All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected.
But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.
RELIGION POLL #2: Did Jesus exist?
Posts
Total:
62
they are a lot of theories on why jesus is a myth,some say the sun,some say a mushroom or a cope
theres some truth to it but gods intentions is misunderstood with these people
I think he existed
Can neither confirm nor deny. No physical evidence of Jesus is available but there were tens of similar prophetic careers following the Roman takeover. Many Pharisaic and Essenic figures called for temple reform and preached of an eternal life and other similar claims to those ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament. Whether an actual Jesus lived as the New Testament documents or whether those works (and many others) are amalgams or cut and pastes of multiple popular prophets is probably unknowable. Michael Grant points out that we accept many other figures as historical without question based on the same degree of evidence as exists for Jesus. I see no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt that some real core personality existed.
He did and does.
-->
@MisterChris
Jesus of the biblical mythology, could easily have been based upon a real person.
Though it's very unlikely that a real Jesus character was resurrected in the mythological biblical sense.
The Biblical story is obviously a mythology, because the supernatural embellishments lack logical/common sense.
-->
@MisterChris
History is rewritten every ten years. History is what ever you want to believe it is. The history I was taught in no way resembles what you were taught. Just look at all the versions available and pick one, that's your version of history. There is no right or wrong version of history.
-->
@MisterChris
I think the main question is... there are certain people that witness impossibilities, according to current science. Is it credible or not? Obviously, to any curious man, it is credible enough to be confused about the current state of reality.
-->
@MisterChris
Jesus the person? Maybe.
Jesus the character in the bible (the one that resurrected)? Probably not.
-->
@MisterChris
All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected.But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.
From the annals of history, it is most reasonable to believe He existed. Something most definitely happened during the 1st-century to fuel the belief of the Messiah's coming and resurrecting. From the canonized gospels and epistles, we have reasonable evidence of this Person. From the OT Jewish Scriptures we know the Messiah was promised to an Old Covenant people. Those people do not exist in the covenant relationship after AD 70. We then also have the extra-biblical testament of His existence starting with Josephus and the early church fathers, then secular sources and historians who also mention His name or the movement. Some of these writings have multiple manuscripts preserved in history from a much earlier date than any other manuscripts from antiquity.
What early evidence do you have to the contrary?
-->
@MisterChris
Jesus or a jesus-like figure lived, some guy probably did go around during the ancient times telling people he was the son of God and started Christianity. He probably didn't resurrect though.
-->
@PGA2.0
None contrary. Some would say the evidence against is the lack of evidence period.
-->
@MisterChris
None contrary. Some would say the evidence against is the lack of evidence period.
So, I would argue your non-evidence gives less reason to believe His non-existence or non-resurrection. The evidence for His existence and resurrection is far greater and logical to believe. People in history are stating their eyewitness testimony. Something extraordinary happened that they want to share with the rest of the world.
-->
@fauxlaw
He did and does.
He still does exist, does he?
What, he's got a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and flipping burgers in a remote roadside truck-stop, is he?
-->
@wlsw9
If that's how you want to see him, that's your trip, bud. Milk it. Argue for your limitations; they're yours
-->
@fauxlaw
He still does exist, does he?What, he's got a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and flipping burgers in a remote roadside truck-stop, is he?If that's how you want to see him, that's your trip, bud. Milk it. Argue for your limitations; they're yours
Let's get back to the point.
You said that Jesus Christ exists.
Where is he then?
Or are you lying?
So far as Christ ever existing at all goes: if he did exist there is good reason to presume that he was no different to David Koresh and Jim Jones. That is they were charismatic leaders who sucked in gullible followers to believe a load of utter codswallop and proclaiming to be the son of god.
The only difference is that Koresh was responsible for the deaths of more than 20 people, Jones; 900, Christ; 90,000 followers were killed last year alone.
Oh, and the other difference is: Koresh and Jones actually existed.
-->
@wlws9
Where is he then?
As close as you allow him to be. It's on you, not him.
Jesus definitely exists, just as every other god every imagined, or Batman and Captain America and Darth Vader exist. It's a character in a story.
-->
@fauxlaw
Where is he then?
As close as you allow him to be. It's on you, not him.
You mean, as close as a deluded mind would want Him to be.
For example, you may wish to comment on this video.....
-->
@ludofl3x
Jesus definitely exists, just as every other god every imagined, or Batman and Captain America and Darth Vader exist. It's a character in a story.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, some people tend to stretch the metaphor a bit and actually convince themselves that Jesus exists literally means just that.
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he bitter and has OCD).
-->
@wlws9
Yeah, yeah, Richard Dawkins. Let me tell you about Professor Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins never met Christ. What Dawkins has decided concluded as has Christopher Hitchins: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’” This is a famously irrelevant argument since they both misunderstands the scope of evidence available. For the first clause, Dawkins is looking in a candy jar for a proper diet, and concludes that nutrition is a myth. Either nutrition is a proven necessity for sustenance of a meaningful and enduring life, or it must be acknowledged that candy is not nutritious. For the concluding clause, he is crying for evidence when laughing that evidence is immaterial if dismissal was always the intent. Either evidence, observation, and experimentation, elements my opponent suggested are revered as the proof of truth, or its dismissal without evidence, observation, or experimentation [all three must be applied, not just one, or two] is an act of ignorance.
I conclude that Dawkins is either malnourished, at best, or starving, at worst.
Just so that everyone knows....The theist message is often just as belligerent and O.C. as the atheist message....it's just that theists likes to think that their O.C.D. is more righteous....And vice versa of course.
And just for the record, I am merely a sceptic....Who accepts a GOD principle, but not all the piffle associated with the Jesus stories.....A liberal atheist if you like...Though not to be confused with a political liberal, as I am staunchly apolitical....A hard line moderate if you like......Labels, labels!
Though if Willows weren't so obvious, then they might get away with it.... Though perhaps that is a symptom of O.C.D.....Or maybe just good fun....Sure as hell winds up conservatives though......LOL.
-->
@fauxlaw
Richard Dawkins never met Christ.
And nor have you or anybody else living, so, by your own admission (Jesus exists) and as is clearly shown in the video you are either lying, deluded.
Or both.
-->
@zedvictor4
Though if Willows weren't so obvious, then they might get away with it.... Though perhaps that is a symptom of O.C.D.....Or maybe just good fun....Sure as hell winds up conservatives though......LOL.
I'm sure that if you look closer at my posts you will find that there is no belligerence whatsoever.
Remember, I am correctly, without exaggeration, exposing the sheer absurdity, hypocracy, bigotry, hatred and delusion that is religion and I have always used well researched facts and reason to back up my words.
For example, if you were to deride Nazism and Holocaust denial as repulsive and ugly, would I have the right to call your views extreme or belligerant?
No, I wouldn't because Nazism and Holocast denial are in fact repulsive and ugly.
Religion is an extreme, anti-social belief founded on nothing more than wild speculation and outright lies. Is the act of exposing such extreme behaviour extreme in itself?
No, it isn't.
The truth hurts and religious zealots have always had a penchant for deflecting criticism of their absurd beliefs through vitriol. What else can they do....they have absolutely not one iota of evidence to support their craziness.
It's a bit like road rage really, if you notice.....
It is always the guilty party that is the loudest.
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Jesus or a jesus-like figure lived, some guy probably did go around during the ancient times telling people he was the son of God and started Christianity. He probably didn't resurrect though.
Yes, exactly and that is the only resonable conclusion that anyone can draw.
Since time immemorial there have been charismatic charlatans popping up claiming to be the son of God and offering salvation to anyone gullible and naive enough to believe their lunacy.
For example, in more recent times we have seen David Koresh and Jim Jones do exactly the same thing.
The only difference in their cases is that we can confirm that they definitely did exist.
-->
@swows9
And nor have you or anybody else living
I might ask that you demonstrate the evidence for that statement, but I already know what the response would be. I will offer that though you see the effect of wind, you have not seen it, and have not personally interacted intelligently with it. Do you, therefore, deny the existence of wind? You feel it. But that is not always limited to just an emotional experience. Let me just suggest that you, personally, do not speak for the rest of us, collectively. You speak for you. Leave it at that.
-->
@fauxlaw
I might ask that you demonstrate the evidence for that statement, but I already know what the response would be. I will offer that though you see the effect of wind, you have not seen it, and have not personally interacted intelligently with it. Do you, therefore, deny the existence of wind? You feel it. But that is not always limited to just an emotional experience. Let me just suggest that you, personally, do not speak for the rest of us, collectively. You speak for you. Leave it at that.
Whether or not I speak for any particular group of people is completely irrelevant in determining fact or falsehood.
Wind is detectable and measureable by anybody. Wind is not an entity rather, the movement of air.
A person is an entity which can be detected
You made the claim that Jesus Christ (a person) exists.
I am asking you where does Jesus Christ live, have you met him and by what sense did you detect him?
-->
@swows9
Well, my post was somewhat tongue in cheek, and aimed at my old friend Mr Ethan.
Though I am in agreement with you regarding the absurdity of popular religion as a serious creation hypothesis.
Quite frankly if there was a supreme being, it just wouldn't be as stupid as religious zealots portray it.
-->
@swows9
I don't know where Jesus lives, which is not evidence that he does not [have a domicile, or that he lives]
I have not met Jesus [I presume you mean "in the flesh"] Neither does this demonstrate that he is not meetable in the flesh. Neither have I ever met Jack Kennedy, though I did meet his brother Bobby, who spoke of Jack in loving memory - not that either are any proof of Jesus, in case you ask]
I detect Jesus Christ by faith, an operable sense in every respect as the other five we depend upon, and similar to the senses other animals have, such as echo location and magnetic field, neither of which appear to be among the set humans demonstrate. It's just that some have no awareness of faith as a sense, much like some lack vision, or smell. Demonstrate that you have the sense of smell. By empiric proof.
.
FAUXLAW,
For Christ's sake, barring you believe in Jesus only with "faith," which is NOT an absolute, and even though you are a pseudo-christian at best, STFU when it comes to proving Jesus outside of the Bible, understood? You know damn well that you'll walk on water in the summertime before you can prove Jesus' existence away from the JUDEO-Christian Bible! 2+2=4.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK, our Jesus character outside of the JUDEO-Christian Bible is first mentioned by Josephus Flavius who was a Roman Jewish Historian, where his alleged hearsay non eyewitness statements about this Jesus character in his Antiquities were overall disturbing to the astute rational thinker, which leaves you out upon the sidelines.
Barring the fact of many historians stating that what Josephus wrote about Jesus in a minute way were interpolations, the simple math is revealed nonetheless in that our Jesus died approximately in 36AD, Josephus' birth was 33AD, and his Antiquities were written in 97AD mentioning through hearsay and non eyewitness accounts, a Jesus “character,” where He was not at all mentioned as the the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, the creator of man, earth, and the entire universe until 64 years later! Get it?
Such a notable one God concept would have been mentioned ad infinitum in historical records and writings in Roman, Greek, and Jewish history from the day of his celestial impregnation to the whore Mary giving birth to Jesus being bastard child in true Hebrew Tradition, but it was not! It is like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and walking on it for the first time in the history of man, and having not a single person write about it during the time it occurred and subsequently, but only 64 years later as equal to Josephus’ interpolations were written within his Antiquities about a bible Jesus. Shhhhhhh! HELLO?
Listen up, we have to masturbate our minds in just wanting Jesus to exist subsequent to no meaningful records in history of His existence subsequent to Him being in the Bible, do you understand? Don't even bother to bring forth the other historians that mention our Jesus, because not only are they embarrassingly further later in time, but are also hearsay accountings, understood? Jesus outside of the JUDEO-Christian Bible is to be "mums the word" to save us Christians from further embarrassment. DUH!
You are again excused at this time.
.