Jesus was

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by livi
If you believe in the Evolution according to Charles Darwin, there is no other way.

See that is just it. I don't believe in his Origin of Species. I DO believe in evolution to the extent that all things change over time. Ask Moses (not the biblical one) he can prove small scale evolution. I DO NOT believe that evolution can account for complete species jumps.

Oh yea, Damn dirty apes!

[livi]

That sums it up pretty well.

I believe, you believe, they believe. Its all a matter of personal belief. We could try to prove and counter prove each others arguments all week but its useless. Its a matter of belief.

[87coupe]

^True, the use of the word "believe" inherently requires some measure of a "leap of faith".

[RPKESQ]

Sammyg2, no offense intended, but your examples have numerous flaws. The most glaring of course is the lack of documentation during his (Jesus) life. All history is recorded with some bias. The historians job is to weed out the bias and try to find that facts.

Dead Sea scrolls are from a Christian sect and from much later, therefore not valid (just like the bible).
Regarding the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, Josephus; all while interesting, they are really reporting what they have heard from others, not first hand, and all are from a later period than life of Jesus.

Where is the real-time, during the life, non-Christian witness to this “son of god”? It is very interesting that the Jews who were there and are the ones who have repeatedly dismissed Jesus as a minor prophet. Christianity was one of many sects that sprang up in this time period. It just happens to be one (of a few) that manages to survive for any length of time.

Still lacking first person, non-obvious bias, during his lifetime documentation.

As far as your conclusions: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (possibly, not proved) (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms (nonsensical statement, since many more at that time period did not believe in these actions by Jesus, and since many other individuals have had followers that believed that they could do these things too, it proves nothing); (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders (so were many others, not much value in that); (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius (lack of official Roman records); (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D. (as were several other competing religious sects)

So overall, not much in cold hard facts here to support the claim that Jesus, Son of God existed. That does not mean that someone with the name Jesus did not exist, but even that is quite sketchy.

[Tervuren]

If I use what you said in another way - its obvious you have a hard time to prove anything in this world - if it only counts from someone who doesn't beleive in what they proved.

Its how Science works - you get an idea about how something goes together - you then try to prove that it realy is so, and if not, you try something else. If you do not have any preconceived ideas of how things can work - you discover nothing. You think of something - and test to see the result. Sometimes its not what you where thinking. To discount anything proven by someone who thinks it is true, is rather foolish?

I beleive the moon is made of green cheese, it may seem foolish to you, but I do. I will not accept evidence from anyone who beleive the moon is not made of green cheese, as they are obviously biased. They also must have personly visited the moon and tastest to see if it is green cheese.

[sammyg2]

proved, proved, or prov·en (prvn) prov·ing, proves
v. tr.
To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

This was 2000 years ago. There are more written records of Jesus than there is about any man who lived during that time. I guess that means that none of them were real either.
Like I said, if you chose to ignore the facts and choose not to believe something, it is impossible to prove it.
To prove something means that you offer enough proof that a reasonable person cannot argue against it.
Reasonable being the key phrase here.

[IROC]

Originally posted by sammyg2
There are more written records of Jesus than there is about any man who lived during that time. I guess that means that none of them were real either.

Too bad none of these records were written by people who actually met him. All hearsay from people that weren't even alive when Jesus was. If you try to prove Jesus' existence *without* using the bible, you struggle to find anything... You'd think that if someone as amazing as Jesus was doing the things he was purported to have done, someone would have thought to jot that down. Instead...silence.

Who wrote the Gospels? Tell me the author's names.

Mike

[nota]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Sammyg2, no offense intended, but your examples have numerous flaws. The most glaring of course is the lack of documentation during his (Jesus) life. All history is recorded with some bias. The historians job is to weed out the bias and try to find that facts.

Dead Sea scrolls are from a Christian sect and from much later, therefore not valid (just like the bible).
Regarding the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, Josephus; all while interesting, they are really reporting what they have heard from others, not first hand, and all are from a later period than life of Jesus.

Where is the real-time, during the life, non-Christian witness to this “son of god”? It is very interesting that the Jews who were there and are the ones who have repeatedly dismissed Jesus as a minor prophet. Christianity was one of many sects that sprang up in this time period. It just happens to be one (of a few) that manages to survive for any length of time.

Still lacking first person, non-obvious bias, during his lifetime documentation.

So overall, not much in cold hard facts here to support the claim that Jesus, Son of God existed. That does not mean that someone with the name Jesus did not exist, but even that is quite sketchy.

I agree with most of the above points
BUT the dead sea scrolls ARE NOT ABOUT JC
they date before his time
are about a jewish not christian cult

on other points rased
""There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Leedom; Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles got written before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one got written at least 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.) Nor can apologists fall on archeological evidence of preexisting artifacts for the simple reason that many cities get built on ancient sites. If a city named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as historical.""


yes there are people writting about christians LATER
but there are no at the same time, mentions of JC as a real person
in or near his lifetime
soonest is 20 years later and bible based

BTW when was his lifetime
we do know the bible is VERY VERY BAD ON DATES
and the AD year 1 willnot work
as king herod died in 6 bce
but use a prior to 6 date and the death date no longer fits
as to pilots ruleing date

luke futher confuses the matter by naming a nonexistant syrian leader at the time of birth

or is it all just a retold myth
The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

According to Massey, "The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos; Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these characters."

[livi]

Impressive crowd.

This being a hard core Porsche Passion Program - and here we are deeply submerged in a profound discussion on JC.

A lot of qualities on this forum.

[djmcmath]

You people are an impossible audience. First, you insist that the Gospels are invalid, because they're obviously biased. Then you insist that there exists no documentation which was written close to the time of Jesus' life. You can't even bother to do your research correctly, making bizarre claims about the Qumran (which doestn' technically apply here, actually, except for the scroll which validated the book of Isaiah). Christian sect? Hundreds of years after his death? Sure, there are scholars who believe that, but there is also a flat-earth society.

Given your historical standard, Xerxes never fought at Thermopylae (480BC). In fact, the very existence of both Persians and Greeks is in doubt. Alexander the Great (350ish BC) was certainly a figment of my imagination. Jerusalem was never razed (65ad), Socrates never drank hemlock (400BC), and Joan of Arc (1400ish) never led for the French. S***, if you insist on someone having written about the events while they were happening, you pretty much wipe the historical slate clean from before three or four hundred years ago, at most.

But hey, whatever works for you.

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by nota

Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person

I'll respond to just this one.

"I am the way the truth and the life". The difference is far far from minor.

Btw, I beleive in Central America, they also have something very similar, including twelve followers, and that he would return again. I forget who though, sorry.

[DaveE]

Going back to page 1, it's still a good joke.

[IROC]

Originally posted by djmcmath
First, you insist that the Gospels are invalid, because they're obviously biased.

Not biased - just written long after the events they describe (making them based on hearsay, at best) and written by who, again? Who wrote the gospels? Can they be totally trusted?

Tough crowd? Yep.

Mike

[sammyg2]

Who wrote the gospels? People who knew Jesus, followed him and listened to his teachings, and wrote down the details. There were men who lived with Jesus, not men who lived 200 years later.

The Gospel of Matthew was writen by Mathew son of Alphaeus.
The Gospel of Mark was writen by Mark who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Simon, called Peter.
The Gospel of Luke was writen by Luke, who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul.
The Gospel of John was writen by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

Apostle Paul wrote the pauline Epistles.
The general Epistles were writen by James (brother of Jesus), Peter, John, and Jude (also Jesus' brother).

John wrote Revelation.

[IROC]

Originally posted by sammyg2
Who wrote the gospels? People who knew Jesus, followed him and listened to his teachings, and wrote down the details. There were men who lived with Jesus, not men who lived 200 years later.

The Gospel of Matthew was writen by Mathew son of Alphaeus.
The Gospel of Mark was writen by Mark who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Simon, called Peter.
The Gospel of Luke was writen by Luke, who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul.
The Gospel of John was writen by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

Apostle Paul wrote the pauline Epistles.
The general Epistles were writen by James (brother of Jesus), Peter, John, and Jude (also Jesus' brother).

John wrote Revelation.

I'm not buying it.

"We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)"

from:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Mike

[sammyg2]

Hm, Elaine said it so it must be true.
One professor makers a claim that is contrary to the understanding of millions and you choose to agree with her instead of everyone else. Well There ya go. Now it all makes sense.

[trekkor]

Hi guys...


KT

[Milu]

Originally posted by sammyg2
Who wrote the gospels? People who knew Jesus, followed him and listened to his teachings, and wrote down the details. There were men who lived with Jesus, not men who lived 200 years later.

The Gospel of Matthew was writen by Mathew son of Alphaeus.
The Gospel of Mark was writen by Mark who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Simon, called Peter.
The Gospel of Luke was writen by Luke, who wrote down the narrative given by the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul.
The Gospel of John was writen by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

Apostle Paul wrote the pauline Epistles.
The general Epistles were writen by James (brother of Jesus), Peter, John, and Jude (also Jesus' brother).

John wrote Revelation.

Paul was not an apostle and came some years after. He had no first hand knowledge of Christ.

There is no agreement on who wrote revelations or when.

There is some question on who authored Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and when.

It is not as cut and dried as you are stating.

[livi]

This 'evidence based' debate is meaningless.

Here is a different approach from a non believer - and please note I am being serious and honest. No provocation intended:

What do you need Jesus for ? What does a Jesus figure do for you that I miss out on for not believing ? Does it make you a better human being ? Does it make the world a better place ? If so - why ?

I figure such questions probably sound real stupid to a believer, but for me they are relevant.

Again, I am serious here! I really want to understand.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Milu
Paul was not an apostle and came some years after. He had no first hand knowledge of Christ.

No, Paul was a Pharisee when Jesus was still alive...His conversion came after the resurrection.