The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

Originally posted by Boywonder13
from my point of view it just seemed like u dismissed paul's letters beacsue u read a skeptics idea on them.

i dismissed him as an eye-witness, first hand account of jesus (which is what you presented him as) because he himself says had not met jesus when he was alive.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
...So you're saying that because the Bible makes mention of places which are known to exist, then everything else in the Bible is accurate? ...

No, you can't say that; however, you CAN say that since the author wrote truthfully of those places, and that they do exist, that is evidence that what he wrote on Jesus is ALSO truthful. It is called circumstantial evidence (which means something ENTIRELY different in legal circles than it does to the average person). The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".

The book of The Acts of the Apostles has excellent historical quality that have been testified by the archaeology.

www.slsoftware.com...
Biblical archeology
The Messiah Son of Joseph

www.bib-arch.org...

Thisis a good site to follow, if you really want facts.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
www.nypost.com...

Archaeologists have discovered a cave in Jordan where they believe 70 disciples of Jesus Christ worshipped - and that could be the first Christian church in the world.

excellent find. hopefully there will be actual proof that it existed before the 3rd century. even the article includes controversy there. still, it isn't proof of jesus of course.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Hard to believe that the people of that era would become martyrs for a god/man that didn't exist.

bibleprobe.com...

hard to believe people slaughtered their children to gods that didn't exist too, right? hard to believe people thought human sacrifice would appease a sun. etc etc etc

hard to believe people slaughtered their children to gods that didn't exist too, right? hard to believe people thought human sacrifice would appease a sun. etc etc etc

No doubt

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

No, you can't say that; however, you CAN say that since the author wrote truthfully of those places, and that they do exist, that is evidence that what he wrote on Jesus is ALSO truthful. It is called circumstantial evidence (which means something ENTIRELY different in legal circles than it does to the average person). The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".

why do you ignore the other comments? sherlock holmes' address can be visited, james bond went to jamaica several times - is this further proof of their real existance?

the lesson here is when you start with a predefined outcome you can fit anything into your investigation to prove you're right.

reply to post by Convex



www.bib-arch.org...

Did you get a chance to look at this?

Originally posted by Convex

excellent find. hopefully there will be actual proof that it existed before the 3rd century. even the article includes controversy there. still, it isn't proof of jesus of course.

Don't think christianity existed before 3rd century??

The Bible and history

en.wikipedia.org...

biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism

Well what shall we do?

Will we find what we are looking for?

I have spent a lot of time looking for answers,

choose your poison

reply to post by sir_chancealot



Good points. Non-believers want to string out every last bit of history about Jesus and say there is no evidence, there is no proof. But when you bundle it all together there is enough "corraborating evidence" to sink a battleship.

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

Good points. Non-believers want to string out every last bit of history about Jesus and say there is no evidence, there is no proof. But when you bundle it all together there is enough "corraborating evidence" to sink a battleship.

Historians all agree Pontius Pilate existed, John the Baptist, the 12 Disciples, Early christians in the first century, mid century Christian persecutions, Paul.

To dismiss Jesus existence, would conflict with almost everything we know about these above mentioned people that are Facts.

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

Good points. Non-believers want to string out every last bit of history about Jesus and say there is no evidence, there is no proof. But when you bundle it all together there is enough "corraborating evidence" to sink a battleship.

I agree

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

Good points. Non-believers want to string out every last bit of history about Jesus and say there is no evidence, there is no proof. But when you bundle it all together there is enough "corraborating evidence" to sink a battleship.

Historians all agree Pontius Pilate existed, John the Baptist, the 12 Disciples, Early christians in the first century, mid century Christian persecutions, Paul.

To dismiss Jesus existence, would conflict with almost everything we know about these above mentioned people that are Facts.

You are right again BoyWonder. Some people are going to tweek history until the world looks level to make it fit into their delusion that all these well-documented historical figures were part of a vast conspiracy to fabricate Jesus Christ. I don't say that with surliness either, it actually makes me quite sad.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bombeni]

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Don't think christianity existed before 3rd century??

we were discussing the church in the cave, stay focused. i was hoping for proof this particular CHURCH predates significantly the thing built upon it. there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it does, according to that article. but still, has nothing to do with an historical jesus.

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Historians all agree Pontius Pilate existed, John the Baptist, the 12 Disciples, Early christians in the first century, mid century Christian persecutions, Paul.

To dismiss Jesus existence, would conflict with almost everything we know about these above mentioned people that are Facts.

this thread is abuot lack of evidence of a historical jesus. no one has yet contradicted this.

and just because a person actually existed (such as pilate) doesn't mean he actually did the things written about him hundreds of years later.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Convex]

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Boywonder13

Don't think christianity existed before 3rd century??

we were discussing the church in the cave, stay focused. i was hoping for proof this particular CHURCH predates significantly the thing built upon it. there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it does, according to that article. but still, has nothing to do with an historical jesus.

my bad.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So you're saying that because the Bible makes mention of places which are known to exist, then everything else in the Bible is accurate?

Did i say that or are you hoping you can I assume this is what you hoped i said?? Nope - easy huh? It's not what i said

Wow...
It's only evidence that those places existed, not that Jesus ever lived.
Allow me to adopt your logic for a second. If I write about a pink unicorn of death which lived in the white house, then that must be true, right? After all, the white house exists, therefor the whole story I just fabricated is factual.

NOT my logic - YOUR reasoning and comprehension. But hey, it takes all sorts and i forgive you!

What evidence? Your evidence is based on asumption, just as your religion is. Do you even know the definition of evidence?

Oh? Pictures are assumptions? Archaeology is an assumption? What tree did you happen to fall out of old boy?

First, might I suggest learning how to read, or at least take those blinders off when you do so. He never agreed that there are records of Jesus. He stated that there are records from Rome and Jerusalem during this time, proving that your point as to why there are no contempory records is false. Instead, you ignore his point and act as though you have won the argument, when the logic simply flew over your head.

LMAO - oh that was rich!! Someone actually took the bait!!! Dude you are a gas! You should be on stage!

So you do believe in Hercules? Afterall, many of the places he visited existed as well, therefor Hercules must have existed.

I seriously hope you are joking.

Are you Iasion TOO? I understand English is not everyone's first language but this is ridiculous.

Do you actually type this stuff? Do you read it back before you post?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Hard to believe that the people of that era would become martyrs for a god/man that didn't exist.

Oh it is absolutely tragic!
To say the least!

What fools huh... BUT, are you SURE the cave exists?

Quick question......for the Christians....

What happened to all the people who live before Jesus???? Did they all go to hell for not believing in someone who did not exist yet?

Originally posted by Convex

this thread is abuot lack of evidence of a historical jesus. no one has yet contradicted this.

and just because a person actually existed (such as pilate) doesn't mean he actually did the things written about him hundreds of years later.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Convex]

Wasnt this thread about the Gospels being hearsay?....*looks at title*

anyways Josephus wrote about Ponitus Pilate in 75 CE. 30 decades from when Jesus crucifxion is said to have take place, with Pilate proably dying 20 years or less before. 75.

Tacitus mentions Pilate in 116 CE, as the one who Jesus was crucified under. I stress the fact that Tacitus, is a ROMAN historian, and the only signifgant thing he could muster about Pilate was his ties to the controversial trial and death of a first century jew. again i repeat Roman historian.

The "hundred years" is not really "hundreds of years" and it is not so for any new testament document.



[edit on 16-9-2008 by Boywonder13]