Was Jesus(may peace be apon him)really crucified or crucificted?

i posted this in Faith, Spirituality & Theology buy feel it would be better suited here


this i found intresting as it was a debate about jesus (may peace be apon him) and if he was crucified or crucificted

please watch the whole debate












if some dont work

www.youtube.com...

There is more chance that many witnesses at the time of seeing Jesus being put on the cross than someone from 650 years later to say it never happened even if people argue it took 70years later to preserve the message the Koran still took longer to do their book with less evidence.
This goes by atheists alone who don't believe either, but historical evidence is more nearer to the Bible than the claim of those who could not have witnessed it, searched it at 700AD. Every God is legitimate if they believe so you have to go deeper.

Those who deny Christ is basically in the spirit of the anti-Christ even more so than those who don't know who is. I have not seen the documentaries here but have some input. Jesus from the Koran and Jesus from the Bible are two different people. I will stick to the warning signs from the original Christ and I don't understand why Allah did not put it right within the 2,000 BC year period all these rules stating Ishmael was the chosen one, what were the bloodline of these people doing then? They say the Jews were wrong but they also say were Muslims, so in a way condemning them selves, yet fully know Jews have held and preserved God's word in scripture throughout history without evidence of Allah being the name of God, as one can see I doubt they made a conspiracy cover up otherwise even Allah would have intervened within that time frame, why leave it some Arab 2600 years later to put it right if God contacted many prophets before hand to preserve it. I think the Middle East was missing their own sense of culture and a one God system amongst the pagans that they forced their way to make an empire called Islam.
Biblical prophecy warms of the Islamic nations to come before Islam was even named and many Biblical prophecies have been reversed in Koran to fit for the sake Eastern Arab bloodline as a counterfeit it's obvious. Even though they both sound similar the Koran does not say, (maybe I’m wrong) why prophecy was so similar sounding in the Bible and why the Bible prophecy was wrong and by whom. Sorry but the world will still be divided by these two religions unless some leader anti-Christ tries to twist all religions together, in a way for Christians you can not get more anti-Christ than the Koran and people are seeing this. The divide is as much as it ever was and the media will only reinforce it, the Muslims will just see the people who are non Muslims as infedels the non believers.

Just seen the first 2minutes of the the Christian he seems scared.



[edit on 9-4-2007 by The time lord]

The Islamic Teacher seeks to deceive ..

plus no one mentions that Jesus was stabbed in the chest with the spear because the roman soldiers looked and saw that he was already dead.

John saw that .. it is noted. How hard would it be to continue to live in the flesh after that beating AND being stabbed in the chest with a spear?! John saw water and blood, meaning a lung was indeed punctured. How did he live on from that wound, after all the blood loss from the whipping and nailings, explain me that?

his whole "Jesus deceived everyone and never died" thing is admirable, its something criss angel might try, but not Yeshua back in ... 2-3 A.D. or so ..

(The calender is a bit off)

Plus, as the previous poster said, the anti-christ will seek to bring all 3 together into 1 religion. Only Islam can spearhead that one, because it accepts Jesus existence and holiness, and also accepts Moses existence and holiness. Jews dont accept Muhammed's holiness, nor do Christians. So only one from Islam can pull it all together.

Is it any coincidence that the current Temple Mount has the Al Aqsa Mosque on it? They say the old "Holy of Holies" spot is somewhere inside the Mosque. I've always told people the Mosque is the Third Temple, or the abomination that causes desolation, yet Jews continue thinking theyll be able to ever build the 3rd temple on the same spot as the others is just delusional.

Over their dead bodies! *points to every muslim in the entire world*

lock and load.

[edit on 9/11/2007 by runetang]

I think this debate is futile and pointless. Neither the bible or the quran are historical evidence of jesus.

The bible states explicitly that jesus was crucified, while the quran states explicitly he was not crucified. But there isn't any evidence he existed at all and he is more and likely a mythological character.

The christians will go on believing he was crucified because the bible says so, and the muslims will continue believing he wasn't because the quran says so. I don't see how either will change their views since they both consider the bible or the quran to be holy books not to be questioned..

Oh geez, Darkside, I can understand people not believing in Jesus' powers or abilities..

..but to deny he even existed? That's a bit much.

There are tons of historical recordings among the Romans, as well as the Jews, that Jesus was "put to death". Historical Tome if you will.

In the Talmud it says Jesus was put to death at that time, if you opened to that chapter.

I've always thought the big question was "Did he really get crucified, or did he almost die but somehow live through it all and flee to India?" or some such.

To say Jesus didnt exist is like saying Muhammed never existed. There are historical accounts of him. There are tons of saying attributed to him, and theres a worldwide religion created by him. Same thing with Jesus, the difference was that Muhammed did it through the sword and Jesus did it via the lips and the cross. A truly peaceful man.

Plus, what was with the tons of early christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries that were martyred in Rome, and elsewhere? Theres plenty of historical account of that.. christians being persecuted, crucified, or thrown to the beasts at the Coliseum. Where did these people get this idea of christianity from if the guy it was based on, Jesus, never existed? And this is only 100 or 200 years after his death, when everything that happened would still be quite fresh, quite "recent" in terms of history.

And before the time of his gospel and death, theres simply no christianity to speak of in the World. Then it springs up out of seemingly nowhere. Its because Jesus lived and taught.

And if you're saying that all the wise sayings and parables that are attributed to Jesus aren't real or accurate at all because he never even existed, im sorry to say you'd be taking a simplistic, hard-headed view on history. An almost delusional view on history...

The kind that goes.. "Oh I dont like that person/part, lets act like it never happened or didn't exist"

Oh yah, you're also insulting all Muslims of the world gravely, because Jesus (Isa), is a revered prophet in Islam, has a portion in the Qu'ran, and is considered the Messiah by the Muslims. Sunni Muslims believe Jesus will return at the end of days and break the cross, telling all christians to worship like the Muslims do, and itll be the official way to worship God. Shiite Muslims think the Hidden Imam Mahdi will come to save the day, but the rest of the world wont like or approve of him, and so Jesus will return as well to mediate for Mahdi, and of course demand that all Christians become Muslims.

I dont believe that, but thats pretty profound that Jesus is the integral part of Sunni and Shiite end time prophecy.

[edit on 9/11/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by runetang
There are tons of historical recordings among the Romans, as well as the Jews, that Jesus was "put to death". Historical Tome if you will.

Such as?

Religious books are not historical recordings, the rest are either forgeries or were written decades after jesus supposedly died, so there no good as evidence.

Also roman historians talk about the christians, never of jesus himself.

To say Jesus didnt exist is like saying Muhammed never existed. There are historical accounts of him. There are tons of saying attributed to him, and theres a worldwide religion created by him. Same thing with Jesus, the difference was that Muhammed did it through the sword and Jesus did it via the lips and the cross. A truly peaceful man.

I don't know much about muhammad but if there's no historical accounts of him apart from the quran it's likely he never existed either.

Plus, what was with the tons of early christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries that were martyred in Rome, and elsewhere? Theres plenty of historical account of that.. christians being persecuted, crucified, or thrown to the beasts at the Coliseum. Where did these people get this idea of christianity from if the guy it was based on, Jesus, never existed? And this is only 100 or 200 years after his death, when everything that happened would still be quite fresh, quite "recent" in terms of history.

Heh? There are 2 billion christians today but that isn't proof that jesus existed. I know what your saying but the fact that people believed strongly in jesus to the point of being crucified at the time doesn't mean jesus existed. There's no real difference in between someone that was born in 100 AD and now when it comes to faith. Muslims are killed everyday over muhammad and allah should'nt you then conclude islam is the true religion?

And before the time of his gospel and death, theres simply no christianity to speak of in the World. Then it springs up out of seemingly nowhere. Its because Jesus lived and taught.

Again, the gospels were written way after he supposedly died.

And if you're saying that all the wise sayings and parables that are attributed to Jesus aren't real or accurate at all because he never even existed, im sorry to say you'd be taking a simplistic, hard-headed view on history. An almost delusional view on history...

It's mythology to me. As explained before many times on this forum the bible isn't new, lots of it's stories are re-hashed from even older religions. There have been mythological characters around a long time before jesus that were born from a virgin, went around performing miracles accompanied by disciples.

The kind that goes.. "Oh I dont like that person/part, lets act like it never happened or didn't exist"

I'm not saying this because I don't like the bible or jesus, but because it's realistic.

Oh yah, you're also insulting all Muslims of the world gravely, because Jesus (Isa), is a revered prophet in Islam, has a portion in the Qu'ran, and is considered the Messiah by the Muslims. Sunni Muslims believe Jesus will return at the end of days and break the cross, telling all christians to worship like the Muslims do, and itll be the official way to worship God. Shiite Muslims think the Hidden Imam Mahdi will come to save the day, but the rest of the world wont like or approve of him, and so Jesus will return as well to mediate for Mahdi, and of course demand that all Christians become Muslims.

So? I live in a free, democratic, secular country. I have the right to question beliefs And I really don't feel like I'm insulting all the muslims and christians in the world..

Here's a quote for ya:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. " Thomas Jefferson

[edit on 11-9-2007 by DarkSide]

The muslim religion and many other groups are dependent on Christ not dying on the cross. Reason being is he was seen afterwards. If he were killed, as believers believe, then that means everyone recorded in the gospels following the crucifying (and many who were not recorded) saw Christ resurrected. If Christ resurrected, the prophecy is fulfilled, he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and everything else he said is absolutely true.

The only other argument that would deny the event that Jesus ever existed, which unfortunately for a non-believer is a weak argument considering the secular Roman documenation around the time and archeological evidence. (sorry, I'm not going to do this homework for anyone, it's available in copious abundance in books and even online for those interested)

There's a schism of anti-Christianity, groups cannot decide which anti-gospel to choose. Thus, some say "he did not die on the cross" while others say "he never existed". They're divided against themselves because one group believes he did exist and the other did not. So, rather than getting involved in that argument, I'd rather just hang back and watch these two groups debate whether Christ existed or not.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
There's a schism of anti-Christianity, groups cannot decide which anti-gospel to choose. Thus, some say "he did not die on the cross" while others say "he never existed". They're divided against themselves because one group believes he did exist and the other did not. So, rather than getting involved in that argument, I'd rather just hang back and watch these two groups debate whether Christ existed or not.

Anti-Christianity? Anti-Gospel?

jesus is mythological, like hercules, achilles, krishna and friends. I'm not anti-jesus or something, it's just that there's no evidence except the bible and hearsay, which is the only reason people think jesus was real. If you have evidence that he existed feel free to show it here, but of course if believers had it they would'nt get into such a state when his existance was put under examination.

Originally posted by runetang
There are tons of historical recordings among the Romans, as well as the Jews, that Jesus was "put to death". Historical Tome if you will.

There is NO CONTEMPORARY historical evidence for Jesus.

There are NO RECORDS of Jesus.

All we have is LATER reports of Christian BELIEFS.

Here is a careful analysis of the alleged "records" for Jesus :


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews 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 devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* 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 refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

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.


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.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

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.


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.
What 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.



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.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.



Iasion

Originally posted by runetang
In the Talmud it says Jesus was put to death at that time, if you opened to that chapter.

Exactly what chapter, runetang?
Have you actually READ what the Talmud says about Jesus?

I have -

The Talmud has several alleged references to Jesus, and claims that he :
* was a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* was conceived during menstruation
* learned black magic in Egypt
* stole the magic by concealing a magic scroll in a cut in his thigh while sneaking past the magic guard dogs
* worshipped a brick-bat
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lydda

Is that what you believe about Jesus?


Iasion

Originally posted by runetang
There are historical accounts of him.

As I showed above,
No, there are not.

All we have is later reports of Christian BELIEFS.

Originally posted by runetang
There are tons of saying attributed to him,

There are sayings commonly attributed to :
* Darth Vader
* Harry Potter
* Osiris
* Dionysus

Fictional characters say just as much as historical ones.

Originally posted by runetang
Plus, what was with the tons of early christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries that were martyred in Rome, and elsewhere? Theres plenty of historical account of that...

No, there is no historical evidence for that.
These are merely Christian STORIES.
Christian stories which support earlier Christian stories.
There is no actual evidence for these early martyrs.

Any way -
people DIE for FALSE beliefs all the time -
* Heaven's gate cult
* Suicide bombers
* The cathars
It proves NOTHING.

Originally posted by runetang
.. christians being persecuted, crucified, or thrown to the beasts at the Coliseum. Where did these people get this idea of christianity from if the guy it was based on, Jesus, never existed?

Where did people get this idea of Hinduism from if the guy it was based on, Krishna, never existed?

Where did people get this idea of Egyptian religions from if the guy it was based on, Osiris, never existed?

Where did people get this idea of Greek mysteries from if the person it was based on, Demeter, never existed?

This is a nonsense argument.
People believe all sorts of made up stuff.

You just believe YOURS, and reject all others.
That is pure FAITH.

Nothing to do with history and facts, though.

Originally posted by runetang
And this is only 100 or 200 years after his death, when everything that happened would still be quite fresh, quite "recent" in terms of history.

Fresh?
The Temple was DESTROYED to the last stone almost.
Jerusalem was razed to knee-high.
Judea was erased from the map.
The few remaining Jews were dispersed.
Many many jews were killed.

By the time the stories about Jesus of Nazareth started spreading in early-mid 2nd century, there was no-one left.

You seem to believe the Christian belief that the NT documents are based on people who met Jesus.

Nothing could be further from the truth -

According to modern NT scholars -
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.

Paul merely had a vision
Peter's letters were forged by someone who never met Jesus.
John's letters were forged by someone who never met Jesus.
Jude's letter was forged by someone who never met Jesus.
G.Mark was written in Rome.
The others copied from him.


Iasion

Do you have any better evidence than a bunch of (very dull) "talking heads" videos? We see a couple of guys arguing the point -- so where's the evidence? How do we know they're really considered experts?

Are we to judge based on the speaker we like best?

Halfway through the second video I got really irritated at the waste of time watching it. It sounds like an interesting thing to discuss -- but I'm not going to sit through a bunch of videos and take notes and try to figure out names so I can go check it out.

Do you have better evidence than videos?

Hey look! It's Iason's cut and paste again. For those of you who haven't been in "Conspiracies in Religions" forum of ATS for more than a month, you're probably wondering what I'm talking about. Iason's 'points' are addressed on any other thread so there's no reason to meet cut and paste with cut and paste yet again. Isn't there a policy against doing it all the time? If not, perhaps there should be one made in lieu of repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition.

Originally posted by DarkSide
I'm not saying this because I don't like the bible or jesus, but because it's realistic.

This is akin to denying the Holocaust. Are you a Holocaust denier as well? Where's your evidence that he didn't exist at all? Do you believe in other historical figures?

Like Alexander the Great, Homer, Achilles, Genghis Khan, Hitler, or anyone else for that matter?

There are Roman records in the Vatican from Imperial Rome, from the time of the crucifixion, claiming a man claiming to be King of the Jews was put to death.

There are Jewish records (The Talmud) saying the same.

Even the Qu'ran acknowledges his existence, merely questioning whether he died on the cross.

There isn't a shred of evidence to simply say the man never existed. For someone to make up ALLLLLL those parables, all those teachings of Jesus, all of it .. would just be insane, impossible almost. Same goes for Muhammad. He united the Arab tribes to fight against the tribe that controlled Mecca. There are Arab/Islamic records of this too.

Theres NO record of Grey Aliens, but you probably believe they exist, or may exist, right? So how can you think that, but not think a simple man just like any other man never existed? And other men didnt either?

So? I live in a free, democratic, secular country. I have the right to question beliefs

And I really don't feel like I'm insulting all the muslims and christians in the world..

By saying Jesus & Muhammad never walked the Earth, you are insulting both Muslims and Christians to the highest degree. You are saying everything they stand for, all the teachings they hold themselves to, all of it is just made up mumbo jumbo by joe schmoe that nobody know, magically becoming the most important documents on Earth. By saying they never existed, you are saying all of the teachings are lies. All of the stories regarding these persons are lies. Thats an awful lot to say about stuff that you werent around to genuinely witness.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. " Thomas Jefferson

This is a good quote, you should question everything, even God, because over time thats how you become confident in the Lord. Thomas Jefferson was also devout Christian. And theres nothing wrong with boldly questioning. Thats not what you were/are doing. You're just flat out saying .. "Meh, none of these dudes ever even walked the face of the Earth".

Crazyness! Even the Mythological figures like HERCULES had a real life historial person they were based after? Thats how "Myths" start.

Originally posted by Iasion
Have you actually READ what the Talmud says about Jesus?

I have -

The Talmud has several alleged references to Jesus, and claims that he :
* was a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* was conceived during menstruation
* learned black magic in Egypt
* stole the magic by concealing a magic scroll in a cut in his thigh while sneaking past the magic guard dogs
* worshipped a brick-bat
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lydda

Is that what you believe about Jesus?

I know the Talmud speaks ill of Jesus. The Jews hated him, duh! He was a major threat to their religion and their Temple. He was breaking their rules and encouraging others to do so. He was teaching that the Temple is not teh central point of worship. And for all this he was put to death.

I've also heard ridiculous things like Jesus went to India to learn from the Hindu priests, Polytheists no less!

Jesus existed, as did Muhammad, as did Moses. Had none of these existed, we would not have Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the present form. This is irrefutable. Unless you choose ignorance over truth.

Last thing.

The Jews hated Jesus and have absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to have written about him, negatively or at all, unless he existed.

Why did they write a bunch of derogatory things about him in the Talmud?

Why?

You don't do that if the person you're writing about never existed.

If he never existed, the Jews would've adamantly supported that he didnt exist, for one to clear their name of any hate from Christians, for two to further discredit Christianity claiming Jesus is Messiah (which they do not believe), and for three to show that there was no man to follow, no parables spoken, nothing to write down and pass along. The Pharisees would have done all of this had Jesus not existed, think about it. The notion that he didn't exist in some form is just unsupportable.

[edit on 9/12/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by runetang
This is akin to denying the Holocaust. Are you a Holocaust denier as well? Where's your evidence that he didn't exist at all? Do you believe in other historical figures?

Like Alexander the Great, Homer, Achilles, Genghis Khan, Hitler, or anyone else for that matter?

Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Hitler are historical figures, jesus is not. And no I don't deny the holocaust, your confusing history and mythology.

There are Roman records in the Vatican from Imperial Rome, from the time of the crucifixion, claiming a man claiming to be King of the Jews was put to death.

I'd like to see them

There are Jewish records (The Talmud) saying the same.

Even the Qu'ran acknowledges his existence, merely questioning whether he died on the cross.

Both are religious texts, not historical evidence sorry.

There isn't a shred of evidence to simply say the man never existed. For someone to make up ALLLLLL those parables, all those teachings of Jesus, all of it .. would just be insane, impossible almost. Same goes for Muhammad. He united the Arab tribes to fight against the tribe that controlled Mecca. There are Arab/Islamic records of this too.

Somebody wrote all the buddhist texts, and all the hindu texts, yet you'll tell me they're false religions yet i'm sure the texts are similar in quantity and teachings...That's no argument. There's no evidence that jesus didn't exist, but there is a significant lack of evidence that should be there if he existed, actually apart from 3 religious texts there is no real evidence.

Theres NO record of Grey Aliens, but you probably believe they exist, or may exist, right? So how can you think that, but not think a simple man just like any other man never existed? And other men didnt either?

I don't believe in Grey aliens, I think they are modern day fairies and witches. I think it's quite possible that alien civilizations exist but there is no evidence yet.

Let me reiterate my stance on jesus christ:

There is no reliable historical evidence to support his existence, so it's possible he never existed and is a mythological character. He may have existed, but I doubt it.

By saying Jesus & Muhammad never walked the Earth, you are insulting both Muslims and Christians to the highest degree. You are saying everything they stand for, all the teachings they hold themselves to, all of it is just made up mumbo jumbo by joe schmoe that nobody know, magically becoming the most important documents on Earth. By saying they never existed, you are saying all of the teachings are lies. All of the stories regarding these persons are lies. Thats an awful lot to say about stuff that you werent around to genuinely witness.

Yes I am saying all religions are superstitions and magic and I truly hope people will stop wasting the only life they have worshiping an invisible sky fairy no one has ever heard or seen in the last 5 000 years.

Thats not what you were/are doing. You're just flat out saying .. "Meh, none of these dudes ever even walked the face of the Earth".

Yes I am. But when I'll see proof that jesus existed I'll accept it.

And don't assume I don't understand why and how people believe in jesus, I was a christian for years.

Over 2000+ years things tend to get quite distorted.

2000 years from now, if all that remains are some scattered writings, the people of the time will probably beieve that we worshipped the bull who walked on the air - Michael Jordan and the man who never died -Elvis.

I believe guys named Jesus and Mohammed did exist, I just don't think they were sons of God. Even plausible that Jesus was crucified. Which in itself tells us nothing as it was common for the days.

I find the strongest argument against there being a God is:

Why would a God create something so that he could later judge it? If the whole goal is to get a group of souls which act in ways he approves, why not just limit creation to those who fit the mold. The end result would be exactly the same. But instead of Heaven after death, we would be looking at heaven on earth. If there is a God, he is definitely not all good.

Darkside, the result of your debate about the existence of Jesus is immaterial to me, in that it doesn't matter to me what your position on this is, but I am very interested in your approach to it. I've found that people who have too strong an opinion about something, dislike admitting to ANYTHING to do against that opinion, whether it affects it or not. Whether its to do with Christians who refuse to consider the idea of evolution, or non-christians who refuse to consider the existence of Jesus, etc.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Hitler are historical figures, jesus is not. And no I don't deny the holocaust, your confusing history and mythology.

So Jesus is not a historical figure simply because you choose not to take him as such?

Originally posted by DarkSide

There are Jewish records (The Talmud) saying the same.

Even the Qu'ran acknowledges his existence, merely questioning whether he died on the cross.

Both are religious texts, not historical evidence sorry.

So because you dislike the concept of religion, you won't accept them? Interesting. I also find it very interesting that when it suits them, detractors of Christianity take the Bible to be a collection of very different books, and when it suits them, they lump them all together. The (NT) Bible isn't just ONE testament to the existence of Jesus, its several (as many as the individual authors). While one may disagree with the message of the Bible, I fail to understand how it is disregarded as proof of the existence of Jesus, simply because it is the Bible.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Somebody wrote all the buddhist texts, and all the hindu texts, yet you'll tell me they're false religions yet i'm sure the texts are similar in quantity and teachings...That's no argument. There's no evidence that jesus didn't exist, but there is a significant lack of evidence that should be there if he existed, actually apart from 3 religious texts there is no real evidence.

Whether a religion is 'false' or not is hardly important. Are you now saying that there is no proof of the existence of Siddhartha Gautama, either? So, if you lived a thousand years from now, you would consider all those who claim(ed) to be gods today (whether their claims are true or not is irrelevant) to have never existed, simply because you don't believe in God?

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't believe in Grey aliens, I think they are modern day fairies and witches. I think it's quite possible that alien civilizations exist but there is no evidence yet.

And yet you disregard the possibility of the existence of Jesus, despite the copious (whether suspect or not) evidence to the contrary. Very interesting

Originally posted by DarkSide
Yes I am saying all religions are superstitions and magic and I truly hope people will stop wasting the only life they have worshiping an invisible sky fairy no one has ever heard or seen in the last 5 000 years.

What has this got to do with the existence of Jesus?

[edit on 12-9-2007 by babloyi]