius
-Talmudic References
-Thallus

Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)
-Shroud of Turin
-Nazareth Site
-Pieces of the True Cross

Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
-Paul as an eyewitness
-Criterion of Embarrassment
-Criterion of Multiple Attestation
-Criterion of Dissimilarity
-Christian Martyrs & The Criterion of Crucifixion

Again, let's no forget common sense. I don't believe in Muhammad, Buddha or Confucius' teachings but you don't see saying "Muhammad/Buddah/Confucius never existed!!

Even if there was no God, there definitely was Nazarene by the name of "Jesus" 2,000 years ago.

More on Extra-Biblical evidence -

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

@MOM --

Well thanks for informing me that you're a woo.

Arioch,
Let's no forget common sense.
Excellent advice.
Yet you seem to think it doesn't apply to you, as shown by your subsequent list of "evidence". :rolleyes:

There is not a single book of the bible that was written as late as 100 years after Jesus' death, not even according to the latest skeptic estimates. That being said, even late sources may be reliable historical sources. And there is better evidence for Jesus than anything or anyone else in the ancient world.

Why consider the Bible reliable?

Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.

1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.

3. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).

4. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
-Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.

4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.

5. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.

6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
-- The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.

Mary Magdalene. She did it . She made up resurrection . She was the eye witness to it . The resurrection . So go we believe a gullible woman by her eye witness account . Remember gullible women make up all kinds of things about there abusive husbands . When they want to get back with em that is . They will sneak em into there safe houses and all kinds of crazy things just cause they tell them pretty little stories about how they never going to be like that again . So Jesus went around piping off " I 'ma gonna rise on the 3rd day. Well he was killed " Now what " Mary checks the grave . Now what , Could it be ass covering time by the abused wife ? Think now !!??!!?? Who was the witness to the resurrection ? Is a woman's testimony reliable? Back when woman was considered below a slave ? Would there be an incentive for a woman to exaggerate a story like this ? Consider Jesus was a bastard son . How did they treat bastard sons back in the day ? How did they treat Women back in the day ? You get what I am saying ? What was the Mary/Jesus incentive to make up a divine event . I would say it is a sight more than a Jesus looking stain in a bed sheet or an Oreo cookie defect that looks like Jesus for sale by someone on the internet . Mary she'l bake you cookies then she'l burn your town . Jesus < Mary's Studge < Frankenstein's Monster . Like Me . I am Mary's guitar studge , It is all about Mary .

O.K. I heard more Blue / Gold ideology today . It is a Documentary called "Blue Gold" I guess it is about fresh water supplies being the new world currency in the future . It is the " Running out of Water alarmists that coined the phrase . Is it Me Dyw? There is a weird thing about the blue bull and golden horns , I'm telling you . Strange indeed . Blue Gold now that was funny . I also noticed something to day ( Levites and Leviathan, Look how similar that is . Levites are musicians you know . Story tellers is what comes to my mind.

Mary Magdalene. She did it . She made up resurrection . She was the eye witness to it . The resurrection . So go we believe a gullible woman by her eye witness account .

Wife of the Christ, this is no simpleton of Woman.


Remember gullible women make up all kinds of things about there abusive husbands .

Yea?


When they want to get back with em that is .

Tell me more.


They will sneak em into there safe houses and all kinds of crazy things just cause they tell them pretty little stories about how they never going to be like that again . So Jesus went around piping off " I 'ma gonna rise on the 3rd day. Well he was killed " Now what " Mary checks the grave .

Well she did love him. And he was thrown in a cave to rot.. so why not?


Now what , Could it be ass covering time by the abused wife ? Think now !!??!!?? Who was the witness to the resurrection ?

Marry?


Is a woman's testimony reliable?

Wife of the Christ, fuck the church. "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch (king) David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne." King David, ancestor of Jesus through Saint Josheph, and Mother Mary a prophet of God given oath that his descendant would sit on his "throne." A crucifix is not a throne, Jesus gave seed.


Back when woman was considered below a slave ?

Propoganda


Would there be an incentive for a woman to exaggerate a story like this ? Consider Jesus was a bastard son . How did they treat bastard sons back in the day ?

Sure. But Marry was a disciple. Son of God in Heaven, born to Joseph and Marry.


How did they treat Women back in the day ? You get what I am saying ? What was the Mary/Jesus incentive to make up a divine event .

You never know.. but people are just not that stupid. Close, but not quite.


I would say it is a sight more than a Jesus looking stain in a bed sheet or an Oreo cookie defect that looks like Jesus for sale by someone on the internet . Mary she'l bake you cookies then she'l burn your town . Jesus < Mary's Studge < Frankenstein's Monster . Like Me . I am Mary's guitar studge , It is all about Mary .

The great retardation has been bestowed upon me. So we go from useless woman to master of civilization?


O.K. I heard more Blue / Gold ideology today . It is a Documentary called "Blue Gold" I guess it is about fresh water supplies being the new world currency in the future

I'd buy into that.

immaculate conception? Are you kidding me? You need batter to make the baby. Its like the people who came up with the church made it to fail... right around now

@MOM --


4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise.

Bullshit. Ever heard of Elvis? Already we have legends and myths that he didn't really die or rose from the dead, and it hasn't even been forty years since he died.

Gday,



-Josephus
-Pliny the Younger
-Tacitus
-Mara Bar-Serapion
-Lucian
-Seutonius
-Talmudic References
-Thallus


In fact - none of that is contemporary, and most of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

Certainly not good evidence for Jesus.


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
The other tiny passage in Josephus aparrently refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
So,
this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates. It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
this was several generations later,
Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories: e.g.
* one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.
* another has Jesus stoned to death in Lydda
* another that Jesus had 5 disciples (Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah)
Hardly historical evidence, it's totally different to Christian beliefs.
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus, the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


In short,
there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.



Kapyong

Gday,


Archeological Items and Sites (Take these with a grain of salt)
-Shroud of Turin
-Nazareth Site
-Pieces of the True Cross

Take them with a grain of salt?
So you KNOW they are suspect, but you cite them anyway?

The Shroud of Turin has been scientifically proven a later forgery.

Nazareth site?
What about it?
There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

True Cross?
You're kidding?
There is no historical evidence kind that the crucifixion occured. Just STORIES by believers.



Textual Elements in the New Testament to indicate a Historical Jesus
-Paul as an eyewitness

Paul did NOT witness a historical Jesus.
He had a VISION - so what?
People have visions of Jesus, and Krishna, even Xenu, to this day - so what?


-Criterion of Embarrassment
-Criterion of Multiple Attestation
-Criterion of Dissimilarity

Excuses for believers, that's all.


-Christian Martyrs & The Criterion of Crucifixion

People die for religions all the time - so what?
No martyr ever met Jesus - it proves nothing.

What on earth is the "Criterion of Crucifixion"?

There is no historical evidence for the crucifixion.
Just STORIES by believers.



Again, let's no forget common sense. I don't believe in Muhammad, Buddha or Confucius' teachings but you don't see saying "Muhammad/Buddah/Confucius never existed!!

Yes you do - at least, I do, people who CHECK the facts do.

I say Buddha did not exist.
Buddha is almost certainly a myth too.

I say Confucius did not exist.
Confucius is almost certainly a myth too.

Even Mohamed - there ARE minority arguments he didn't exist either.




Even if there was no God, there definitely was Nazarene by the name of "Jesus" 2,000 years ago.

Not definite at all.
There is no good evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
Just STORIES by believers long after the alleged events.



Kapyong

Gday,


There is not a single book of the bible that was written as late as 100 years after Jesus' death, not even according to the latest skeptic estimates.

Wrong.
Many scholars date 2 Peter to as late as 150CE.



That being said, even late sources may be reliable historical sources. And there is better evidence for Jesus than anything or anyone else in the ancient world.

Completely false.
But endlessly repeated by believers who've never checked.

There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, but we have vast amounts of hard contemporary historical evidence for many people.

This claim is simply wrong, and should stop saying it if you want to be taken at all seriously.



1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.

Nonsense.
No-one demands "perfection".
This is simply a standard Christian excuse avoid admitting the evidence for Jesus is so bad.



3. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go.

Nonsense.
The Gospels did not become known to the Christian community until a CENTURY or so after the alleged time of Jesus.

Have a look at how LATE the knowledge of the Gospels is :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sahota/qdj/FOC/Table.html

Myths can form in DAYS.
Next M.O.M will tell us that 40-60 years is too short for myths to form!
Which is just totally wrong.



Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source.

As if it's 100% "reliable" or 100% useless.
Believers always see things in black and white.
In fact Tacitus is NOT 100% reliable at all.



The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source.

Wrong again.
The first biographies of Alexander were written during his life by people who lived with him - later writings were based on those, less than 400 years. This is another false claim repeatedly raised by believers.
We have hard contempary evidence for Alexandxer - the Esagila diary, coins, Persepolis.


Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).

Nonsense.
Consider how that training FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - we have multiple versions of this simple prayer, allegedly directly taught by Jesus HIMSELF!



4. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.

Faithful believers believe all sorts of faithful beliefs.
Scholars however, date the Gospels much later than that.
Acts is totally unknown to Christians until late 2nd century !
Scholars now consider Acts as late and more myth than history.




4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise.

I KNEW it!
This is completely wrong.
Legends can, and do, arise is DAYS!
Such as Augustus or Lubavitch.
How can a person actually believe that a legend cannot form in 40-60 years when we have seen it happen in DAYS!
Seriously M.O.M, how can you pretend to believe this?

Anyway - if Jesus did NOT exist, then it WASN'T 40-60 years at all! The Jesus myth could have been forming for decades. This argument for Jesus existence depends on Jesus existing in the first place !



Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.

He is wrong. There is no evidence of any historical core in the first place! Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus. You are simply assuming there WAS a Jesus, and then claiming the stories about him are evidence he existed - it's a perfect circle.


6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
There is NO good evidence. Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.


A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
Rubbish.
There is no historical evidence for this at all.
Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.



B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
VISIONS ?!
People have VISIONS of Jesus, or Krishna, or Xenu, or faeries, or ghosts - to this day!
So what?
Are you really claiming VISIONS of a spiritual being are historical evidence?
Seriously?



C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.

There is no historical evidence of any disciples of Jesus. Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
Your entire argument boils down to believing the Gospels are true.
But there is no external evidence for any of it.

When pressed for historical evidence for Jesus, all we get is :
* STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
* claims that the STORIES are good evidence
* some places and names of real people found in the Gospels

But actual historical and/or contemporary evidence for Jesus and the Gospel events?
Zero.





-- The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.

This faithful belief is faithfully believed by many faithful believers.
But scholars agree it is the LEAST likely explanation.



Kapyong

You might have to send MindOverMatter a PM and request a reply.

Gday,


Mary and John the Apostle stood at the foot of the Cross.

That's what the STORIES say.
But why should we believe them?
We have no writings from Mary or John the apostle.
There is no historical evidence for these events at all.

The issue is whether these stories are history - can you show any historical evidence for any of it?

APART from STORIES from unknown persons who never met Jesus?

None of the NT books were written by anyone who met Jesus - that's the form consensus of modern NT scholars. But believers simply don't know, or refuse to accept it.

In all of the NT writings - there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have personallly met a Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)

I'll make a post about that I think.


Kapyong

Gday,


To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross is to disregard the witness of two thousand years of Christian testimony

You don't have 2000 years of witnesses. You have 2000 years of BELIEF (with no hard evidence of any actual witnesses to start with.)

But 2000 years of BELIEFS?
What about the 3000 years of Jewish beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Greek beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Hindu beliefs?
Your 2000 years of beliefs are worth as much as any religious beliefs, or maybe 2/3 as much.



-- what G. K. Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead" -- that says that Jesus did die on the cross. Who is more likely to be right? All orthodox Christians over the past two thousand years or a few controversialists who started pushing the claim less than two hundred years ago?

Oh please!
If it comes down to pure NUMBERS, then there are more that DON'T believe in Jesus than DO believe.
But it doesn't come down to numbers at all.

And claims against Jesus did NOT start just 200 years ago - that's another Christian myth.

From the very beginnings, the stories were doubted :

Celsus,
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry,
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

Julian,
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”



To believe that Jesus did not die on the cross also requires disproving the Gospels' status as historical documents, something that has never been done.

Ah, the ol' "historical documents" trick !
As if anyone would fall for that old chestnut.

Of course the Gospels are documents which were written way back in ancient history. Just like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Odyssey of Homer, or the Golden Ass of Apuleis.

But some people mistakenly think, or deliberately mis-represent this phrase "historical documents" as if it means a "record of ancient history". Surely no-one here would fall for that basic trick ? :-)

Because the Gospels are most certainly NOT a record of ancient history. The Gospels are NOT found under History in a library - they are found under religion, with the other religious books.

Is the Egyptian Book of the Dead a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Is the Golden Ass of Apuleis a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Of course they are, just as much as the Gospels, but I wonder if M.O.M. believes the stories in those books ?

M.O.M. is actually trying to use a simple word trick to magically turn the Gospels into "history". Ignoring the clear facts that the Gospels are NOT history at all - they are religious stories.



The Gospels are unequivocal that Jesus did die,

There we have it!
Now that M.O.M. has claimed the Gospels are "historical documents", he can just use the Gospels as evidence that the Gospel stories are true !

How do we know the stories about Jesus are true ?
... Because the Gospels say so.
How do we know the Gospels are true?
... Because they are "historical documents" !

No, don't laugh - that appears to REALLY be the argument here. There is no real evidence for Jesus, so it always has to come back to the Gospels, and when we point out how little there is outside the Gospels, we get more excuses why the Gospels really are good evidence after all.


Kapyong

One smoking gun for Jesus Christ in the cross is the well documented Roman persecution of the Christians, using extreme methods of cruelty. Roma was very much afraid of the powerless followers of Christ, to the point they thought they needed to eliminate them

What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire? It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.

Rome did not persecute atheism because it was easy to control via addictive behavior. Animals can be easily led to excesses. Rationalis was the goddess of reason, and her followers were not seen as a threat, that could make management totally freak out.

The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death? And what would would it take to make those in charge, so fearful and insecure, as to lose all sense of humanity. An eye witness accont of strange events might help.

One smoking gun for Jesus Christ in the cross is the well documented Roman persecution of the Christians, using extreme methods of cruelty. Roma was very much afraid of the powerless followers of Christ, to the point they thought they needed to eliminate them

I don't buy that.

The Romans had, for example, an active practice of selective infanticide, they had no scruples throwing unwanted infants into the river in broad daylight.



What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire? It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.

Or because the Christians were like rats.



Rome did not persecute atheism because it was easy to control via addictive behavior.

Really? You think the Romans payed for prostitutes, wine and food in excess for the atheists?



The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death?

Besides the truth, the candidates are pride, illusion, revenge, hatred ...



And what would would it take to make those in charge, so fearful and insecure, as to lose all sense of humanity.

The Romans had plenty of "humanity." It just wasn't what we nowadays consider "humanity."

Roma was very much afraid of the powerless followers of Christ, to the point they thought they needed to eliminate them
Huh?
If they were "powerless" then why would the Romans be afraid?

@wellwisher --


What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire?

Well the Jewish people, you see, had this tendency towards rebellion. At the time in question the area was rife with prophets and supposed "christs", see Apollonius of Tyana, many of whom preached apocalyptic messages and inciting unrest. The christians were first viewed as an outgrowth of these apocalyptic prophets and were accused of stirring unrest. Hence their persecution.

Also, persecution seems to be built into most religions. The Romans were actually quite tolerant of other beliefs so long as they were at least similar to their mythology, in other words so long as they were polytheistic and/or didn't seem to pose a threat to their secular rule. Christianity, by Roman standards, was a huge threat merely because of it's shape. It was, and sort of still is, a doomsday religion. Is it any wonder that the people trying to rule the world would persecute such beliefs?

None of the persecution indicates anything about the veracity of their claims.


It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.

Oh please, this is absolute nonsense. The entire ancient world is full of accounts of strange phenomenon, the Romans were no stranger to this. The better explanation is the one I already offered.


Rome did not persecute atheism because it was easy to control via addictive behavior.

You're full of shit. You do realize that when the Romans were persecuting the christians they accused them of atheism because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. right? And you do realize that the christians accused them of atheism right back because they did believe in the Roman gods, right?

There wasn't one of the great, ancient civilizations that didn't persecute atheism. Atheism has been persecuted for all of history, including now.


The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death?

Wait, you think that a cause needs to be true to motivate people to sacrifice their lives or kill in the name of it? Are you completely ignorant of history? Have you ever heard of the Heaven's Gate cult? They all committed suicide in the pursuit of an absolutely false doctrine. Or perhaps you'd rather look at the scientologists who are willing to pursue their beliefs even to death despite the fact that they're demonstrably false and were only created by Hubbard to win a bet that he could rule the world.

Because humans always need a true reason to lie down their lives. You need to educate yourself about human history and the human brain.

Gday,



You don't have 2000 years of witnesses. You have 2000 years of BELIEF (with no hard evidence of any actual witnesses to start with.)


No, don't laugh - that appears to REALLY be the argument here. There is no real evidence for Jesus, so it always has to come back to the Gospels, and when we point out how little there is outside the Gospels, we get more excuses why the Gospels really are good evidence after all.


Kapyong


Now why should I believe any thing you say or post .
Do you believe Abraham existed ,
Do you believe Jehuda the son Jacob existed.
Do you believe King David existed ?
Do you believe Herod the great existed ?
Do you believe Akiba existed ?

If you do why ?

Oh, deflection!
Do you have ANY evidence that Jesus actually existed?

Huh?
If they were "powerless" then why would the Romans be afraid?



Roman wanted loyalty to the emperor , and christian were not loyal, but were loyal to their faith in Christ .
The lac of loyalty created a weakness to the empire

Godly day,

1. Either you (kapyong) believe it or you don't.

2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.

Do you believe Abraham existed ,
Do you believe Jehuda the son Jacob existed.
Do you believe King David existed ?
Do you believe Herod the great existed ?
Do you believe Akiba existed ?

Abraham is most likely a mythological figure. If there really was an Abraham then it's certain that his life didn't go down as depicted in the bible, humans just don't live that long. Jacob is another in this category.

While there was a Hebrew kingdom in the area, albeit a rather small one, the King David depicted in the bible is another myth. No record of him outside of the bible and those records aren't exactly sterling.

Herod actually existed, we have records of him and his rule. Interestingly enough though, there's no record of any infanticide under his reign, that's only found in one of the gospels. So we can be fairly certain that it never happened.

@MOM --


2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.

Excellent! Care to practice what you preach? I mean, it's not like you can give a valid reason to believe what you do. No, faith is not a valid reason.

Roman wanted loyalty to the emperor , and christian were not loyal, but were loyal to their faith in Christ .
The lac of loyalty created a weakness to the empire
Which doesn't, in any way, explain fear. :rolleyes:

Oh, deflection!
Do you have ANY evidence that Jesus actually existed?
People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony...

Oh, deflection!
Do you have ANY evidence that Jesus actually existed?

Do you have any evidence Manco Copac existed ?
Do we have evidence Athahualpa existed ?
How about Americo Vespucio , Caboto. were they around ?

@MOM --



Excellent! Care to practice what you preach? I mean, it's not like you can give a valid reason to believe what you do. No, faith is not a valid reason.
Actuall you are very wrong.

Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts. Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to pinpoint quite accurately who wrote what and when. Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts. As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts. There is a plethora of sources available on the Internet. Here's just one sample - The relevance of Archeology to the study of scripture.. One probably needs less 'faith' now than one did a thousand years ago!

http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/archaeology.htm

People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony...
Still not understanding?
We have more than back-dated claims to verify Caesar's existence. We have more than simple "testimony".
We have NO evidence that Jesus existed.

Oh, deflection!
Do you have ANY evidence that Jesus actually existed?

Ok. I am the evidence that Jesus existed and so are many of Christian and Muslims

Do you have any evidence Manco Copac existed ?
Do we have evidence Athahualpa existed ?
How about Americo Vespucio , Caboto. were they around ?
Irrelevant. How do any of these support the existence of Jesus?


Actuall you are very wrong.
Nope.


So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts.
Cherry-picking. The evidence supports some portions of the Bible.
Not, by any means, all of it. And none for the existence of Jesus.

Ok. I am the evidence that Jesus existed and so are many of Christian and Muslims
Explain how you are "evidence" of his existence.
This should be interesting.

Still not understanding?
We have more than back-dated claims to verify Caesar's existence. We have more than simple "testimony".
We have NO evidence that Jesus existed.
Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus, and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.

Still not understanding?

Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus
Really?


and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.
Josephus, being born four years after Jesus supposedly died would have been working from second-hand accounts, no?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833150&postcount=47


Still not understanding?
Oh dear.

Which doesn't, in any way, explain fear. :rolleyes:

If you would be in power would you not require loyalty or support . If a society will be loyal . would you trust such segment of the society .
So what would you cal that, beside mistrust ?

Really?


Josephus, being born four years after Jesus supposedly died would have been working from second-hand accounts, no?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833150&postcount=47


Oh dear.
If you want to end the discussion for now and "agree to disagree", that is fine. But I am unclear on why you think some things. For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus? You haven't given me any books you've actually read considering evidence for Christianity. If none, then you are not really justified in saying there is not evidence for it. If you would like to consider some evidence, you can look into stuff by NT Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God, and at the popular level The Case for Christ, or Craig's The Son Rises or Wright's Surprised by Hope (chapters 3 and 4). I am not worried about you discrediting faith (though your concern is very polite), because I don't think you can. I have considered the evidence pro and con and think the evidence for the Jesus to be remarkably good. History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.

Really?


Josephus, being born four years after Jesus supposedly died would have been working from second-hand accounts, no?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833150&postcount=47


Oh dear.

O dear

Why would the Russian people believe ." Napoleon invade Russia and Moscow was burned down

You just pick and chose what you want to believe to reinforce your position

People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony...

Irrelevant.

Belief in Caesar is not considered paramount to salvation.

If you want to end the discussion for now and "agree to disagree", that is fine.
Huh?


For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus?
Because there is contemporary evidence for Caesar, hard evidence, not just accounts written later based on believer's stories. Any "evidence" for Jesus was written afterwards.


If none, then you are not really justified in saying there is not evidence for it.
Then present the evidence. All you keep doing is making claims.


I have considered the evidence pro and con and think the evidence for the Jesus to be remarkably good.
Because you believe.


History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.
Wrong. As has been shown MANY times.

If you would be in power would you not require loyalty or support . If a society will be loyal . would you trust such segment of the society .
So what would you cal that, beside mistrust ?
Another failure.
Who mentioned "mistrust"?


O dear
Why would the Russian people believe ." Napoleon invade Russia and Moscow was burned down
You just pick and chose what you want to believe to reinforce your position
Still not getting it, are you?
Napoleon was documented AT the time. Jesus wasn't.

Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts. Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to pinpoint quite accurately who wrote what and when. Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts.

Historiography, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy are all soft sciences.



As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts.

Really?



History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.

No amount of historiography, archaeology, anthropology or philosophy can prove the divinity of Jesus, nor the exclusivity of the Catholic Church.

Even if there would be reasonable historiographical proof that Jesus existed, this still does doesn't mean that he was divine or that the Catholic Church is the one and only right one.

Ok. I am the evidence that Jesus existed and so are many of Christian and Muslims
Wow... do you really expect people to take you seriously?

@MOM --


History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts.

Care to share these verifications with us, because I've looked extensively and not found a single one.


So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts.

Well, except for the Garden of Eden, and the flood, and the Kingdom of David, and the lives of the prophets, and Herod's slaughter, and the resurrection of Jesus. You know, except for those theologically vital stories. Those have remained unverified since they cropped up.


There is a plethora of sources available on the Internet.

Oh yes, because everything on the internet is so reliable. I already know that you don't know how to fact check or verify sources, so what makes you think that your internet sources are valid sources? You've already displayed a truly breathtaking ignorance of human nature and history(claiming that forty years is too quick of a legend to form, please), given such displays of ignorance, why should we trust your sources?

As to your link. The article you cite has no reputable sources. Nothing peer reviewed and virtually everything privately published. That is not a valid source. Oh, and the "takes less faith" bit was precious in a naive and childlike way. It was cute but definitely not true. Believing in something with no evidence, and you have no evidence, always takes the same kind of faith. In fact, since you're so up on faith and often very down on science, perhaps you should just stick to faith. You're much better at that than you are at science.


Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus, and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.

1. No, they don't.

2. Even if they did this would not establish your religion's claims of the divinity of Christ.

3. Josephus is demonstrably not a contemporaneous source, and he's the "earliest extrabiblical" mention of Jesus.

Three major faults, and you're not going to address any of them, you're merely going to dismiss them without giving any justification.

@arauca --

How many times do we have to go over this? Arguing that popular testimony is evidence is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum and an argument from verbosity. Two logical fallacies in one sentence, good job.

Ok. I am the evidence that Jesus existed
I'm the evidence that he didn't.
And that Mars is really made of compressed pixies. :rolleyes:

There are several credible non-biblical sources of Christ's existence: thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

To even question His existence shows your cavalier attitude which will be your downfall.

The gospel record is not a debate as most of you are exhibiting. Its a DECLARATION. If you choose to ignore/deny it, its meaning, and the consequences of such, that is your own business. If you accept it, all the better, but you better stick to the narrow path as many have strayed.

Troll Alert!!!

There are several credible non-biblical sources of Christ's existence: thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
Oops, second-hand (and post-fact) accounts.


To even question His existence shows your cavalier attitude which will be your downfall.
Supposition.


The gospel record is not a debate as most of you are exhibiting. Its a DECLARATION.
Error! It's a declaration? By whom? On what authority? With what supporting evidence?


If you choose to ignore/deny it, its meaning, and the consequences of such, that is your own business. If you accept it, all the better, but you better stick to the narrow path as many have strayed.
Yeah, yeah.

I'm the evidence that he didn't.
And that Mars is really made of compressed pixies. :rolleyes:



Let me ask you . What kind of evidence would you like have to accept .
Even I don't give a dam if you believe or not. I just want to understand you view

Please describe

Let me ask you . What kind of evidence would you like have to accept .
Even I don't give a dam if you believe or not. I just want to understand you view
Please describe
You have claimed that YOU are evidence.
Please explain how this is so.

Wow... do you really expect people to take you seriously?

Of course. He is his brother..after all...

You have claimed that YOU are evidence.
Please explain how this is so.


I told you I am the evidence and you are saying no . I am real , how can you no.

Can you disprove me that I am not real I don't exist .

I told you I am the evidence and you are saying no
Wrong. I'm asking HOW you are evidence.


Can you disprove me that I am not real I don't exist .
I'll grant that YOU exist. But how is this EVIDENCE for the factual existence of Jesus?

Wrong. I'm asking HOW you are evidence.


I'll grant that YOU exist. But how is this EVIDENCE for the factual existence of Jesus?

Maybe, he thinks him being a Christian proves Jesus' existence..hard nut..I know.

Does that mean that Tom Cruise's existence proves Scientology is correct? :p

Oh, and welcome back PTP.

Does that mean that Tom Cruise's existence proves Scientology is correct? :p

Oh, and welcome back PTP.

Hmm...more like it proves that the scientology cult..exists.

Thank you thank you :worship:


Maybe Zeus exists, too. At least sometimes I see a few lightnings.

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


"resurrection" has a better chance of working if the person never died in the first place.

Gday,


One smoking gun for Jesus Christ in the cross is the well documented Roman persecution of the Christians, using extreme methods of cruelty. Roma was very much afraid of the powerless followers of Christ, to the point they thought they needed to eliminate them.

What does that have to do with Jesus himself existing?

The Romans ALSO banned the priests of Attis from castrating themselves - does that prove Attis really existed?
Of course not.

Countries nowadays have banned Scientology - does that prove Xenu existed?
Of course not.

How silly.



What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire? It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.

There are NO eye-witness accounts, as I showed on the other thread :
"Who claimed to have personally met a historical Jesus"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110311
If YOU think there were eye-witnesses to Jesus, please show us the evidence.



The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death? And what would would it take to make those in charge, so fearful and insecure, as to lose all sense of humanity. An eye witness accont of strange events might help.

An eye-witness account of Jesus would help a GREAT DEAL!

What a pity there is NOT ONE such eye-witness account.


Kapyong

Gday,


Now why should I believe any thing you say or post .

You shouldn't just BELIEVE at all.
You should check the facts and see if I was accurate.
Did you do that ?



Do you believe Abraham existed ,
Do you believe Jehuda the son Jacob existed.
Do you believe King David existed ?
Do you believe Herod the great existed ?
Do you believe Akiba existed ?
If you do why ?

Abraham and David almost certainly were MYTHS.
Herod almost certainly existed.

For the usual reason -
Because of the EVIDENCE or lack thereof.


Kapyong

Gday,


Godly day,
1. Either you (kapyong) believe it or you don't.
2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.

I don't believe Jesus existed.

I gave lengthy posts explaining why not.

Including a detailed examination of your alleged external evidence for Jesus - will you be addressing that ?


Kapyong

@Kapyong --

Nope. MOM doesn't really "address" things, he mostly just ignores them or outright dismisses them.

Gday,


People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony...

No, we CONCLUDE that Caesar existed because of vast amount of EVIDENCE.

But believers can always be trusted with word-games to turn this into 'belief' and 'faith'. As if faith in a supernatural legend is just as good as mountains of historical and archeological evidence for a real person. As if all 'beliefs' are 'equally valid' (they love to say their beliefs are 'valid' as if that means 'true'.)


Anyway - let's CHECK the evidence for Jesus vs Augustus Caesar :


Evidence - Jesus compared with Augustus

Books :
We have books written by Augustus himself e.g. the "Res Gestae Divi Augusti".
Nothing by Jesus

History:
Several contemporary writers, and numerous later ones, record Augustus' actions.
There is NO contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.

Statues :
We have about TWO DOZEN statues of Augustus made in his life, showing what he looked like, and even how he changed over the years.
Nothing for Jesus. No Christian even knows what he looked like.

Family:
We have hard and contemporary historical evidence for Augustus family.
No details are know about Jesus. None of the people in the Gospels left ANY records in history. NOT ONE Christian even mentions meeting Joseph or Mary.

Archeology :
We have buildings made by Augustus - still standing.
Nothing for Jesus - not one single artifact.

Eye-witness accounts :
We have several contemporary eye-witness evidence for Augustus (e.g. Nicolaus and Horace.)
There are NO eye-witness accounts of Jesus. No Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus (except the late forgery 2 Peter.)

Birth date :
We have historical evidence for Augustus' birth date - to the DAY (23rd Sept, 63BCE)
Jesus birthdate is unknown - the evidence varies by YEARS. The 25th December date has nothing to do with history, it was decided centuries after the alleged Jesus.

Death date :
We have historical evidence for Augustus death - to the DAY (August 19, 14CE)
Jesus death date is unknown - guesses vary by YEARS, the actual date cannot be determined because the sources conflict.

Tomb :
The original tomb of Augustus is still known to this day. A historical place.
Jesus original tomb is UNKNOWN - but FIVE different places claim it (Calvary, Golgotha, Talpiot, Japan, Kashmir.) Myths and legends.

Coins:
We have 100s of coins made during Augustus' life, noting his various historical actions, and even showing how he aged over the years.
Nothing like that for Jesus. No-one ever claimed to have met Jesus. No-one knows what he looked like.


The evidence for Jesus is a few religiuous books written long after the alleged events by unknown persons who never met Jesus.

The evidence for Augustus is a mountain of hard and contemporary historical and archeological evidence.

But believers still pretend the evidence is the same!
Incredible!


Kapyong

Gday,


Do you have any evidence Manco Copac existed ?
Do we have evidence Athahualpa existed ?
How about Americo Vespucio , Caboto. were they around ?

Mate - WHY are you doing this?

What does the historicity of these persons have ANYTHING to do with Jesus existing?

Is this the ol' "if Jesus didn't exist, then NO-ONE existed" dodge?

Because that is indeed just a silly dodge.
The existence of various persons in history depends on the evidence!

When people doubt Socrates - do you care?
When people doubt the existence of Hercules - do you respond with these questions?

The historicity of Jesus depends on the EVIDENCE of Jesus.
Like the historicity of Socrates depends on the EVIDENCE of Socrates.

Different beings have DIFFERENT levels of confidence - but you seem to be playing the ALL or NOTHING card?

Adam - certainly myth
Abraham - almost certainly myth
David - probably myth
Jesus - possibly myth
William Tell - probably myth
Mohamed - almost certainly historical
Bahai Ulah - certainly historical.

The existence of one has NOTHING to do withe the others.

So please - if you want to discuss the histority of Jesus, let's talk about the evidence for JESUS. Not some OTHER people.


Kapyong

Gday,


Actuall you are very wrong.

Well heck, if YOU say so, then you obviously have WON the debate right there !
Right ?



Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts.

"Biblical scholarship" is FAITHFUL BELIEVERS playing games to pretend the Bible is true. The vast majority of such "biblical scholars" are FAITHFUL believers whose job and reputation and friends DEPEND on believing in Jesus. The most BIASED sample one could find.

But in reality most of it is MYTHS - the Garden of Eden, the Flood, talking animals, supernatural events, magical beings ...



Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to pinpoint quite accurately who wrote what and when.

Indeed.
And it has been clearly determined that NOT ONE single book of the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus.

That's the current consensus of modern NT scholars.



Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts. As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts. There is a plethora of sources available on the Internet. Here's just one sample - The relevance of Archeology to the study of scripture.. One probably needs less 'faith' now than one did a thousand years ago!
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/archaeology.htm

By no actual evidence for Jesus.
Just vague claims.

No doubt this mentions things like the Pool of Siloam - as if mentioning a real place makes a book of legends true.

That's the only real evidence we ever get for the Bible being true - a few NAMES and a few PLACES that existed - so what?

But the events, and the Gospel actors - left NO evidence of any mind.

Just religious stories based on earlier religious stories. The Gospel stories are almost all clearly lifted from the Tanakh (the O.T.)

The Gospels were just the latest in a serious of religious legends.



Kapyong

Gday,


Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus,

Most historians ASSUME Jesus existed because the others do.

But there has NOT been any historian who has recently actually investigated the actual existence of Jesus.

Sure - we have plenty of FAITHFUL believers who wrote books about Jesus' historicity.

And we have many historical books which ASSUME Jesus existed.

And we have plenty of books which CLAIM Jesus existence is well proven.

But actual contemporary historians who have objectively investigated the historicity of Jesus?

None that I know of.



and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period,

I listed them all on page 3 and analysed them in detail, showing that NONE of them were good historical evidence for Jesus.

I see you ignored that post - why ?



least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.

I analysed that above - it's at best CORRUPT, at worst a total FORGERY.

I see you ignored my post on that - why?



Still not understanding?

Ah,
so when evidence that disagrees with you is posted - you just ignore the evidence and personally insult your opponent's intelligence ?


Kapyong

Gday,


For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus?

Because there IS. And anyone who had studied the evidence would know that. Why haven't you checked the evidence yourself?

Here is the comparison of Jesus vs Augustus Caesar - will you respond to these facts or not ?

Evidence - Jesus compared with Augustus

Books :
We have books written by Augustus himself e.g. the "Res Gestae Divi Augusti".
Nothing by Jesus

History:
Several contemporary writers, and numerous later ones, record Augustus' actions.
There is NO contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.

Statues :
We have about TWO DOZEN statues of Augustus made in his life, showing what he looked like, and even how he changed over the years.
Nothing for Jesus. No Christian even knows what he looked like.

Family:
We have hard and contemporary historical evidence for Augustus family.
No details are know about Jesus. None of the people in the Gospels left ANY records in history. NOT ONE Christian even mentions meeting Joseph and Mary.

Archeology :
We have buildings made by Augustus - still standing.
Nothing for Jesus - not one single artifact.

Eye-witness accounts :
We have several contemporary eye-witness evidence for Augustus (e.g. Nicolaus and Horace.)
There are NO eye-witness accounts of Jesus. No Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus (except the late forgery 2 Peter.)

Birth date :
We have historical evidence for Augustus' birth date - to the DAY (23rd Sept, 63BCE)
Jesus birthdate is unknown - the evidence varies by YEARS. The 25th December date has nothing to do with history, it was decided centuries after the alleged Jesus.

Death date :
We have historical evidence for Augustus death - to the DAY (August 19, 14CE)
Jesus death date is unknown - guesses vary by YEARS, the actual date cannot be determined because the sources conflict.

Tomb :
The original tomb of Augustus is still known to this day. A historical place.
Jesus original tomb is UNKNOWN - but FIVE different places claim it (Calvary, Golgotha, Talpiot, Japan, Kashmir.) Myths and legends.

Coins:
We have 100s of coins made during Augustus' life, noting his various historical actions, and even showing how he aged over the years.
Nothing like that for Jesus. No-one ever claimed to have met Jesus. No-one knows what he looked like.


The evidence for Jesus is a few religious books from long after the alleged events by person who never met Jesus - books of religious legends based on earlier religious legends.

The evidence for Casaer Augustus is a vast mountin of hard and contemporary archeological and historical evidence.

If you care about the FACTS, you will stop claiming the evidence is similar.
If you keep insisting it's the same, then you have no concern for the facts.

The evidence for Jesus is at the very BOTTOM of the scale - he is one of the LEAST supported names in history. He has the MINIMUM amount of evidence a person can have - a few stories from long afterwards.


Kapyong

Gday,


O dear
Why would the Russian people believe ." Napoleon invade Russia and Moscow was burned down
You just pick and chose what you want to believe to reinforce your position

Please stop trying to change the subject.

The historicity of JESUS depends on the evidence for JESUS.

If you want to discuss the existence of JESUS, then please bring evidence for JESUS to the thread.


Kapyong

Gday,


There are several credible non-biblical sources of Christ's existence: thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

Why didn't you cite them here?
Are they that bad ?

Check page 3 where I show the evidence is useless :
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833150&postcount=47



To even question His existence shows your cavalier attitude which will be your downfall.

To even question Krishna's existence shows your cavalier attitude which will be your downfall.


Kapyong

Gday,


Let me ask you . What kind of evidence would you like have to accept .


Consider the hard evidence for Augustus that I posted.

That's what good historical evidence looks like, if you never seen it before.


Kapyong

Dude, you do realize the very real possibility that Rome killed and covered up the existence of Christ, only years later to print and preach their own bible in their own church as a way to control people?

I don't think it required that much of a cover up, he wasn't even that well known at the time.

@Knowledge --


Dude, you do realize the very real possibility that Rome killed and covered up the existence of Christ...

Possibility? Sure, why not. Very real possibility? Not on your life. This conspiracy theory has the same problems that other conspiracy theories have, namely the problem of numbers.


...only years later to print and preach their own bible in their own church as a way to control people?

Years? I think you mean centuries.

Gday,



Please stop trying to change the subject.

The historicity of JESUS depends on the evidence for JESUS.

If you want to discuss the existence of JESUS, then please bring evidence for JESUS to the thread.


Kapyong



I am evidence and million of other followers through the millennia , don't you believe that some traditions are based on a beginning .
Perhaps you want some newspaper of activity during his time ( Jesus ) or would you like to have a birth certificate .
Have you locked into the Talmud perhaps you will find evidence there . Bot of course why should you believe the writing is only Jewish.
If you don't want to believe that is just fine .

[QUOTE=Kapyong;2833641]Gday,



Because there IS. And anyone who had studied the evidence would know that. Why haven't you checked the evidence yourself?

Here is the comparison of Jesus vs Augustus Caesar - will you respond to these facts or not ?

Evidence - Jesus compared with Augustus

Books :
We have books written by Augustus himself e.g. the "Res Gestae Divi Augusti".
Nothing by Jesus

Listen I think your comparison is just ridicules .
You are comparing events of a Roman Emperors life to a poor carpenter who grew up in Galilee . and you are asking for similar data .
Your comparison validity is like life of Adolf Hitler evidence to Peter Arendt existence.
I know both existed , yet one of them did not have a birth certificate, and that is not the only case at the present age

Exactly, if it weren't for modern day organization there would be nothing except my Facebook to prove my existence. I bet we can prove the existence of 10% of the people on Earth at the time of Jesus. Jesus was hated by people EVERYWHERE, especially people in power of things.. lets say the Roman empire. There is good reason for the Romans to have killed, and cover up the existence of Jesus, which is clearly what happened . Further, Mary survived and escaped the clutch of the "Holy" Roman Catholic church to keep the Holly bloodline alive.

I am evidence
You persist in claiming this. HOW are you "evidence"?

@Knowledge --



Possibility? Sure, why not. Very real possibility? Not on your life.

Yes, on my life.


This conspiracy theory has the same problems that other conspiracy theories have, namely the problem of numbers.

Go on, please.


Years? I think you mean centuries.

Its no difference.

You persist in claiming this. HOW are you "evidence"?

You might no like , but I am Christianity have evolved from Christ and I am a product of that evolution.

And you are an evolutionary product of atheism.

You might no like , but I am Christianity have evolved from Christ and I am a product of that evolution.
That's not evidence, it's an unfounded claim.


And you are an evolutionary product of atheism.
Nonsense.

We both evolved the same way - as humans.
There is no "Christian evolution" or "atheist evolution".

@Knowledge --


Yes, on my life.

You can't even come close to putting a number to that possibility, how are you going to say that it's likely("very real possibility" is synonymous with "it's likely")? I can tell you that there would be too many people involved in such a conspiracy for it to remain a secret for two thousand years. If the best and brightest of our government couldn't even cover up a break in in a psychiatrist's office then what makes you think that anyone could cover up something of this magnitude? Especially when Jesus supposedly already had a following. It just doesn't add up.


Its no difference.

No difference? You were off by about a factor of a hundred, that's a huge fucking difference. That's the equivalent of saying that the average human running speed is between 1200 and 1500 miles per hour. And you say it makes no difference, and you wonder why people don't really take you seriously here.

Gday,


I am evidence and million of other followers through the millennia , don't you believe that some traditions are based on a beginning .

You are NOT evidence for Jesus,
anymore than Jedi believers are evidence for Luke Skywalker,
or believers are evidence for FAERIES.

Your evidence for Jesus is on the level of evidence for faeries.



Have you locked into the Talmud perhaps you will find evidence there . Bot of course why should you believe the writing is only Jewish.

Yes, I have.
But you haven't have you?

The Talmud said Jesus was stoned to death in Lud - do you agree with that?

The Talmud said Jesus had 5 dicsiples - do you agree with that?

The Talmud said Jesus is in hell in a vat of boiling shit - do you agree with that?

No?
Then why bring it up?
You've never even LOOKED at the Talmud references to Jesus, have you?


Kapyong

Gday,



Listen I think your comparison is just ridicules .

It was NOT my comparison!
Please PAY ATTENTION !

It was a believer here who made the comparison - and I pointed out that there is a VAST difference in the evidence.

Didn't you understand that ?


K.

I thought the flood was found to be more than a myth, though.

@Knowledge --



You can't even come close to putting a number to that possibility, how are you going to say that it's likely("very real possibility" is synonymous with "it's likely")? I can tell you that there would be too many people involved in such a conspiracy for it to remain a secret for two thousand years. If the best and brightest of our government couldn't even cover up a break in in a psychiatrist's office then what makes you think that anyone could cover up something of this magnitude? Especially when Jesus supposedly already had a following. It just doesn't add up.

Its simple, they hunted and killed Jesus and any known followers, and then they burnt everything he ever touched.

That's not evidence, it's an unfounded claim.


Nonsense.

We both evolved the same way - as humans.
There is no "Christian evolution" or "atheist evolution".



Don't be so quick using your favorite word nonsense .
did not a dog evolved from a wolf ?
Did not Christianity evolved from Judaism ?
Did not the protestant evolved from Catholicism
Evolved to me means some transformation have taken place


Now roll your eyes and say nonsense

Gday,


You are NOT evidence for Jesus,
anymore than Jedi believers are evidence for Luke Skywalker,
or believers are evidence for FAERIES.

Your evidence for Jesus is on the level of evidence for faeries.


Yes, I have.
But you haven't have you?


The Talmud said Jesus was stoned to death in Lud - do you agree with that?

The Talmud said Jesus had 5 dicsiples - do you agree with that?

The Talmud said Jesus is in hell in a vat of boiling shit - do you agree with that?

No?
Then why bring it up?
You've never even LOOKED at the Talmud references to Jesus, have you?


Kapyong

I am glad you found a source that Jesus existed
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Talmud said Jesus is in hell in a vat of boiling shit - do you agree with that?

I ma sure the Talmud did not say that, you are just malicious

@arauca --

Comparing biological evolution through natural selection to societal change, not a good idea. For one the mechanisms behind them are completely different, and therefore they cannot be used for a valid comparison. In fact, the only point of commonality I can find between the two is that they're change, that's not enough to draw a valid comparison.


Evolved to me means some transformation have taken place

Ah, using layman's terms on a science site, good job. To paraphrase Vader, "I find your lack of debating skills disturbing."

Don't be so quick using your favorite word nonsense
Why? Especially when you persist in posting nonsense.


Did not Christianity evolved from Judaism ?
Did not the protestant evolved from Catholicism
Evolved to me means some transformation have taken place
Which does not prove that Jesus existed.


Now roll your eyes and say nonsense
Sheer and utter nonsense.

@arauca --

Comparing biological evolution through natural selection to societal change, not a good idea. For one the mechanisms behind them are completely different, and therefore they cannot be used for a valid comparison. In fact, the only point of commonality I can find between the two is that they're change, that's not enough to draw a valid comparison.


Wow who are you to make rules , and making them in your favor /

Ah, using layman's terms on a science site, good job. To paraphrase Vader, "I find your lack of debating skills disturbing."

I am disturbed by your one sided view ,

Why? Especially when you persist in posting nonsense.


Which does not prove that Jesus existed.


Sheer and utter nonsense.



I say again you don't offer to the discussion ,but act just like a tit on a bull

@arauca --

Regardless of what you think of Dyw's discussion skills, he is right in that nothing you've posted comes even remotely close to proving a historical Jesus. The sad fact of the matter is that your best argument in this thread was an argument from popularity which is fallacious on it's face.

Gday,


I am glad you found a source that Jesus existed

Hahaha.
Claims that Jesus is in hell in a vat of boiling shit is evidence for Jesus existing?
Really ?




I ma sure the Talmud did not say that, you are just malicious

You're SURE?
But yet you did NOT check !
Instead of checking the facts you just called me a liar!
Pathetic.

Here is the reference :

Gittin 57a.
Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

The Text
Talmud Gittin 56b-57a

[Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) "You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days." [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.

[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.


K.

I say again you don't offer to the discussion ,but act just like a tit on a bull
Still wrong.
I asked how your existence is evidence for Jesus' existence (which was your claim).
So far you haven't done anything other than make excuses and silly comparisons.

Its simple, they hunted and killed Jesus and any known followers, and then they burnt everything he ever touched.

Do you just make up this nonsense as you go along?

Do you just make up this nonsense as you go along?

This is a very real possibility.

[QUOTE=Kapyong;2834310]Gday,



Hahaha.
Claims that Jesus is in hell in a vat of boiling shit is evidence for Jesus existing?
Really ?





You're SURE?
But yet you did NOT check !
Instead of checking the facts you just called me a liar!
Pathetic.

Here is the reference :

Gittin 57a.
Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

The Text
Talmud Gittin 56b-57a

[Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) "You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days." [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.

[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

Why are you quoting Deut 23:7 saying that , I don't know whos bible you are reading , but definitively in what read it does not say that

Gday all,

Ever noticed how creationists are not smart enough to figure out how to use quotes on messageboards?

arauca - don't you ever check your posts after submitting?
Don't you notice your quotes are often broken?
It makes you look stupid.
Don't you care?


K.

Gday all,

Ever noticed how creationists are not smart enough to figure out how to use quotes on messageboards?

arauca - don't you ever check your posts after submitting?
Don't you notice your quotes are often broken?
It makes you look stupid.
Don't you care?


K.

Thank you for the complement . What do you have against creationist ?
I am just an ignorant person who do not have the facts about the beginning of the earth and the evolution of the specie.
But I am very happy that the theist are smart and have all facts on how we come into the wold ,yet they ca not make a living cell from the raw chemicals that make a cell

But I am very happy that the theist are smart

You mean Atheist, not theist.

Perhaps you should take a moment to read what you post, before you post it. :shrug:

smart and have all facts on how we come into the wold
Oh, this wouldn't be yet another misrepresentation would it?
A false claim.


yet they ca not make a living cell from the raw chemicals that make a cell
Followed by another strawman.


What do you have against creationist ?
They tend to be dishonest, deceitful and ignorant.
Apart from that they're lovely people.

Gday,


Thank you for the complement .

You mean 'compliment'.
Complement is something else.
My point is that you should be more careful with your posts - people judge you by what you write.



What do you have against creationist ?

Creationism is religious fantasy.
And there is a strong force attempting to push it as science.

It is those kind of people who have influenced and taught you - but sadly, you have been mislead. Most of what you say about evolution e.g. is wrong - and wrong in the very specific ways that creationists always get it wrong.

At this stage, you are just repeating what creationists told you - but you haven't yet got to the stage where you CHECK things - even with the amazing internet at your fingertips.



I am just an ignorant person who do not have the facts about the beginning of the earth and the evolution of the specie.

Ignorance can be fixed.
We all start out ignorant.
We WANT you to want to learn.

But hearing creationist falsehoods for the millionth time is boring. It's just the CHANCE that you might start questioning that keeps us posting :-)



But I am very happy that the theist are smart

I suspect you meant 'atheist' - which is a dirty word to a believer.
As if it's a football game here :
* nasty atheists
vs
* wonderful believers


and have all facts on how we come into the wold ,

So vague!
Come into the wo[r]ld?
You can't discuss science with woolly phrases like that.


yet they ca not make a living cell from the raw chemicals that make a cell

See?
A CLASSIC creationist error!
Evolution does NOT say a living cell formed from raw chemicals.

The problem is that you don't actually know anything about evolution - what you know is a few creationist FANTASIES about evolution - that was one of them.

Everything creationists have told you about evolution is false.
If you want to criticise evolution, then you need to understand it first.

Otherwise you sound like this :

Believers have still not explained how Jesus cooked 500 meals of fish while hanging upside down on the cross!

Can YOU explain how Jesus did that ?


K.

Believers have still not explained how Jesus cooked 500 meals of fish while hanging upside down on the cross!



He had a gas stove and teflon cookware and used a non-stick spray instead of oil on really big sheet pans.

Don't be so quick using your favorite word nonsense .
did not a dog evolved from a wolf ?
Did not Christianity evolved from Judaism ?
Did not the protestant evolved from Catholicism
Evolved to me means some transformation have taken place

By this reasoning, atheism evolved from Protestantism.

Atheism is the natural evolutionary consequence of Protestantism.

"resurrection" has a better chance of working if the person never died in the first place.

So then evolution is not magical? Transforming into another being.

You cannot have it both ways.

There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution and yet it is possible evolution happened.

Just sayin':shrug:

So then evolution is not magical? Transforming into another being.

You cannot have it both ways.

There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution and yet it is possible evolution happened.

Just sayin':shrug:

If you're really going to try to argue against it, shouldn't you find out what it is? Because it's obvious you have no idea how evolution works.

By this reasoning, atheism evolved from Protestantism.

Atheism is the natural evolutionary consequence of Protestantism.



I definitively agree with you

I definitively agree with you

Then you definitely cannot take issue with atheism.

[QUOTE=Kapyong;2834584]Gday,



You mean 'compliment'.
Complement is something else.
My point is that you should be more careful with your posts - people judge you by what you write.




Creationism is religious fantasy.
And there is a strong force attempting to push it as science.

It is those kind of people who have influenced and taught you - but sadly, you have been mislead. Most of what you say about evolution e.g. is wrong - and wrong in the very specific ways that creationists always get it wrong.









I suspect you meant 'atheist' - which is a dirty word to a believer.
As if it's a football game here :
* nasty atheists
vs
* wonderful believers

Some atheist like some theist are wonderful people
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



See?
A CLASSIC creationist error!
Evolution does NOT say a living cell formed from raw chemicals.

I know at what point evolution started. You have taken my point out of context, you are to quick to bash.
I know the difference between bio genesis and evolution.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The problem is that you don't actually know anything about evolution - what you know is a few creationist FANTASIES about evolution - that was one of them.

Everything creationists have told you about evolution is false.
If you want to criticise evolution, then you need to understand it first.

Pardon me for saying , but you have a poor understanding of me and you judge to fast . Are you a former rabbinical student ?
Because to my understanding they are quick to judge.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Believers have still not explained how Jesus cooked 500 meals of fish while hanging upside down on the cross!


The same way as Moses parted the sea.

Here's a tip about using the quote function. You have to click on quote at the end of the quotation as well as the start, otherwise it doesn't close.

Sadly,
Creationists just aren't smart enough to figure out how to use quotes.


K.

Gday,



Mate - WHY are you doing this?

What does the historicity of these persons have ANYTHING to do with Jesus existing?

Is this the ol' "if Jesus didn't exist, then NO-ONE existed" dodge?

Because that is indeed just a silly dodge.
The existence of various persons in history depends on the evidence!

When people doubt Socrates - do you care?
When people doubt the existence of Hercules - do you respond with these questions?

The historicity of Jesus depends on the EVIDENCE of Jesus.
Like the historicity of Socrates depends on the EVIDENCE of Socrates.

Different beings have DIFFERENT levels of confidence - but you seem to be playing the ALL or NOTHING card?

Adam - certainly myth
Abraham - almost certainly myth
David - probably myth
Jesus - possibly myth
William Tell - probably myth
Mohamed - almost certainly historical
Bahai Ulah - certainly historical.

The existence of one has NOTHING to do withe the others.

So please - if you want to discuss the histority of Jesus, let's talk about the evidence for JESUS. Not some OTHER people.


Kapyong

You are so positive that Abraham Jesus , David are myth, If I would be an Atheist I would not be so positive .

I don't understand what physical evidence do you expect , from Abraham , don't you believe Judaism started with Abraham.
Don't you believe in Jerusalem there is the burial of David .
You wanted an other place were Jesus is mentioned beside Josephus , you your self identified Talmud . ( beside you mentioning I have sean mentioning in the period 90 AD
Who invented Christianity and what was the purpose ,

[QUOTE=Kapyong;2834860]Sadly,
Creationists just aren't smart enough to figure out how to use quotes.


This is a childish insult, you must be Australian

[QUOTE=Kapyong;2834860]Sadly,
Creationists just aren't smart enough to figure out how to use quotes.


This is a childish insult, you must be Australian

But you still haven't figured out how to use quotes. Even after I told you.

But you still haven't figured out how to use quotes. Even after I told you.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry I am a UK moron, we are slow but eventually I will make it ,Thank for your help

Now click the edit button on your post and try around a bit, to delete that "[quote=AlexG;2835395]" part.

But you still haven't figured out how to use quotes. Even after I told you.

I am sorry I am a UK moron, we are slow but eventually I will make it ,Thank for your help[/QUOTE]

now what

You've deleted too much.
Hit reply to this post (upper left corner of the post, the button "quote"), and then study the tags.

To make a text appear in a quote box, immediately before that text, there needs to be the tag , and at the end of the quoted text, the tag (but without the _).

Gday,


You are so positive that Abraham Jesus , David are myth,

I didn't say 'so positive' at all - please actually READ my posts next time, thanks :-)

Here's what I said :
Abraham - almost certainly myth
David - probably myth
Jesus - possibly myth


If I would be an Atheist I would not be so positive .

I am not 'so positive'. What a pity you don't read my posts properly :-(

Nor am I an atheist - why do you keep doing that?
Because anyone who disagrees with your faith must be an atheist?
And all atheists are godless heathens who must be wrong?




I don't understand what physical evidence do you expect ,

Quite simple - the usual type of evidence that we have for real people.




from Abraham , don't you believe Judaism started with Abraham.

No, I believe Abraham was almost certainly a myth. So do many historians.



Don't you believe in Jerusalem there is the burial of David .

No there isn't.
Ther is NO historical tomb or burial place of David.
The alleged tomb in Jerusalem was only found in the 12th century - 8 centuries ago, over 2 millenia after the alleged David.
There is no known reason why that place began to be called David's Tomb at all.

It's clearly a legend, from 1000s of years after the alleged David.

In fact - there is NO hard evidence for David existing at all.



You wanted an other place were Jesus is mentioned beside Josephus , you your self identified Talmud .

I pointed out that the Talmud stories are NOTHING like the Gospel stories, and come from CENTURIES later. They are USELESS as 'mentions' of Jesus.



( beside you mentioning I have sean mentioning in the period 90 AD

Really?
What mention from 90AD is there?
Please let us know.


Who invented Christianity and what was the purpose ,

Who invented Hinduism and what was the purpose?
Who invented the Greek mystery religion and what was the purpose?
Who invented the ancient Egyptian religion and what was the purpose?


Kapyong

@arauca --


yet they can not make a living cell from the raw chemicals that make a cell

Not yet, but we're damn close. We can already stitch together an entire genome from raw materials, it's only a matter of time before we can custom build not only any genome we want but any cellular machinery too.

Next time you want to put down science, you might want to choose an example that isn't in a field where we're experiencing such progress. Oh, and you should probably try to research your examples to make sure that we haven't actually accomplished them already.

@Ellie --


So then evolution is not magical? Transforming into another being.

You cannot have it both ways.

No, genotypical changes being expressed phenotypically is not magic at all. It's a direct result of the laws of physics.


There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution and yet it is possible evolution happened.

What are you smoking and where can I get some? We have more evidence supporting evolution than we do for anything else in science. Even relativity(which we have to thank for cell phones) and atomic theory aren't even close to being as well evidenced as evolution. Care to try again?


Just sayin'

You're completely ignorant of even the most basic concepts in science.

Just sayin'.

Not yet, but we're damn close. We can already stitch together an entire genome from raw materials, it's only a matter of time before we can custom build not only any genome we want but any cellular machinery too.[/QUOT

Next time you want to put down science, you might want to choose an example that isn't in a field where we're experiencing such progress. Oh, and you should probably try to research your examples to make sure that we haven't actually accomplished them already.

@Ellie --

“
So then evolution is not magical? Transforming into another being.

You cannot have it both ways.
”
No, genotypical changes being expressed phenotypically is not magic at all. It's a direct result of the laws of physics.

“
There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution and yet it is possible evolution happened.
”

What are you smoking and where can I get some? We have more evidence supporting evolution than we do for anything else in science. Even relativity(which we have to thank for cell phones) and atomic theory aren't even close to being as well evidenced as evolution. Care to try again?

“
Just sayin'
”
You're completely ignorant of even the most basic concepts in science.

Just sayin'.


Your eventually going to know everything in the world. Then what?

@Knowledge --

But I'm not the one claiming knowledge of everything, or at least everything that matters, that would be you.

I don't know if science will be able to solve everything or not, nobody does. But I do know that if anything has a shot at it then science does. Nothing else has proven more effective at discovering the truth about reality.

I am sorry I am a UK moron, we are slow but eventually I will make it ,Thank for your help

now what





I didn't say 'so positive' at all - please actually READ my posts next time, thanks :-)

Here's what I said :
Abraham - almost certainly myth
David - probably myth
Jesus - possibly myth



I am not 'so positive'. What a pity you don't read my posts properly :-(

Nor am I an atheist - why do you keep doing that?
Because anyone who disagrees with your faith must be an atheist?
And all atheists are godless heathens who must be wrong?





Quite simple - the usual type of evidence that we have for real people.





No, I believe Abraham was almost certainly a myth. So do many historians.




No there isn't.
Ther is NO historical tomb or burial place of David.
The alleged tomb in Jerusalem was only found in the 12th century - 8 centuries ago, over 2 millenia after the alleged David.
There is no known reason why that place began to be called David's Tomb at all.

It's clearly a legend, from 1000s of years after the alleged David.

In fact - there is NO hard evidence for David existing at all.




I pointed out that the Talmud stories are NOTHING like the Gospel stories, and come from CENTURIES later. They are USELESS as 'mentions' of Jesus.




Really?
What mention from 90AD is there?
Please let us know.




Kapyong[/QUOTE]



For your information
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm


To my understanding the name for Jerusalem w as Salim
To my understanding Abraham is buried by Hebron.

Real people : Atahualpa , ruler of the Inca
Guaycaipuro ruler over the indian in New Venezua ( Venezuela )
How Hatwey the inhabitant if Cuba.

For your information
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

On top of your last post being incoherent - these have already been covered many times.

When's someone gonna ban this troll?

So then evolution is not magical?
No, it's not in the slightest "magical".


You cannot have it both ways.
Have you ever considered obtaining an education?


There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution
And, somehow, no one has yet presented this "evidence" for Jesus' existence. I wonder why that is.


and yet it is possible evolution happened.
It's more than "possible", it's a fact.


Just sayin':shrug:
Please don't. Learn to keep quiet until you have at least some idea of what you're talking about.

now what

Each item of the quoted text needs to be wrapped in quote tags like that (but without the _ ):


quoted text

your text


quoted text

your text


quoted text

your text



To write who the author of the quote is, either use the automatic function, or write the name into the tags yourself:

[QUOTE=name of poster_]quoted text[/QUOTE_]

No, it's not in the slightest "magical".

Seems like it would fit the definition of magical. Apparently you see "magical" differently,



Have you ever considered obtaining an education?

Yes.


And, somehow, no one has yet presented this "evidence" for Jesus' existence. I wonder why that is.

No one alive from over 2,000 years ago to ask. I am still convinced the evidence for Jesus is stronger than the evidence for evolution. When people discuss these things they mean evolution of humans. Very easy to just say "evolution is a fact".

What is the evidence for anyones existence from over 2,000 years ago?


It's more than "possible", it's a fact.

All I am saying is the evidence for the two are somewhat similar, similar may be the wrong word, there are what may be deemed parallels :scratches chin:. You would expect more evidence from just over 2,000 years ago anyway.

Seems like it would fit the definition of magical. Apparently you see "magical" differently
Apparently you can't tell the difference between science and fantasy.


Yes.
But you decided against it?


No one alive from over 2,000 years ago to ask.
So what evidence is there?


I am still convinced the evidence for Jesus is stronger than the evidence for evolution.
What evidence is there for Jesus?


What is the evidence for anyones existence from over 2,000 years ago?
YOU claimed there is evidence for Jesus.


All I am saying is the evidence for the two are very similar.
Then you're wrong.

That post said absolutely nothing.

That post said absolutely nothing.
Apart from pointing out that
A) You persist in claiming there's strong evidence for Jesus but equally persist in failing to present it, and
B) You have no idea what you're talking about.

Stop posting, go get that education you thought about (and obviously cancelled) and then come back with a coherent stance.

Apart from pointing out that
A) You persist in claiming there's strong evidence for Jesus but equally persist in failing to present it,

What am i going to present? Something that cant be found with google?

The evidence for the two are nearly identical.

What am i going to present? Something that cant be found with google?
So what makes you claim there is convincing evidence?


The evidence for the two are nearly identical.
False. In fact, a lie.

So what makes you claim there is convincing evidence?


There are verbal accounts from Christians with no break. There are no verbal accounts of humans evolving.

All it does show is that there were Christians from that time. That does not comment on anything else and the subject changed to existence from the OP. Existence is virtually 100%.

There are verbal accounts from Christians with no break.
Apart from the ones from AFTER he supposedly died, you mean?


There are no verbal accounts of humans evolving.
Stupid argument.


All it does show is that there were Christians from that time.
I.e. people who believed in someone who didn't exist.

Apart from the ones from AFTER he supposedly died, you mean?

Stupid argument.

I.e. people who believed in someone who didn't exist.

Well since this changed to existence we should have a dedicated debate thread.

Of course the existence of Jesus would not effect the "Theory of evolution"

Well since this changed to existence we should have a dedicated debate thread.
Hard to have a debate when there's no evidence on one side... :rolleyes:

Hard to have a debate when there's no evidence on one side... :rolleyes:


Would you describe what sort of evidence you want ?

Do you believe in circumstantial evidence ?

Because if you want direct you have to go into a time machine

There are verbal accounts from Christians with no break. There are no verbal accounts of humans evolving.

All it does show is that there were Christians from that time. That does not comment on anything else and the subject changed to existence from the OP. Existence is virtually 100%.

Come again? You want "verbal" evidence of human evolution? huh? What would be sufficient "verbal" evidence from your POV?

How about the fossil record or genome mapping?

What would be the equivalent evidence for Jesus??

Come again? You want "verbal" evidence of human evolution? huh? What would be sufficient "verbal" evidence from your POV?

How about the fossil record or genome mapping?

What would be the equivalent evidence for Jesus??

Messages from God, ofcourse, those are reserved for the faithful.

Messages from God, ofcourse, those are reserved for the faithful.

That's silly to even qualify that as evidence since ofcourse their are many different Gods and Faiths.

Also, I'm not so sure Ellie was referring to Messages from God

That's silly to even qualify that as evidence since ofcourse their are many different Gods and Faiths.

Also, I'm not so sure Ellie was referring to Messages from God

There is only one God, the one who said you shall have no other God before me.

There is only one God, the one who said you shall have no other God before me.

How do you know that your God said that :shrug:

How do you know that your God said that :shrug:

His word

Can you expand on that? What is his word - The Bible?

Can you expand on that? What is his word - The Bible?

His word is given onto saints, prophets, and common people who display great faith. His word is nothing but a thought to the untrained mind.

It's really hard to debate with people who've, sadly, only read one book in their entire life, and even that one book - they may not have grasped it.

It's really hard to debate with people who've, sadly, only read one book in their entire life, and even that one book - they may not have grasped it.

Debate, go! Your logic is backwards, if I were uneducaed you should pwn me in a debate.

His word is given onto saints, prophets, and common people who display great faith. His word is nothing but a thought to the untrained mind.

And how do you qualify this exactly? What prophets? What saints? Regarding common people how do you qualify their message as being the Word of God?

There is only one God, the one who said you shall have no other God before me.
If there's only one god, what other gods is it worried about?

Debate, go! Your logic is backwards, if I were uneducaed you should pwn me in a debate.

So, you mean, you haven't really read any other book than the Holy Bible? My logic is just trying to follow up with people who've only read and studied one book in their life. I'm trying to empathise with them -- that for them everything revolves around that one book and its ..author --- makes good soil for a narrow outview, no?

Anyway..is there something here I am supposed to "pwn"?

So then evolution is not magical? Transforming into another being.

You cannot have it both ways.

There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than evolution and yet it is possible evolution happened.

Just sayin':shrug:

you must trolling, right? because i can't even understand how you think :confused::confused:

you have everything backwards i won't even go into details. but i want to say this.

your life depends on science everyday. the car you drive to work, the medication prescribed by your doctors, the computer you use to type this message, the Television you watch every night, all made possible by scientific advances. but you don't believe in science. you believe in fairy tales in some books written by some drunken men thousands of years ago? you know they didn't even have toilet paper back then right?

how do you go through life? must be real frustrated to depend on science everyday and yet you hate it?

If there's only one god, what other gods is it worried about?

Hes not worried about anything. "gods" are declared by man. God recognizes gods, but they are not God. Many of these "gods" are in fact said prophets who had no idea who God was so they didn't know who to credit for their gifts in various subjects.

So, you mean, you haven't really read any other book than the Holy Bible?

What? I have only read parts of the bible. it is largly full of shit.

And how do you qualify this exactly? What prophets? What saints? Regarding common people how do you qualify their message as being the Word of God?

You are qualified by God, and faith for the most part.

What? I have only read parts of the bible. it is largly full of shit.
But yet you keep preaching from it.

You're a troll, nothing more. You now go on ignore with the rest of the idiots.

you must trolling, right? because i can't even understand how you think :confused::confused:

you have everything backwards i won't even go into details. but i want to say this.

your life depends on science everyday. the car you drive to work, the medication prescribed by your doctors, the computer you use to type this message, the Television you watch every night, all made possible by scientific advances. but you don't believe in science. you believe in fairy tales in some books written by some drunken men thousands of years ago? you know they didn't even have toilet paper back then right?

how do you go through life? must be real frustrated to depend on science everyday and yet you hate it?

Is this a joke? I am looking at the facts as we know them. Everything you mentioned is a fact, except of assuming i drive a car to work everyday and take medication. Not to mention that i never said one time that (Human) evolution did not occur.

You are qualified by God, and faith for the most part.

No, I asked how do you qualify prophets, saints and messages from God.

How can Faith qualify anything objective when it comes in many different shapes and sizes, and for the most part has contradictory messages?

So apparently you feel that your thoughts and understanding are accurate because you consider yourself as Faithful? And these thoughts should be considered evidence?

No, I asked how do you qualify prophets, saints and messages from God.

How can Faith qualify anything objective when it comes in many different shapes and sizes, and for the most part has contradictory messages?

So apparently you feel that your thoughts and understanding are accurate because you consider yourself as Faithful? And these thoughts should be considered evidence?

Quit babbling pagan! The Lord rebuke thee. Anyways, its all about faith, its that simple. How can I be more clear?

But yet you keep preaching from it.

You're a troll, nothing more. You now go on ignore with the rest of the idiots.

"Largely" full of shit, no completely. It takes an eye to sift through all of the crap.

Quit babbling pagan! The Lord rebuke thee. Anyways, its all about faith, its that simple. How can I be more clear?

Ummmmm, You can't be clear if you are basing it on Faith because Faith is not objective. Follow along...........

It's simple for you because you obviously take comfort in self proclaimation and it ends there. There is no basis to your argument.

The Lord Smite Thee :rolleyes:

It's simple for you because you obviously take comfort in self proclaimation and it ends there.

But those proclamations are so comfortable!

We shouldn't underestimate the pleasure of "going on a God spree."
Even a hardcore skeptic as myself gets all tingly when I read scriptures.

Boy, would I be a preacher!

Sure, some scripture verses are beautiful, some not so much but again, the basis is not scripture.....it is Faith. The self-proclaimations I'm referring to are knowledge91's understanding and interpretation of prophets, saints and messages from God - Which he has only qualified to himself with circular reasoning. He has repeatedly said that he does not believe in the Bible.

Even just saying the word "God" can be intoxicating, giving the person a true rush and high.

Knowledge91 said elsewhere that he uses marijuana.
I am inclined to think that this could have something to do with how he approaches the topic "God," and possibly others (ie. in an intuitive and addictive manner).

Perhaps from talking about "God," he gets a similar high.

It's not uncommon for people to use intoxicants and then have so-called spiritual visions.

Sure, I agree with that.

Ummmmm, You can't be clear if you are basing it on Faith because Faith is not objective. Follow along...........

It's simple for you because you obviously take comfort in self proclaimation and it ends there. There is no basis to your argument.

The Lord Smite Thee :rolleyes:

I go un smitten. The basis of my argument is God is all around you, and the Son returns soon. They will all awake, behold as he comes with clouds.

Even just saying the word "God" can be intoxicating, giving the person a true rush and high.

Knowledge91 said elsewhere that he uses marijuana.
I am inclined to think that this could have something to do with how he approaches the topic "God," and possibly others (ie. in an intuitive and addictive manner).

Perhaps from talking about "God," he gets a similar high.

It's not uncommon for people to use intoxicants and then have so-called spiritual visions.

Wrong. The bible makes me sad. What is taking place makes me sad. What God has sent me to do makes me sad. The outcome makes me sad. I find no joy in the eternal burn that will 1/3 of the world will be scorched with. Im not some God freak. This is why end of times is necissary, people like me getting hacked for showing great faith, just like it says in the bible. I see no hallucinations, I hear the word that is all.

Sure, some scripture verses are beautiful, some not so much but again, the basis is not scripture.....it is Faith. The self-proclaimations I'm referring to are knowledge91's understanding and interpretation of prophets, saints and messages from God - Which he has only qualified to himself with circular reasoning. He has repeatedly said that he does not believe in the Bible.

I am qualified by my faith, and the word of God, ask him yourself.

I go un smitten. The basis of my argument is God is all around you, and the Son returns soon. They will all awake, behold as he comes with clouds.

That is no basis....that is just an assertion on your part..........

I am qualified by my faith, and the word of God, ask him yourself.

I just did, God just told me that you are a lyer and by your logic this would qualify as evidence but here we are in a pickle. My interpretation is completely contrary to yours based on Faith alone. Do you get it yet?

I just did, God just told me that you are a lyer and by your logic this would qualify as evidence but here we are in a pickle. My interpretation is completely contrary to yours based on Faith alone. Do you get it yet?

Yes, do you? You have no faith, how could you possibly speak to God? Do not lie to me, God say's do not lie in his name, or in the presence of his son or face consequence's.

Yes, do you? You have no faith, how could you possibly speak to God? Do not lie to me, God say's do not lie in his name, or in the presence of his son or face consequence's.

Right right.....so you have to believe before you recieve. Backwards thinking.

My point is that two unique individuals of contrary faiths(ideals) can and do qualify themselves just as stubbornly however their alleged evidence is not objective and has absolutely no basis other then their own interpretations and wishful thinkings.

And when/where did God say that????

Right right.....so you have to believe before you recieve. Backwards thinking.

My point is that two unique individuals of contrary faiths(ideals) can and do qualify themselves just as stubbornly however their alleged evidence is not objective and has absolutely no basis other then their own interpretations and wishful thinkings.

And when/where did God say that????

In response to your lie. You do not know my faith, do not tempt the the Father. Receive then believe, you ignorant twat, God gave you life, bow your damned head.

How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?


How do you know that the witnesses back then saw right, especially since they supposedly stood at some distance?

How do you know that the one on the cross was Jesus, and not someone looking similar to him?



How do you know your Grand father or your Grand mother died , very simply . You went to their funeral . So did Mary went to bury her son .
Did your father made any hupla to bury his father, no that is a private matter.
When JFK died so a big hupla was made , but ,many of us did not give a dam.
So is the same could happen during Jesus time. Jesus was not a resident of Jerusalem , he was from Galilee, He was not a local boy. So they got rid of him in a most quiet possible way.
Hanging on a cross there were many
The whole point . The message he carried was it good humanity ? and if it was good.it was accepted by many, and it was expanded until NOW.

In response to your lie. You do not know my faith, do not tempt the the Father. Receive then believe, you ignorant twat, God gave you life, bow your damned head.

Sorry knowledge, I pointed out that your logic is flawed, then you carry on with insults....typical.

I only know what you have written on Sciforums which is good enough to make my case and to point out your epic failure.

Saying that God gave me life is just another assertion by you. What else do you have to offer?

Sorry knowledge, I pointed out that your logic is flawed, then you carry on with insults....typical.

I only know what you have written on Sciforums which is good enough to make my case and to point out your epic failure.

Saying that God gave me life is just another assertion by you. What else do you have to offer?

Have faith or burn. I offer you no logic, just do what I say.

Gday,


How do you know your Grand father or your Grand mother died , very simply . You went to their funeral .

Events that you / I might directly witness nowadays.
OK.



So did Mary went to bury her son .

A STORY from a religious book, of unknown author, from millenia ago, a story full of supernatural events and unearthly beings.

You cannot possibly be comparing the two ?




So is the same could happen during Jesus time. Jesus was not a resident of Jerusalem , he was from Galilee, He was not a local boy. So they got rid of him in a most quiet possible way.

A CONSPIRACY to keep Jesus' existence quiet?
Seriosuly?



Hanging on a cross there were many
The whole point . The message he carried was it good humanity ? and if it was good.it was accepted by many, and it was expanded until NOW.

Many ancient religous works carry a message.
Doesn't mean their magical beings existed.

Did Hercules exist? Osiris? Bacchus? Zeus? Demeter?
Of course not.

But Jesus is YOUR faith, so you believe he did.

Just like many Swiss people still believe the FICTIONAL William Tell was real.

Just like many Indians believe Krishna was real.

Just like some English people believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

Doesn't mean they WERE real at all.


K.

Is this a joke? I am looking at the facts as we know them. Everything you mentioned is a fact, except of assuming i drive a car to work everyday and take medication. Not to mention that i never said one time that (Human) evolution did not occur.

you missed the point by a mile, not that you ever had any good grasp of what has been discussed anyways.

you missed the point by a mile, not that you ever had any good grasp of what has been discussed anyways.

You didnt make a point.

Have faith or burn. I offer you no logic, just do what I say.

The quintisential statement of religion.

Gday,



Events that you / I might directly witness nowadays.
OK.

But it doesnt mean it won't happen. Genetic change as a earthly explanation.


A STORY from a religious book, of unknown author, from millenia ago, a story full of supernatural events and unearthly beings.

I could re write the bible in a day in 2 pages, tops.



A CONSPIRACY to keep Jesus' existence quiet?
Seriosuly?

Essentialy the end game is to control people now a days, that would be a secret that is kept from even prominent members of the NWO players club. If they have a reason to keep Jesus quiet, then they have a reason to fear me :cool:



Many ancient religous works carry a message.
Doesn't mean their magical beings existed.

Doesn't mean celestrial beings DO NOT exist

Did Hercules exist? Osiris? Bacchus? Zeus? Demeter?

possibly, probably, who, no, who?


Of course not.

Jesus exist, I tell you this with grand certainty my friend.


But Jesus is YOUR faith, so you believe he did.


Just like many Swiss people still believe the FICTIONAL William Tell was real.

Just like many Indians believe Krishna was real.

Just like some English people believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

Faith is tested over and over friend.


Doesn't mean they WERE real at all.

But... they might be.

k?

Have faith or burn. I offer you no logic, just do what I say.

Right.....your argument is basically "because I said so". You offer no support whatsoever.

Have Faith in what? You haven't even offered a definition of what you are referring to. Have Faith in your evidence of prophets, saints and messages from God?

Gday,



Events that you / I might directly witness nowadays.
OK.




A STORY from a religious book, of unknown author, from millenia ago, a story full of supernatural events and unearthly beings.

You cannot possibly be comparing the two ?





A CONSPIRACY to keep Jesus' existence quiet?
Seriosuly?




Many ancient religous works carry a message.
Doesn't mean their magical beings existed.

Did Hercules exist? Osiris? Bacchus? Zeus? Demeter?
Of course not.

But Jesus is YOUR faith, so you believe he did.

Just like many Swiss people still believe the FICTIONAL William Tell was real.

Just like many Indians believe Krishna was real.

Just like some English people believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

Doesn't mean they WERE real at all.


K.



Sense you are so knowledge and believe in documentation.
In 1800 ++ Van Gogh died . Can you tell how did he died.
My point is if at these dating age we can not point out clearly , How do you can be so positive that Jashua did not ddie on the cross.

Sense you are so knowledge and believe in documentation.
In 1800 ++ Van Gogh died . Can you tell how did he died.
My point is if at these dating age we can not point out clearly , How do you can be so positive that Jashua did not ddie on the cross.

He could have easily died on the cross, just like anyone else back in that day and age. The extraordinary claim is that he rose from the dead.

He could have easily died on the cross, just like anyone else back in that day and age. The extraordinary claim is that he rose from the dead.



Then If an eye witness would say that to you would we believe him or not

Do we believe those people who have seen him or not . At same time how did they establish death , Then if we believe in the all mighty , could he do it for him .

Right.....your argument is basically "because I said so". You offer no support whatsoever.

Have Faith in what? You haven't even offered a definition of what you are referring to. Have Faith in your evidence of prophets, saints and messages from God?

Babbling pagan, STOP. Heed my warning. If it is a painted picture of God you seek you will not find, it is faith that you pray you will find. Have faith, I am in good standing with the father. Have faith you have not beem damned, Have faith or you will burn. Why? Because I say soo.

@Knowledge --

You know what no theist has ever been able to adequately explain? You lot, you keep harping on about faith and how it's so awesome, but not a single one of you has ever been able to explain why it's that great.

@Knowledge --

You know what no theist has ever been able to adequately explain? You lot, you keep harping on about faith and how it's so awesome, but not a single one of you has ever been able to explain why it's that great.


I will explain my understanding and please you explain what you understand

Faith is a belief in something you don't see >

@arauca --

Oh come on, that's a complete straw man and a non-sequitur, as you well know.

An atom is something we can't see but we can still find evidence that shows that they exist, we can find no such evidence for god. No, I understand what religious faith is and it's not just "believing in something you can't see", it's believing in something regardless of what you see.

Furthermore this doesn't answer my question. What does the definition of faith have to do with the value of faith?

Here's what I think. You assume that faith has an intrinsic value and because you've made that assumption you haven't really looked at whether or not it does.

Then If an eye witness would say that to you would we believe him or not

Do we believe those people who have seen him or not . At same time how did they establish death , Then if we believe in the all mighty , could he do it for him .

There are no accounts by any eye witness. There are no contemporary accounts of the whole crucifiction-ressurection thing at all. The first accounts of any kind of the myth of Jesus were by Josephus, written a 150 years after the supposed event took place.

Faith is a belief in something you don't see >

If you interpret the phrase 'something you don't see' to mean "that which there is no evidence for, and is beyond the realm of applicability of science", then the statement is correct.

I consider faith knowledge

@arauca --

Oh come on, that's a complete straw man and a non-sequitur, as you well know.

An atom is something we can't see but we can still find evidence that shows that they exist, we can find no such evidence for god. No, I understand what religious faith is and it's not just "believing in something you can't see", it's believing in something regardless of what you see.

Furthermore this doesn't answer my question. What does the definition of faith have to do with the value of faith?

Here's what I think. You assume that faith has an intrinsic value and because you've made that assumption you haven't really looked at whether or not it does.

Please answer what faith is to you . Then I will go over your assumption

There are no accounts by any eye witness. There are no contemporary accounts of the whole crucifiction-ressurection thing at all. The first accounts of any kind of the myth of Jesus were by Josephus, written a 150 years after the supposed event took place.


Don't say there is no account , You were not there , There are a lot of things that take place and we are not aware . Does the Talmod mention about Jashua do you know ? Have you heard about a Jewish sect called Nazarim.
When He was crucified was should there have been a big hupla ? It was just before passover , when things are quiet . Think about when he rose , should he presented himself before the council and hay here I am ? Thy will get him again .Were the scribes not part of the council . Beside Jesus was not from Judea he was from Galilee, Man think practical.

Would you believe the Nazarim version ?

If you interpret the phrase 'something you don't see' to mean "that which there is no evidence for, and is beyond the realm of applicability of science", then the statement is correct.


The word evidence , evidence can be circumstantial and direct . direct we can not have , because is 2000 years ago, so we look for circumstantial.
So we have some old writing Talmod mentioned Jesus, should I believe ?
the fact that I am a Christian , I am part of the continuation . Same way you as a Jew , You must have a beginning . Have you seen Abraham , Moses. The Maccabees brothers, Bar Kochab, are you a Safadim ?

This may be off-topic but according to the holy Qur'an also Jesus raised the dead.

I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind, and the lepers and I raise the dead by God's leave. (Quran, 3:49)

@Knowledge --

You know what no theist has ever been able to adequately explain? You lot, you keep harping on about faith and how it's so awesome, but not a single one of you has ever been able to explain why it's that great.

Im happy with my life

Then If an eye witness would say that to you would we believe him or not

Do we believe those people who have seen him or not . At same time how did they establish death , Then if we believe in the all mighty , could he do it for him .

For the most part, if an eye witness said to me that he saw someone die on a cross - I would probably believe him if there was no other motivation or extraordinary claim behind it.

It would be similar to someone saying to me today that they saw someone executed by the Electric chair or lethal injection. I would be inclined to accept what they have offered if it ended there.

Babbling pagan, STOP. Heed my warning. If it is a painted picture of God you seek you will not find, it is faith that you pray you will find. Have faith, I am in good standing with the father. Have faith you have not beem damned, Have faith or you will burn. Why? Because I say soo.

Random meaningless insults.....why not participate in the conversation and answer my questions? I have no need for a painted picture of God but it seems as though you do since you can't define what it is you are referring to.

"Because you say soo" - really? Offer something of substance :bugeye:

I consider faith knowledge

Your consideration is incorrect.

If you consider ancient history, how do we know any of that was real? It has to do with character and good record keeping. In modern times, character is less important and the Internet allows people to pretend anything, maybe some people can't fully grasp the concept of honest record keeping.

I look at things based on results. If the entire story was a fabrication, how did this con last so long, especially when competing elements would lie and try to challenge even truth to gain an advantage? Only reality could stand the test of time.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Belief has shown that it can stand the test of time over and over again. Can they all be right or reality?

Your consideration is incorrect.

Watch your words, Pagan, he's listening :mad:

If you consider ancient history, how do we know any of that was real? It has to do with character and good record keeping. In modern times, character is less important and the Internet allows people to pretend anything, maybe some people can't fully grasp the concept of honest record keeping.

I look at things based on results. If the entire story was a fabrication, how did this con last so long, especially when competing elements would lie and try to challenge even truth to gain an advantage? Only reality could stand the test of time.

Can't you accept dishonesty as part of this world? Or secrecy, or how about the destruction of documents to protect someone elses interest?

Watch your words, Pagan, he's listening :mad:

Your perception of reality has nothing to do with him or me.

Your perception of reality has nothing to do with him or me.

Yea?

Yea?

:yawn:

I look at things based on results. If the entire story was a fabrication, how did this con last so long, especially when competing elements would lie and try to challenge even truth to gain an advantage? Only reality could stand the test of time.

You apparently need a meeting with Mr. Goebbels.

Moderator note: Knowledge91 has been banned for 1 day for preaching.

@arauca --

I already explained to you, in my previous post, what religious faith is. What I want to know is why it's so great.