Let Me Into Your Beliefs...

[Johnfromokc]

We do know that Jesus existed......

We do? As far as I've been able to find, there is zero archeological or historical evidence Jesus ever existed.

 

[redliner]

You live. You choose what do do in your life. You might follow your heart. You follow others. Life is a crap shoot. You roll the dice. Then Die. Thats it. IMO.

 

[BornReady]

We do? As far as I've been able to find, there is zero archeological or historical evidence Jesus ever existed.

What are you talking about! He was born on December 25, 1 AD. There were lots of witnesses tending their flocks. We even have a picture.

 

[MjaneGibson]

We do? As far as I've been able to find, there is zero archeological or historical evidence Jesus ever existed.

The truth is that Jesus has been written about on several occasions, and not just within the Bible. Same thing with Guatama. We consider textual information about other various famous people throughout history as being factual. Why would Jesus be any different? However, just because these people existed, does not mean that what is written about them in all cases is necessarily truth. Also, if you find what I write to be incorrect, than a vast majority of the information we have regarding people born BC and AD must also be judged in the same way. How do we really know that Julius Ceasar existed? He was born before Christ and yet we believe he existed because people wrote about him and a few statues were made of him...but is that really proof? Just saying.

 

[HK]

Knowing that Jesus Christ was a real living person is entirely possible and I've heard before that it's believed he did genuinely exist.


His existence just doesn't prove anything more than that he was alive at a certain time, that's all.

 

[MjaneGibson]

Knowing that Jesus Christ was a real living person is entirely possible and I've heard before that it's believed he did genuinely exist.


His existence just doesn't prove anything more than that he was alive at a certain time, that's all.

true...but this doesn't really matter to my point really. The simple fact is that despite when they existed, if at all, is the only "truth" that religion may offer. All of the other little bits and pieces of who they were is hear say...just like anything else we can't see with our own eyes.

 

[Minor Axis]

We do? As far as I've been able to find, there is zero archeological or historical evidence Jesus ever existed.

My understand is there are no historical/city/state records the Jesus, (that Christianity bases it's origins on) existed, including his conflict with the Roman State. The only known documents are the ancient scrolls upon which the Bible is based on. In addition it can be argued that many of the events in the Bible are based on events described by previous religions, things like virgin birth. So from what I know, religious history based on Jesus and the significance of it, is not a sure thing.

You live. You choose what do do in your life. You might follow your heart. You follow others. Life is a crap shoot. You roll the dice. Then Die. Thats it. IMO.

Just curious how you determined "that's it"?

 

[MjaneGibson]

My understand is there are no historical/city/state records the Jesus, (that Christianity bases it's origins on) existed, including his conflict with the Roman State. The only known documents are the ancient scrolls upon which the Bible is based on. In addition it can be argued that many of the events in the Bible are based on events described by previous religions, things like virgin birth. So from what I know, religious history based on Jesus and the significance of it, is not a sure thing.

So, is that to say that ancient scrolls are no longer considered valid sources of information? I'm just wondering what it is that concludes whether these are valid or invalid? Haven't we based other historical information on similar findings?

Additionally, I am not speaking of Jesus in terms of how the Bible speaks of him. I am saying the simple idea that HE existed. I am NOT Christian, nor do I use the Bible as a source of "truth." However, I don't see why I would ignore ancient findings just because the Bible decided to share their version of reality.

 

[BornReady]

The truth is that Jesus has been written about on several occasions, and not just within the Bible.

Yes, but written about by people who never met or even saw him. There are no eye witness accounts of Jesus, not even in the bible. We don't even know when Jesus was born or what he looked like. All of these details are legendary and were added way after he supposedly lived. Even though there is no direct evidence of his existence, I believe he did exist because there is indirect evidence, i.e. an entire religion is named after him. But we don't really know what Jesus was like. The gospel accounts are incoherent. Jesus would have been schizophrenic to match all the descriptions of him.

How do we really know that Julius Ceasar existed? He was born before Christ and yet we believe he existed because people wrote about him and a few statues were made of him...but is that really proof? Just saying.

Jesus does not even come close to Julius Caesar. There is lots of evidence for Julius Caesar and none for Jesus.

 

[Johnfromokc]

The truth is that Jesus has been written about on several occasions, and not just within the Bible. Same thing with Guatama. We consider textual information about other various famous people throughout history as being factual. Why would Jesus be any different? However, just because these people existed, does not mean that what is written about them in all cases is necessarily truth. Also, if you find what I write to be incorrect, than a vast majority of the information we have regarding people born BC and AD must also be judged in the same way. How do we really know that Julius Ceasar existed? He was born before Christ and yet we believe he existed because people wrote about him and a few statues were made of him...but is that really proof? Just saying.

There were many scribes living at the time Jesus allegedly lived. Those scribes documented many living people of that time, but there is no mention by those scribes of anyone named Jesus who was crucified or even lived during that time.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Bottom line - there are no historical witnesses that wrote of Jesus that have been found. No evidence whatsoever. Unlike other historical figures in which government or other historical scribes recorded thier biography while they actually lived, 100% of the account of Jesus were written 100 years or more after he was alleged to have lived. Interesting link here:

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

[Minor Axis]

So, is that to say that ancient scrolls are no longer considered valid sources of information? I'm just wondering what it is that concludes whether these are valid or invalid? Haven't we based other historical information on similar findings?

Additionally, I am not speaking of Jesus in terms of how the Bible speaks of him. I am saying the simple idea that HE existed. I am NOT Christian, nor do I use the Bible as a source of "truth." However, I don't see why I would ignore ancient findings just because the Bible decided to share their version of reality.

I know you see the problems with this debate. A guy named Jesus is equated to the Son of God by some ancient writings. What makes them valid? Someone named Jesus may have existed, but what beyond that? I would put more importance on city/state records for validity. As far as "other historical info on similar findings", I don't know. You have an example in mind?

It's one thing to say, there is a document that talks about the existence of a city vs the existence of the Son of God. Even if there was a mention of a city, using "Atlantis" for example, I don't believe that would be considered confirmed and valid until they actually found physical evidence of this city, and not just a city, but something labeled Atlantis. It seems to me when it comes to religion, it's just good enough to find ancient scripts that speaks of God/Son of God/Virgin Birth/Big Flood/Noah's Arc/Garden of Eden, etc, etc to erupt with a "Praise the Lord"!!

 

[MjaneGibson]

There were many scribes living at the time Jesus allegedly lived. Those scribes documented many living people of that time, but there is no mention by those scribes of anyone named Jesus who was crucified or even lived during that time.



Bottom line - there are no historical witnesses that wrote of Jesus that have been found. No evidence whatsoever. Unlike other historical figures in which government or other historical scribes recorded thier biography while they actually lived, 100% of the account of Jesus were written 100 years or more after he was alleged to have lived. Interesting link here:

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

It is hard to describe what I mean. In a world of technology, it is very easy for us to find out something that happened 5 minutes ago...even if it happened across the world. Obviously, word of mouth was most prominent in those days, maybe it took decades for news to spread? Written documentation that proved of Jesus' existence (during his "actual" life) may have been destroyed. All I am saying is that it is not so easy to just discard certain documents on the sole reason that it may not be completely factual.

Additionally, having some sort of written documentation about him is reason to say that it is not safe to say there is no evidence whatsoever simply because you don't like when something was written.

 

[MjaneGibson]

There were many scribes living at the time Jesus allegedly lived. Those scribes documented many living people of that time, but there is no mention by those scribes of anyone named Jesus who was crucified or even lived during that time.



Bottom line - there are no historical witnesses that wrote of Jesus that have been found. No evidence whatsoever. Unlike other historical figures in which government or other historical scribes recorded thier biography while they actually lived, 100% of the account of Jesus were written 100 years or more after he was alleged to have lived. Interesting link here:

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I know you see the problems with this debate. A guy named Jesus is equated to the Son of God by some ancient writings. What makes them valid? Someone named Jesus may have existed, but what beyond that? I would put more importance on city/state records for validity. As far as "other historical info on similar findings", I don't know. You have an example in mind?

It's one thing to say, there is a document that talks about the existence of a city vs the existence of the Son of God. Even if there was a mention of a city, using "Atlantis" for example, I don't believe that would be considered confirmed and valid until they actually found physical evidence of this city, and not just a city, but something labeled Atlantis. It seems to me when it comes to religion, it's just good enough to find ancient scripts that speaks of God/Son of God/Virgin Birth/Big Flood/Noah's Arc/Garden of Eden, etc, etc to erupt with a "Praise the Lord"!!

Read the first paragraph of what I wrote Johnfromokc...that explains a little bit...


In terms other examples, you can use Buddha...He was a regular guy (I mean, a pretty amazing guy...but still, a guy), who was worshiped by some because of his teachings and wisdom. Now, yes, we have written documents about his existence during the time of his life, but there are also other stories written about him which we can say are similar to that of what people wrote about Jesus, and not accepted by everyone. But, he existed.

Regardless, back to the task at hand, all I was trying to get across in my previous posts is that, while some information within religions can be proven, the overall perceptions or views and concepts on a particular spiritual belief are simply, beliefs. You cannot prove what is written. Perhaps I was wrong to jump to the assumption that we KNEW Jesus existed, but it is a definitely possibility. And as for Buddha, we do know he existed, but again, we do not necessarily know that the words written of him are factual.

 

[All Else Failed]

where we come from

Nihil




what we're doing

producing


and where we go

Nihil

 

[Minor Axis]

Regardless, back to the task at hand, all I was trying to get across in my previous posts is that, while some information within religions can be proven, the overall perceptions or views and concepts on a particular spiritual belief are simply, beliefs.

I can agree with this although when I think about every story/major theme in the Bible, as far as I know, none can be proven.

 

[Codrus]

I can agree with this although when I think about every story/major theme in the Bible, as far as I know, none can be proven.

i have proven the one about the burning bush :ninja

 

[Moonlight]

I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in religion or anything.

 

[Johnfromokc]

i have proven the one about the burning bush :ninja

Burned did it? She gave ya the clap huh?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7gUHdDZro


:24:

 

[Minor Axis]

i have proven the one about the burning bush :ninja

Tell me more.

I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in religion or anything.

How do you not believe in "anything"?

 

[MjaneGibson]

I can agree with this although when I think about every story/major theme in the Bible, as far as I know, none can be proven.

You keep reiterating that you do not believe in the stories of the Bible, and that no one can prove the stories in the Bible. I also do not believe in the stories of the Bible. I am simply throwing it out there that there is a possibility that Jesus did exist. It was simply aggravating me that people were so quick to throw out that possibility just because they didn't believe everything they were reading. That's all.