reply to post by Annee
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Fromabove
Jesus Christ is God, and Jesus is the salvation of the world. The Bible is the inspired word of God, not religion. Religion is man's attempt to
impress God, Jesus is God's attempt to reach man. Crimes and corruption within organized religion are not the fault of the Bible or Jesus, but of man.
OK - - so who/what exactly is Jesus?
There is absolutely zero real proof of his existence. He exists only in writings.
ANCIENT HISTORY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! Everyone that's dead only exists in writings. If you're standing on a grave, how do you know who is buried
there? Because of the writing on the tombstone. History works on the basis of how likely something is based on writings. Not proof. When it comes to
historical figures like ancient philosophers or ancient rulers or biblical figures It works the same way. But there's no proof the tombstone isn't
fake, it's just not likely.
Take the Pharaohs for example. We just have writings and hieroglyphs (which are also just writings) and the pyramids which are really just big
tombstones. When it comes to details like their names, their life stories, and how long they ruled then all you have is texts. You can't look at a
mummy and tell if his name was Bob or not. Sometimes the mummy isn't even there anymore. You have to look at the writings. It's all based on
We don't really have any original ancient documents. All we have are copies. To determine if historical figures really existed we use textual
analysis. Such as the dialect the work was written in or if they can cross reference what the author is saying with what other authors of the same
time were saying. Or does another author that we know existed ever write about this person? Or why would someone write this if it isn't true?
For example, the NT isn't written by just one guy. It has multiple authors that tell the same story. Why would they conspire to write it if Jesus
didn't exist? How did they all come up with the same story if Jesus didn't exist? Where did they meet if Jesus didn't exist? All the copies weren't
all made by just one person either. So we know there was most likely earlier originals that they were copying and that the copies aren't forgeries. We
can compare the copies to each other to see what the original text was too.
You'd have to come up with a new explanation that explains all these things. You'd also have to explain why some historians wrote about Jesus that
weren't even Christian. And your explanation would have to be simpler than that he was real. If it's not, then the simpler explanation that, Jesus was
real. Is probably the correct answer as it is the more likely one.
Some people say there aren't very many writings proving Jesus existed, but that's a myth. It doesn't work that way. It isn't based on how many texts
there are. It's based on how likely something is, but there are more than most atheists think there are. The truth is, there are enough writings that
show Jesus was more likely to have existed than other historical figures that nobody ever questions the existence of and probably more evidence for
Jesus then there was for anyone else from his time period.
Sure, maybe Jesus wasn't real, but if not, we should be questioning the existence of a lot of other historical figures first before we even get to
Jesus. Like Socrates for example. But I never hear anyone bring him up. I've never seen anyone start a thread saying, there's no proof Socrates
existed! GREEK PHILOSOPHY IS A FRAUD!
I see Jesus threads all the time though. We must ask ourselves why? Because it's his message they want to attack. Nobody today really gives a crap
about what Socrates had to say. So we see, it's the message that's the problem. Not the person.
Because if it was really about evidence then how to do I know any ancient historical figures really existed? Those authors could have been lying too.
What am I supposed to say? That every ancient author is just a big big liar and it's all made up and you're all just big poopy heads! It's not a very
intelligent argument. It's better to go with the likelihood of the texts.
Most scholars, even most critical scholars, agree that there probably was a man named Jesus and most even agree that it is likely that a tomb was
found empty after a crucification. So, there's enough that if you throw Jesus out the window, you're basically throwing all ancient history out with
him and all the writings and all the historians and all the scholars except for the ones that support your view. You're basically using the, everyone
is a poopy headed liar argument, and it's just not convincing.
To say there's a small chance he might not have existed. That you might be able to get away with, but if you say he definitely did not exist, well the
evidence just doesn't support that at all. He most likely did.
Most everything we "know" about the ancient world is based on the consensus of scholars and historians on texts. They have reached a consensus that
there was a man named Jesus. Yes some disagree, but to disagree is to be in the minority view right now and leaves you having to explain a lot of
things that really only make sense if Jesus was real.
This link gives a good talk about it.
edit on 24-4-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)