Jesus Never Existed. End of story.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Intelligent people don't bother with stereotypes,

Think about what you typed roger.

(btw, thanks for the new sig line!)

You're certainly welcome to repeat my words, so long as you don't distort or quote-mine them. It's easy to be quotable, if you think for yourself. Those who speak in cliches rarely say anything worth saying.

As for stereotyping, all you have to do now is start applying that principle. I think you will find it hard, if you are unaccustomed to thinking for yourself, but that would no doubt be salutary.

You perhaps should apologise as well for your persistent negative stereotyping in your posts, but perhaps it is better for us to rejoice over one sinner that repenteth, even if he can't quite bring himself to say so.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 21/12/2005 by roger_pearse]

This thread is really quite laughable. When are people going to stop trying to prove Dieity by cold hard facts? It hasn't been that way from the beginning and it never will be that way. Keep it up. I get a kick out of the confusion you create for yourselves.

eudaimonia said:

Most important question: Where's the historical evidence?

If you really are sincere about denying ignorance this is a very good question to ask!

I asked myself this question several years ago when the Internet was begining to give signs that it could be of great benefit for denying ignorance.

I decided to look for the evidence and found it!


What I discovered was so exciting that I wrote an essay which you can read at the following link:


Historical Evidence

If you or anyone else has a reasonable question regarding any part of the essay I would be happy to answer it.

It will require some effort to read however, if you really are sincere about denying ignorance you will not ask me to spoonfeed it to you.


You also have the option of accepting that you already have a great deal of wisdom and not read it.


Isn't that the exact opposite of denying ignorance.


At least now you have a choice.



regards


ablebodiedman







[edit on 21-12-2005 by ablebodiedman]

Originally posted by RoadPebble
This thread is really quite laughable. When are people going to stop trying to prove Dieity by cold hard facts? It hasn't been that way from the beginning and it never will be that way. Keep it up. I get a kick out of the confusion you create for yourselves.

Your beliefs may be irrational, if you meant to say that. It would be unwise to presume others are equally so.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ablebodiedman- Just what are you trying to prove with this nonsense on tunguska? Where is the Historical evidence that you were trying to put across.

Roger P - Thats a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, you accuse us of ignoring facts when you blatantly ignore the biggest fact of all religions.
That is THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for the existence of god(s) and /or Jesus. However because you hold your beliefs to be true you deny this basic fact that you know also to be true. While we "unbelievers" do not adhere to your religious beliefs we DONT (and I think I speak for most) deny that there is a possibility that we may be wrong however slight it may be. This is something that all Believers are unable to do as you are blinded by Faith.

G

If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history, and even Muslim history mention him ??

you can discuss wether he was the son of god or not... but his exhistance ???hmmm

to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Ho.locaust never happened.

my advice:... LIBRARY !

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history, and even Muslim history mention him ??

you can discuss wether he was the son of god or not... but his exhistance ???hmmm

to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Ho.locaust never happened.

my advice:... LIBRARY !

The muslims mentioned him so that they could try and convert christians to islam and there is not much Roman evidence and what there is is very suspect and inconclusive. I also believe Jesus to have existed just not the way the bible says. I think the biblical was based on the historical just not the same person.

Nice try

G

I wasnt really trying anything, except for posting what is true...

and i dont see much differnce between what i posted and what you posted... I may need better glasses :bnghd:

P.S. - are you saying Muslims lied in the Quran just to get people to convert ?? hmmmmmmmmmmmm...interesting

[edit on 21-12-2005 by BaastetNoir]

Originally posted by shihulud
Ablebodiedman- Just what are you trying to prove with this nonsense on tunguska? Where is the Historical evidence that you were trying to put across.

shihulud


Which part do you think is nonsense and why?

It proves that the bible is correct because the evidences it explained would be present and the time at which they should be present were found to be near the start of the 20th century.

The evidences include manifestations of both Jesus Christs presence and also Satans.

The historical evidences are wriiten on the internet as well as recorded as testimony by over 500 people who were investigated.

Tangible evidences still remain at the site.


regards


ablebodiedman


[edit on 21-12-2005 by ablebodiedman]

Don't you know?! JESUS IS ROBOCOP!

Do a search for the robocop jesus discussion, it's rather humorous!

the bible is not a story book, its a collection of letters. You would believe that God existed if there was a bit of evdience in Rome, a bit in Turkey, a bit in Jerusalm, a bit in New York, a bit in London and a bit in Sydney (examples) but beacuse they were all brought together and put in the bible its all in one place its probably making you think they only ever existed in the bible itself goodbye

Originally posted by roger_pearse
As for stereotyping, all you have to do now is start applying that principle.

I'm sorry Roger. I can't imagine how you got the impression that I concern myself with meeting your preconceptions of intelligence.

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history, and even Muslim history mention him ??

They mention other mythical beings and impossible events as well. I really don't understand the penchant toward giving greater weight to ancient writings about ancient things than we do to modern writings about modern things.

Were ancient historians subject to the same standards of peer review, source validation, and scrutiny as modern journalists? If not, doesn't that make them less reliable than modern writers rather than more reliable?

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Ho.locaust never happened.

Whether or not there was a historical figure wrapped up in the Jesus myth can not be determined at this time. The evidence is consistent with both positions.

Suppose people were just now starting to document the holocaust, and there was no pre-existing documentation of it in any form. Suppose further that this documentation was being performed by someone born in the 50s, rather than someone who might have actually witnessed it. How accurate do you think such documentation would be?

I realize that this is only 'circumstancial evidence,' but think about "time."

What year are we in? 2005, (soon to be 2006, right?)
Or more accurately, 2005AD

The "AD" is the abbreviation for the latin term "Anno Domini"
Anno- is the ablative of annus (year)
Domini- is the genitive of Dominus (the Lord)

In other words, "2005" refers to 2005 years after the birth of 'the Lord' (Christ).

Before that, we use the term "BC" which refers to "Before Christ."

So, why would whoever created today's modern calanders, base all of time upon a mythological figure?











[edit on 12/21/2005 by just me 2]

: Originally posted by Toelint
What cracks me up is people who insist Jesus never existed...yet have no problem entertaining the thoughts and feats of these people:

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Alexander The Great, Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, Hannibal (The General, not the cannibal), Ramses I and II (or for that matter, any Egyptian Pharoah, Confucius, etc., etc., etc...

If you're going to pick a historical document apart, why quit at the Bible? How about the Rosetta Stone, Plato's Republic, oh, and add anything (I mean ANYTHING) written in Sanskrit, Sumerian, or Cuniform. (All Pre-Jesus languages.)

They're all lies...right?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Toelint]
They quite possibly could be lies but then there is usually more than one source of evidence for these people and that belief in their lives is not based on FAITH.

LOL In other words, you're saying they existed...because they were written about? If the New Testament was written by people who knew Jesus, up close and personally, there's 27 books right there.

If the original argument is whether or not Jesus existed, I win hands down.

As for whether or not Jesus was divine, THAT depends on ones individual faith.

But, to be fair, I'd like you to post "other sources of evidence" to prove anyone in the above list existed.





[edit on 21-12-2005 by Toelint]

Originally posted by just me 2
I realize that this is only 'circumstancial evidence,' but think about "time."

What year are we in? 2005, (soon to be 2006, right?)
Or more accurately, 2005AD

The "AD" is the abbreviation for the latin term "Anno Domini"
Anno- is the ablative of annus (year)
Domini- is the genitive of Dominus (the Lord)

In other words, "2005" refers to 2005 years after the birth of 'the Lord' (Christ).

Before that, we use the term "BC" which refers to "Before Christ."

So, why would whoever created today's modern calanders, base all of time upon a mythological figure?



[edit on 12/21/2005 by just me 2]

why? because humans are stupid.
end of story, we're really REALLY friggin stupid.
got it?
:bnghd:

Originally posted by shihuludThats a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, you accuse us of ignoring facts when you blatantly ignore the biggest fact of all religions.
That is THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for the existence of god(s)

The fact that you can even speak in terms of proof or the lack of it shows that you do not understand the question.

The only propositions that can ever be proven are those that concern events in the objective world that can be observed.

Propositions about events that can only be experienced from within, not observed from without, can never be proven. You cannot, for example, prove that you are in love. Even if you behave as if you are in love, you might well be faking it.

When dealing with something like that, the statement "there is no proof whatsoever" has no meaning or significance.

OF COURSE there is no "proof" that God exists. God is, intrinsically and by nature, something that CANNOT be proven, because he/she/it is not an observable process in the natural world. Depending on your school of thought, he/she/it is either the core of your own being (hence not objectively observable), or else the universe in toto (hence not objectively observable), or else a being outside the universe altogether (hence not objectively observable).

But to those that experience his/her/its Presence, God is every bit as real as being in love -- albeit just as unprovable.

If you say "there is no proof whatsoever of God's existence," as if that were significant, what this means is that you are thinking of God as something that, if he/she/it exists, OUGHT to be provable.

And that means you are thinking of something other than God, and miscalling it by that name.

Originally posted by just me 2
I realize that this is only 'circumstancial evidence,' but think about "time."

What year are we in? 2005, (soon to be 2006, right?)
Or more accurately, 2005AD

The "AD" is the abbreviation for the latin term "Anno Domini"
Anno- is the ablative of annus (year)
Domini- is the genitive of Dominus (the Lord)

In other words, "2005" refers to 2005 years after the birth of 'the Lord' (Christ).

Before that, we use the term "BC" which refers to "Before Christ."

So, why would whoever created today's modern calanders, base all of time upon a mythological figure?
[edit on 12/21/2005 by just me 2]

We live in a Christianised world thats why we use BC etc and its 2005. However in China and other places that dont recognise Christ you will find that the year is not 2005 and BC/AD dont come into it.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by shihuludThats a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, you accuse us of ignoring facts when you blatantly ignore the biggest fact of all religions.
That is THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for the existence of god(s)

The fact that you can even speak in terms of proof or the lack of it shows that you do not understand the question.

Oh and what question would that be? As far as I was aware I was making a statement not answering a question. But then again you Christians are never wrong eh?

You cannot, for example, prove that you are in love. Even if you behave as if you are in love, you might well be faking it.

Well thats not strictly true is it, being in love or falling in love causes both physical changes and chemical changes in the body which could be measured.

If you say "there is no proof whatsoever of God's existence," as if that were significant, what this means is that you are thinking of God as something that, if he/she/it exists, OUGHT to be provable.

And that means you are thinking of something other than God, and miscalling it by that name.

So I'm just to take it that Gods there and needs worshipping and thats that, no if's and's or but's?????????? Answer on a postcard to I DONT THINK SO!!. If you need the comforting thought of God and such like then fine but I dont, I see no need for gods or religion and am quite capable of functioning in this world without them.
Oh and didn't god appear to Adam and Eve that would make him provable!


G

[edit on 22-12-2005 by shihulud]

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history, and even Muslim history mention him ??

They mention other mythical beings and impossible events as well.

This would appear to be a serious misrepresentation. But since the argument is not made, it's hard to tell.

I really don't understand the penchant toward giving greater weight to ancient writings about ancient things than we do to modern writings about modern things. Were ancient historians subject to the same standards of peer review., source validation, and scrutiny as modern journalists? If not, doesn't that make them less reliable than modern writers rather than more reliable?

This poster asserts -- with the utmost confidence -- that Jesus never existed. Such a theory must be based on the evidence, searchingly examined and evaluated, and relies 100% on the validity of ancient evidence. After all, if all the evidence is bunk, then the theory of the mythical Jesus must collapse for lack of evidence.

Yet here we find this same poster rubbishing the idea that we can certainly know anything about the past.

Ad-hoc convenience would appear to be the connection. Since nearly all JM posters adopt this approach, it shows how unscholarly the whole JM theory is.

Of course it is perfectly true that ancient authors are subjective, etc. But the job of historians is to deal with that. Only obscurantists use such excuses to ignore evidence.

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Holocaust never happened.

Whether or not there was a historical figure wrapped up in the Jesus myth can not be determined at this time. The evidence is consistent with both positions.


The evidence we have just been told is worthless?

No sensible person holds this view. No sensible atheist relies on selective obscurantism to prop up his beliefs.

All the best,

Roger Pearse