The fact that He was Messiah is not even up for debate, not for me. I simply find it almost humorous that people these days try to discredit that He even lived.

I find it humorous that you would post this thread and not be willing to participate in the debate that you began by posting it. Did you think that by posting some online sources that suggest the man lived it would inspire all who read to follow him?

Never ceases to amaze me. WHy do people start a thread if their only intent is to tell everyone they are wrong and then bail on it all together?

The trolls on this sight aregetting out of control....

I think it's interesting that historical proof of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) existing is relatively easy to find, whereas proof of the Jesus as told about in the Bible stories is essentially non-existent.

And, as has been pointed out, what difference does it make? To the believer, they have their beliefs, and that should be enough for them. To the non-believer, it doesn't matter.

The only person to whom it apparently seems to matter is the believer who doubts their own belief, and hopes to gain proof to make their belief more acceptable to both the non-believer and themselves. A true believer would not care or bother with the non-believer. Almost by definition, only a doubter would seek proof of their own faith, and try to prove it to others.

The facts have been so well hidden by the Vatican that we will never know the truth unless they choose to tell us what it is. As for the existence of Jesus, there is evidence that a man named Jesus was crucified in I believe 32 AD. The fact that the physical man Jesus existed is not a question for me. The only problem is that the fantastic stories that surround his life and the allegation that he rose from the dead, the claim that he was son of God...all these things are hearsay, and have no way of being proven.

Jesus was a poor carpenter who got into heresy and was punished for it. Game Over. There's no evidence to suggest he rose from the dead. Joseph of Arimethaea's garden was likely visited by orthodox hardliners after the funeral who most likely made off with the corpse to mutilate it or what have you, and he made the resurrection up to save his reputation among Jesus' friends.

Originally posted by justxxme

The fact that He was Messiah is not even up for debate, not for me. I simply find it almost humorous that people these days try to discredit that He even lived.

I find it humorous that you would post this thread and not be willing to participate in the debate that you began by posting it. Did you think that by posting some online sources that suggest the man lived it would inspire all who read to follow him?

I can't debate a sentence like "many historians believe Jesus didn't exist" --- I need references, who were these historians? Now I will concede that there are many people who don't believe Jesus existed, but when you use the term "historian" I automatically think e-d-u-c-a-t-i-o-n, not just personal gut feelings. Now, if you can give me a name of a scholar or history expert, not Anton Levey, who believes Jesus didn't exist, we can debate.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bombeni]

Originally posted by Nohup
I think it's interesting that historical proof of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) existing is relatively easy to find, whereas proof of the Jesus as told about in the Bible stories is essentially non-existent.

could u point me to the historical proof of budhha that is "relatively easy" to find. im interested.

Originally posted by Loki

Jesus was a poor carpenter who got into heresy and was punished for it. Game Over. There's no evidence to suggest he rose from the dead. Joseph of Arimethaea's garden was likely visited by orthodox hardliners after the funeral who most likely made off with the corpse to mutilate it or what have you, and he made the resurrection up to save his reputation among Jesus' friends.

"likely visited..."

there seems to be more evidence for the Jesus in the Gospels than your theory. lol

Actually, it's about the same. I'm operating on likelyhoods, while the bible spins pure yarns.

Originally posted by Nohup
I think it's interesting that historical proof of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) existing is relatively easy to find, whereas proof of the Jesus as told about in the Bible stories is essentially non-existent.

And, as has been pointed out, what difference does it make? To the believer, they have their beliefs, and that should be enough for them. To the non-believer, it doesn't matter.

The only person to whom it apparently seems to matter is the believer who doubts their own belief, and hopes to gain proof to make their belief more acceptable to both the non-believer and themselves. A true believer would not care or bother with the non-believer. Almost by definition, only a doubter would seek proof of their own faith, and try to prove it to others.

Oh I know what you mean, the smeller's the feller thing. I quite agree. I didn't start out trying to prove my spiritual beliefs to anyone, why should I? I know Jesus is who He said He was as surely as people know they can catch a cold by exposure to rain and snow, even tho science says not possible, it's a virus. The post is titled "Overwhelming evidence that Jesus Existed" --- which I have more than aptly spelled out. Whether or not people accept or reject His gift of eternal salvation is purely a personal matter. I'm not here to change anyones' religion. You can rest easy.

I can't debate a sentence like "many historians believe Jesus didn't exist" --- I need references, who were these historians? Now I will concede that there are many people who don't believe Jesus existed, but when you use the term "historian" I automatically think e-d-u-c-a-t-i-o-n, not just personal gut feelings. Now, if you can give me a name of a scholar or history expert, not Anton Levey, who believes Jesus didn't exist, we can debate.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bombeni]

You have debated nothing, and I did give you a name (although you dont seem to want to do your own research) but you still seem to be missing the point. Why does it matter who the historians are that think this way? The point are the theories, not who made the theories.

You dont want to debate, you want people to tell you you're right.

Oh I know what you mean, the smeller's the feller thing. I quite agree. I didn't start out trying to prove my spiritual beliefs to anyone, why should I? I know Jesus is who He said He was as surely as people know they can catch a cold by exposure to rain and snow, even tho science says not possible, it's a virus. The post is titled "Overwhelming evidence that Jesus Existed" --- which I have more than aptly spelled out. Whether or not people accept or reject His gift of eternal salvation is purely a personal matter. I'm not here to change anyones' religion. You can rest easy.

So why start the thread then? You are trying to **PROVE** your beliefs to people. Heck, it's the title of the thread. Yet you have presented NOTHING that backs you up.

And, for the record, it is FACT that you cannot catch a cold by being in the snow and rain. That type of weather weakens your immune system, which makes you more likely to catch the virus that causes these things.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
The archeologists have an idea Jesus as a human being did exist, but the divinity was added later by the Church.

Archeologists have discovered that "Jesus" was a relatively common name at the time, and there were quite a few preachers running around the area with that name. None, however, have been positively identified as specifically being the charismatic sorcerer and necromancer described in the New Testament.

As for the divinity aspect, yeah, the Romans deified pretty much anybody, including their emperors and other wealthy folk. They were into it.

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by kidflash2008
The archeologists have an idea Jesus as a human being did exist, but the divinity was added later by the Church.

Archeologists have discovered that "Jesus" was a relatively common name at the time, and there were quite a few preachers running around the area with that name. None, however, have been positively identified as specifically being the charismatic sorcerer and necromancer described in the New Testament.

As for the divinity aspect, yeah, the Romans deified pretty much anybody, including their emperors and other wealthy folk. They were into it.

Hahah, u do realize Christianity was around 300 years before it was adopted by the Roman Empire.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws" - Lucian, Second Century Roman satarist.

SECOND CENTURY! as in before the Romans adopted christianity. which happned in the 300 CEs.

Lucians observance destroys the theory that Jesus was made divine by the Romans in 3rd century.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Boywonder13]

Originally posted by Bombeni


•More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person in history. how is this proof, im sure if you combined all the books that mentions dragons then theres more of those


• Nations have used his words as the bedrock of their governments. According to Durant, “The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy.”stupid quote? the begining of democracy was the greeks creating it, i dont remeber jesus calling a vote on anything


• His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm in ethics and morals. and lots of his quotes come from buddha so his ethics and morals are borrowed


• Schools, hospitals, and humanitarian works have been founded in his name. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford are but a few universities that have Christians to thank for their beginning. this isnt proof


• The elevated role of women in Western culture traces its roots back to Jesus. (Women in Jesus’ day were considered inferior and virtual nonpersons until his teaching was followed.) hahahah unfortunatley no one followed jesus until the 1920's in this case


• Slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to Jesus’ teaching that each human life is valuable. and continued to be treated as second class citizens up to present time ...... same as the women above


• Former drug and alcohol dependents, prostitutes, and others seeking purpose in life claim him as the explanation for their changed lives.biased treatment

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws" - Lucian, Second Century Roman satarist.

and where does it say this is jesus?

it says they beleive the message of one who was crucified and believe in an afterlife it doesnt even say the original law giver WAS the crucified sage

afterlife is a common belief practically every religeon has one

and crucifiction was a common way for deities to die apparently and most of them wernt greek in origin

where does this say jesus who did these miracles and had 12 disciples called ... and said this this and then this

it doesnt say he is the son of god, was reserected nothing



[edit on 12/9/08 by noobfun]