Whether or not a Man Named Jesus Existed

[SkinWalker]

This appears to become where it's all subjective. Almost precludes taking any absolute position either way.

 

Allow me to clarify: I use "almost certainly" in the same way I would say that the Earth almost certainly revolves around the sun. Or, the ball I throw in the air will almost certainly be affected by gravity. Therefore, my usage is subjective only so far as there always exists possibilities based on information I'm not yet aware of. Perhaps Vogons will arrive and clear our fair planet from the intergalactic space lanes invalidating both assumptions. I doubt it, but this remains a possibility however remote.

 

Perhaps our friend at the top of the page will return with his "proofs," but, again, I doubt it. And, again, this remains a possibility, however, remote. And, as such, I can only say that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, almost certainly did not exist. Regardless of my perception of his existence or non-existence, he did either exist or not exist and, therefore, his existence or non-existence is not subjective. That is to say, his existence or non-existence does not hinge upon my belief in one or the other or on a consensus of belief among a majority populace that follow the Christian superstition.

[Totenkopf]

Allow me to clarify: I use "almost certainly" in the same way I would say that the Earth almost certainly revolves around the sun. Or, the ball I throw in the air will almost certainly be affected by gravity. Therefore, my usage is subjective only so far as there always exists possibilities based on information I'm not yet aware of.

 

Exactly my point. For the record, the probabilities of your position may be better. So we're clear, though, I wasn't stating (even if the other guy was) that the actual existence was subjective, merely our conclusions about it.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic.

Huh? What do you call transmutation? Magic happens at Catholic churches every Sunday.

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

 

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.

Fantastic! I am anxious for a link, a peer-reviewed publication, or something, anything tangible, to support this absurd claim.

Also, you have contradicted yourself substantially, if you recognize the similarity of "miracle" and "magic".... er, how are they different again?

 

Again that is my position.

Unfortunately, it is an incorrect position.

 

Just because you believe/don't believe doesn't change the facts. "Jesus Existed" - it's a normative claim.

Bingo. SD Nihil, fence-sitting is for watching the match, not for being in it. You need to pick a side in this debate, and find evidence, or keep sitting on the fence and stay out of the fray.

 

Holy Blood, Holy Grail - the longest book full of names I have ever forced myself to finish - still produced nothing concrete about Jesus, only about Jesus' fanatical followers. As many have noted in this thread, there is no genuine article to substantiate the claim that Jesus was.

 

Falling back on "faith" is what angers both non-believers and believers alike. Faith is something you keep, and hold as a hope, something that may be, and you can believe it to be true if you like; we are all entitled to deceive ourselves as much as we like. Believing in God does not prevent people from thinking critically, and many devout believers of the pantheon can recognize that proof is lacking, can admit to it, and finally do not need it - that is the place of faith. It supplants the need for proof.

[Achilles]

Believing in God does not prevent people from thinking critically

I agree that it doesn't necessarily "prevent" people from thinking critically, however it would seem that people who do think critically, don't accept supernatural claims.

 

This is also why religious people with doctorates scare me.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

I agree that it doesn't necessarily "prevent" people from thinking critically, however it would seem that people who do think critically, don't accept supernatural claims.

 

This is also why religious people with doctorates scare me.

Yeah... my sister's mother-in-law has dual degree's in Phil/Theol, and is a born again Christian.

 

I am still shaking my head on that one. And I wouldn't dare discuss it with her, because she knows many of my arguments as well or better than I do.

 

That she is completely self-contradicting escapes her nevertheless.

[Rake]

Exactly my point. For the record, the probabilities of your position may be better. So we're clear, though, I wasn't stating (even if the other guy was) that the actual existence was subjective, merely our conclusions about it.

 

Should you believe everything that cannot be 100% disproved?

[Totenkopf]

Should you rule out anything as a possibility if it hasn't been 100% debunked? Remember, there's a significant difference between probability and possibility.

[Rake]

Should you rule out anything as a possibility if it hasn't been 100% debunked? Remember, there's a significant difference between probability and possibility.

 

Well there in lies the problem, virtually nothing cannot be 100% debunked. The thing is when there is absolutely no good reason to believe something existed or exists, why would you choose that over say, Rapokoten the magician-sorceror of the 1300s (hey, he could have existed)!

[Totenkopf]

And your point is? Perhaps he* existed, perhaps you made him up. I'd say the probability of the latter is most likely. Not sure what you're getting so exercised over, though. It's simply an issue of semantics, ie. possibility vs probability. Since Jesus hasn't been in fact proven to be fiction, but appears probably so to debunkers, then our conclusions about Him remain subjective.

 

*gonna guess he was the divine sorcerer for the FSM.

[SkinWalker]

It all comes back to a single question: what good reason is there to believe that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, actually existed?

 

Not a guy named Jesus who was a teacher and biblical myth is loosely based upon, but the divine god -the miracle working Jesus Christ of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. What good reason is there to believe this character was real?

[SkinWalker]

Moderator Note: Off-topic posts deleted; thread re-opened.

[Darth Eclipse]

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

 

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

[Achilles]

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

Or the bible is fiction.

 

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

Which part?

[SkinWalker]

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

 

The character portrayed in biblical mythology didn't actually write any of it. There are several accounts by several anonymous authors of Jesus the alleged christ, but they vary in ways that are inconsistent and occasionally even contradict each other. Moreover, stating that Jesus is real because Jesus says he is is a circular argument and one that is dismissed from intellectual discourse. If you're willing to accept this argument, then you must, necessarily, accept that the crazy guy in Miami, FL who claims to be Jesus is, in fact, Jesus.

 

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

 

Not even close. Just off the top of my head, the Armarna Letters and the writings of Plato have been shown to be more accurate. Very little in biblical mythology has been born out as factual. Just out of curiosity, what is it, specifically, that leads you to believe that the bible is historically accurate?

[Rake]

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

 

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

 

Praise Harry Potter the magical flying kid that saved us all from Voldemort. Either believe his story or don't! What makes the Bible any more "special" than any other book out there?

[Totenkopf]

Well, the only thing about using contemporary examples is that we know they're fiction.

[EnderWiggin]

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

 

Well this is some compelling evidence.

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

Hmm, and is this your opinion? Or do you actually have some basis for this claim? Either way, you telling me that God exists because the Bible ["The Word of God"] says God exists is a bit of a tautology, isn't it?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Either way, you telling me that God exists because the Bible ["The Word of God"] says God exists is a bit of a tautology, isn't it?

[EnderWiggin]

Thanks for the backup

 

_EW_

[Darth Eclipse]

The character portrayed in biblical mythology didn't actually write any of it. There are several accounts by several anonymous authors of Jesus the alleged christ, but they vary in ways that are inconsistent and occasionally even contradict each other. Moreover, stating that Jesus is real because Jesus says he is is a circular argument and one that is dismissed from intellectual discourse. If you're willing to accept this argument, then you must, necessarily, accept that the crazy guy in Miami, FL who claims to be Jesus is, in fact, Jesus.

 

 

 

Not even close. Just off the top of my head, the Armarna Letters and the writings of Plato have been shown to be more accurate. Very little in biblical mythology has been born out as factual. Just out of curiosity, what is it, specifically, that leads you to believe that the bible is historically accurate?

 

Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are. Some even write about their own experiences.

 

You've never read the Bible, have you? I would suggest reading it, then coming back to this thread and tell me what you think. Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.

 

Here is one example of how historically accurate the Bible is: Shechem, Bethel, Haran, and Gerar have all been excavated and proven to be in existence at Abraham's time. Even his home town of Ur has been discovered and excavated. An abundance of evidence surfaced to disprove the notion that Abraham's era was one of ignorance. Found were receipts for business transactions; temple hymns; others were mathematical tables with formulae for calculating square and cube roots as well as simpler sums. All these were strangely contemporary. According to Millar Burrows "...his name appears in Babylonia as a personal name in the very period to which be belongs." (What Mean These Stones?, p.259).

 

Another: Forty-six times the Hittites are mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 3:10). No mention is made of them in secular history. Before the 20th century, many said this was a fictitious empire. A.A. Sayce suggested that he found Hittite writings in Syria. Hugo Winckler excavated Boghazkoy, the Hittite capital, in 1906. Over 10,000 tests were found. Now you can graduate with a doctorate degree in Hittitolgy at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

And another: Jericho was excavated by Dr. John Garstang between 1930 and 1936. He found that the great wall was 12' think and the outer wall 12' thick both being thirty feet high, fell "down flat". "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up land over their ruins into the city." (The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges, p. 146). Walls normally fall inward. "So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city (6:20). Joshua chapter six and verse twenty-four says, "They burnt the city with fire". Garstang found charcoal and ash and pockets of white ash. God commanded them to "keep yourselves form the devoted thing" (6:18). Again, Garstang found storerooms full of food turned to charcoal by fire.

 

If you want some more, I can give you more. Just ask.

 

Here, read this: Throughout the years critics have attacked the Bible because it was filled with historical blunders. They viewed it as fictional and highly imaginative. At one time the records of secular history didn't mention some 47 kings found in the Bible.

If the book is inspired of God we can expect it to be historically correct. If the Bible is not accurate historically then is accurate concerning spiritual matters? This lesson will forcible demonstrate that the historical record of history and the Bible record are very compatible.

The Bible is not a history book. Nonetheless, whenever God's Word incidentally touches on any aspect of history it is always accurate. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." (William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, pp. 127,128). Merrill Unger wrote, "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds." (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 15). "Archeology is a real help in understanding the Bible. It yields fascinating information which illustrates what might otherwise be obscured, and in some instances confirms what some might otherwise regard as doubtful." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe, p. 88).

Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.

 

Please, make sure to read everything I posted.

[Darth Eclipse]

Praise Harry Potter the magical flying kid that saved us all from Voldemort. Either believe his story or don't! What makes the Bible any more "special" than any other book out there?

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

 

That is one out of tons of things that make it special to me. It probably doesn't mean anything to you, but all you asked is what makes it special. And that makes it special, if you believe it.

[Achilles]

Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are.

(with the exception of Paul's letters and arguably G. John.)

 

Really? Where?

 

Where in any of the gospels does it read "And Jesus said to me, 'hey Luke (Mark/Matthew/John), __________________" ?

 

The gospels are unsigned. They are commonly attributed to men named "Luke", "Matthew", and "Mark", however it could've been any one.

 

You've never read the Bible, have you? I would suggest reading it, then coming back to this thread and tell me what you think. Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.

How about a whole website full?

 

Link

 

Here is one example of how historically accurate the Bible is:

 

<snip>

By this same reasoning, the discovery of Troy confirms the events of the Iliad and is evidence that the Grecian pantheon of gods and goddesses really exist. Or to borrow from an earlier analogy, the confirmation of the city of London shows that there really was a boy wizard named "Harry".

 

Authors use actual people/places in fictional works all the time. That doesn't make them "historically accurate"

[Darth Eclipse]

By this same reasoning, the discovery of Troy confirms the events of the Iliad and is evidence that the Grecian pantheon of gods and goddesses really exist. Or to borrow from an earlier analogy, the confirmation of the city of London shows that there really was a boy wizard named "Harry".

 

Authors use actual people/places in fictional works all the time. That doesn't make them "historically accurate"

 

Neither of your examples make any sense, or have anything to do with what I was saying.

 

Also, did you even read anything on the link to that website you gave me? I didn't ask for someone else's oppinions, I want yours and other people on this forum's. Come on Achilles, give me a real, valid argument.

[Rake]

Well, the only thing about using contemporary examples is that we know they're fiction.

 

Just like we know the Bible is fiction right? So Greek mythology, the Qur'an, every other book out there that can somehow be twisted into a religion is fiction. But when it comes to the Bible, "no, there is a possibility!" I think I said it before, what makes the Bible a special case?

[Achilles]

Neither of your examples make any sense, or have anything to do with what I was saying.

They absolutely do. Your argument is that verification of places somehow validates stories. You cannot have it both ways. If the argument works for the bible, per your insistence, then it similarly has to work for any other writing.

 

Also, did you even read anything on the link to that website you gave me? I didn't ask for someone else's oppinions, I want yours and other people on this forum's. Come on Achilles, give me a real, valid argument.

Indeed I have. I have it bookmarked and reference often when debating True Believers. You asked for a single example of a biblical contradiction. I provided several. Moving the goalpost won't work.