Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Jesus Conspiracy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
OK, lately I have heard a little about a small, but growing belief in something called "The Jesus Conspiracy," an idea that Jesus was actually a person who never existed, created by a group of people to try to unify the Roman state. Although I do not believe this, I wondered what your take on this was. Your theories on it, proof of it, proof against it, or outright joy or anger at the notion. Christians, and non-christians alike.




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I dont think a madeup person would be able to unify the Roman state and I dont think that the jews that supposedly made this would allow themselves to convert to something fake.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
if jesus was documented in several different cultures..i don't see how he could have been made up.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
This is obviously sheer ridiculous. Even so-called athiests will acknowledge that Jesus lived, though they say he was a mere human.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
the question then is who was trying to unify the roman state? jews?


I think this is mainly going back to one of the orginal problems in the gopsel of thinking Jesus was an earthly King. In fact that was one of the reasons the jewish leaders gave Pontius Pilate in the first place. But Jesus only was going ot be king in heaven.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
if jesus was documented in several different cultures..i don't see how he could have been made up.


And the fact that he had a brother who wrote about him in the bible.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by JJ McKool
OK, lately I have heard a little about a small, but growing belief in something called "The Jesus Conspiracy," an idea that Jesus was actually a person who never existed, created by a group of people to try to unify the Roman state. Although I do not believe this, I wondered what your take on this was. Your theories on it, proof of it, proof against it, or outright joy or anger at the notion. Christians, and non-christians alike.


There is indeed an argument that Jesus was a myth, not a historical person. This view has been argued for centuries.

However, the main argument is not about a conspiracy to unify the Roman state (although there may be such fringe theories.)

The argument is that Jesus was originally a spiritual being, only later believed to be historical.

You can read an excellent exposition of this argument here:
www.jesuspuzzle.org...


Iasion



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by psychosgirl
if jesus was documented in several different cultures..i don't see how he could have been made up.


Jesus was NOT documented by ANY cultures (until long after the alleged events.)

No contemporary author recorded Jesus or the Gospels events.

See this list of early writers which shows tha lack of evidence:
members.iinet.net.au...


Apologists often cite various names which supposedly mention Jesus - in fact, none of them are contemporary, many of them are NOTHING to do with Jesus, others are FAR TOO LATE to be evidence.


Here is a list of the alleed "evidence" for Jesus :

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum 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 Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he 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 is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - 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.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered
some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


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.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman
practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who
actively sought such passages.)

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.
oll.libertyfund.org...


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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of
Thallus' works extant.
All 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:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius,
and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but
quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon
actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an
eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in
their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


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.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to
Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative
regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius
mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had
become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


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.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
www.heartofisrael.org...


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.


The fact that apologists have to resort to such suspect and late "evidence" shows just how weak the evidence really is.

Iasion



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by southern_cross3
This is obviously sheer ridiculous. Even so-called athiests will acknowledge that Jesus lived, though they say he was a mere human.


On the contrary,
many scholars argue Jesus was a myth :

* Earl Doherty,
www.jesuspuzzle.org...

* Profesor G.A. Wells,
www.infidels.org...

* Robert M. Price,
www.christianorigins.com...

* Freke and Gandy,
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Furthermore,
the argument that Jesus was only a myth has been argued for CENTURIES:
* C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
* Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
* Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
* Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
* David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
* Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
* T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
* Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
* Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
* William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
* Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
* M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
* Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
* John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
* Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
* Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
* L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
* Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
* P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
* Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
* Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
* Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
* Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ


It is true that many Christians have never heard this argument before - so what?

It is true that many apologists call it "ridiculous" - because they have no answer.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by Ryanp5555
And the fact that he had a brother who wrote about him in the bible.


According to NT scholars, the letter of James was FORGED by someone who never met Jesus.

From Peter Kirby,
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.

3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?

4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).

5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.



Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386).

Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord's brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles.
...
The Letter of James began to be generally accepted only after 200 CE, cited for the first time as Scripture in Origen (Select Ps 30.6 [PG 12.1300]). The canonical status of James continued to be disputed, however, and did not attain general acceptance as a canonical document until very late. This would be an extraordinary development if James had really been written by James the brother of the Lord and this had been known in early Christianity.



In fact,
according to NT scholars , (except for some of Paul's letters) NOT ONE of the epistles in the NT was written by the person it is named for :
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)


The Gospels are also anonymous works of unknown origin.


Which means that NOT A SINGLE NT AUTHOR ever met a Jesus :
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to distant eye-witnesses),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.


So,
not only is there no contemporary evidence for Jesus, not even the NT documents are any evidence for a historical Jesus.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
would anyone try so hard to prove he does not exist?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Jesus did exist, but is totally misunderstood.. what he has done, he has done intentionally, Did not wish to be documented so well that we had no doubt of his existance, he wanted a certain mystique so it would draw anyone near like the curiosity of the cat... he didn't have a place to lay his head to call his own, he lives by his reputation like most 'thugs' or martyrs although most thugs and martyrs live by taking or using force to take what they need to survive, Jesus didn't force people into anything, they all did it willingly, Jesus was a master manipulator he got what he wanted or needed without even asking for it, we are giving it to him. When you look at the situation from realities standpoint, either way you go, someone has your soul or had power over it, whom would you rather be manipulated by?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Jason, we meet again...

And again you prove, not that Jesus didn't exist specifically, only that no evidence that you (and in all fairness a large body of scholars) accept.

Fair enough...

Having so eloquently made your claim however, you fail to provide any evidence from the period of the Roman occupation of Canaan of a conspiracy to create a fictitious "Jesus" existed. Furthermore you fail to provide any evidence of the true heirs to the Davidic line of Judean Kings.
Is there one authentic text you can quote from this period that states that Jesus didn't exist and the gospells were a construct.

In short, for all the reasons that you accept that their is no evidence that Jesus exists, their is also no evidence that he did not...

We do however know that Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Roman Army led by Flavius Titus in 70AD and the last garrison under Eleazar Ben Jair committed mass suicide in 74AD, only two women and five children survived...

It is interesting that you mention Julius Africanus as he made his fame translating the works of the 1st century disciple Adbias, the Nazarene Bishop of Babylon. The Books of Abdias amounted to ten volumes of firsthand Apostolic History, which like so many other important accounts of this era were deemed unsuited to the Roman friendly accounts contained within the eventual gospels.

His account of the Exodus of Jews during this period is illuminating as he describes at the outset of the revolt the Romans had all public records burned so as to prevent future details of Royal Judean geneaology. During the revolt itself all records, including those privately held documents were ordered to be seized and destoyed.

Writing of this policy Africanus stated; 'A few careful people had private records of their own, having committed the names to memory or having recovered them from copies, and took pride in preserving the rememberence of their aristocratic origins'. He described the these survivors as the Desposyni. Later Bishop Eusebius of Cesearea confirmed that in Imperial times the Desposyni still held to 'strict dynastic progression' as was also the case with the Levite Abaithar and Zadok(Sadok) preisthoods as recorded by Josephus, but wherever possible they were hunted down and killed. The final blow being the edict of the Emperor Theodisius in 391AD that banned all forms of religious rite other than that of the Roman Church, on pain of death.

So your proof of a lack of evidence is entirely consistant with what we should expect from this region in this period. What is missing however is any evidence from this period of a Roman or Jewish conspiracy to fabricate a story of a mythical Jesus...



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I think that jesus is a myth, a character made up just as Santa claus was, so people can have something to hope in,to put their faith in. How can we even be sure there was A being called jesus? Because it is in the bible? Well, the bible, may be pure fiction, stories written y many men and women who were fooled by a person who claimed to be a divine person who will come again to make a new earth and a new heaven.
But , again I am back to my question with this, as I stated before, I am not an atheist, nor would I call myself a believer, I cannot belive in someone, that cannot be explained. Who created God, when the earth was empty, and how did God become all knowing, and powerful when there was nothing on this earth. If God was created by teh 'big bang; would there not be more than one god? Or, how could a "God" be created from the 'big bang?" If scientiests cannot answer this, how can we answer it, and how can we be sure that everything we have read about Jesus is true if there was nobody on the earth itsel to create God? I'm sure that he did not create himself.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think you'll find a lot of threads here address your very same questions including this thread. Here are some links to help catch up:

Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The True Messiah
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Creationist Confusion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is the one true faith?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Welcome aboard
! Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
There's two quite different questions at play here, whether there was a man called Jesus, or whether there was the all singing, all dancing Jesus snake oil miracle show as described in the eventual New Testament accounts...

Old Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) was known to 'gild the lilly' even in Jesus day, he was highly critical of Jesus when he was a tutor to Herod Agrippa even though they had never met, and when they actually first met, Jesus said "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" 9:3-4.

But after they got to know each other he became Jesus biggest fan (the New testament is filled with Pauls testimony) and he was want to exaggerate...a lot...

"For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shal rise first" Thessalonians 4:16-17

The impression I have gained of Paul is that he was a nice enough bloke but a bit of a wally...


[edit on 1-2-2005 by Flange Gasket]

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Was responceable for much of mordern Christianity why do you think it so closly immitates the Cults of Sol Invictus or Mithras ???



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Probably cos' Constantine was a Roman...



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
My two cents: Personally I believe that Jesus was a MAN that really did Live in History! I Believe that he was a Rabbi who was on a Mission to REFORM JUDAISM (Coming from a more LIBERAL Sect of Judaism himself). In addition he Taught/Preached to People & Healed People. Many at the time considered him a Political Activist or Radical Subversive (taking on
BOTH Judaic & Roman Authorities - one would understand why some people wanted him "Taken care of")!

I think that LATER as time went on that people tried to take Advantage of his story. All sorts of "Christian" Religions & "Christian" Churches were Created! As his Story & Legend grew I believe that many
"Supernatural Powers" were grafted onto him - these were mostly
LIFTED from Pagan Mythologies! This was designed to get as many converts as possible - from all sorts of "Sources"! Eventually the MAN Jesus - the humble Jewish Reformer - became the supernatural
GOD -> "CHRIST"!

Iasion may I ask you who wrote the Gospels (not just the 4 in the Canonized New Testament - plenty of other Gnostic/Apocryphal Gospels in existence)? Surely it was Jews that were Familiar with the "Old Law" & were CONFIDENT that the Priestly Messiah (Sent from GOD) had come to them in Human Form! They declare that "YEHESHUAH" was this Man!


[edit on 1-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by straightshooter
I think that jesus is a myth, a character made up just as Santa claus was, so people can have something to hope in,to put their faith in. How can we even be sure there was A being called jesus? Because it is in the bible? Well, the bible, may be pure fiction, stories written y many men and women who were fooled by a person who claimed to be a divine person who will come again to make a new earth and a new heaven.
But , again I am back to my question with this, as I stated before, I am not an atheist, nor would I call myself a believer, I cannot belive in someone, that cannot be explained. Who created God, when the earth was empty, and how did God become all knowing, and powerful when there was nothing on this earth. If God was created by teh 'big bang; would there not be more than one god? Or, how could a "God" be created from the 'big bang?" If scientiests cannot answer this, how can we answer it, and how can we be sure that everything we have read about Jesus is true if there was nobody on the earth itsel to create God? I'm sure that he did not create himself.


And I would like to point out that Santa Clause is based off of a real person who lived, he was a saint, he went around the village giving out presents.. I'm not totally positive on the whole history of it, but I know it is factual..

As well, the only reason there isn't hardcore proof that Jesus existed is simply because we don't have anything he himself wrote or anything else he himself did, although in many parts of the world and many 'legends' speak of a man described just as Jesus himself was described and around the time when he was missing or 'The Missing Years' there's too many people who claimed to have seen him and his miracles so unless they were all mass hallucinating the guy existed.





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join