The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming

The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming?

Wish that were true.

I've inherited nothing, can't fit in my pants (much less the eye of a needle), and I'm pretty sure the end of the world is not near (unfortunately).

Point?

Gday,

Originally posted by AshleyD
There's secular historical documentary evidence He was crucified under Pilate

Who?
None contemporary.

Just later reports of Christian beliefs.


Kapyong

Gday all,

Originally posted by Bombeni
Is it absolute proof of Jesus' existence? No, not in and of itself.

No.
It isn't.
The existence of a real person in a work of fiction does NOT prove any such thing.

Just as the existence of London does not prove James Bond real.
Just as the existence of Mt Olympus does not prove Zeus real.

Originally posted by Bombeni
It is just one more of hundreds of clues that can only lead to one conCLUsion, that Jesus did in fact live and further that he performed miracles and that his life had an impact unrivaled by history.

That's faithful BELIEF, not a conclusion.

Originally posted by Bombeni
Consider the hundreds of Messianic prophecies fulfilled.

None of which stand up to scrutiny.
The NT was written by people who knew the OT, they just made up the alleged "prophecies" based on the earlier book.

This is no more miraculous than The Lord of Rings fulfilling "prophecies" in The Hobbit.

It means nothing at all.

Originally posted by Bombeni
Did the OT prophets as well as the NT prophets, disciples, historical writers, governors, emperors, etc. all play a part in a conspiracy to fabricate The Son of Man?

No.
The Jesus Myth argument is NOT about a conspiracy at all (of course, there are plenty of conspiracy claims on THIS site, nothing to do with NT scholarship though.)

If you think the Jesus Myth argument is about a "conspiracy" then you know nothing about the argument at all.



Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
While the evidence of Jesus' existance may be overwhelming, the evidence that he was crucified and rose again is lacking

Just my opinion, no offence intended

As we have all seen on this thread -
the evidence for Jesus' existEnce is almost zero.

Believers keep CLAIMING there is over-whelming evidence - but all they ever come up with is a few late claims of BELIEF.

So come on then, OzWeatherman -
where is all this "overwhelming" evidence you spoke of ?


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
So come on then, OzWeatherman -
where is all this "overwhelming" evidence you spoke of ?

Kapyong

Hey I just read the opening post, not the next 15 pages.....I doubt there is overwhelming evidence of Jesus' existence. I mean, I am atheist, so in my opinion god doesnt exist and Jesus (if he existed) was just a normal human.....it was just a play on words

Insanity.

Why is THIS allowed?

"The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming"

But NOT Sarah Palin might be unstable and John McCain could possibly suffer from PTSD, NOT BE ALLOWED?

There's only TWO we can prove, and Jesus turning schoolmates into stone ain't one of them.

reply to post by ZuzusPetals


I don't know about Sarah Palin being unstable, but there is a Is John McCain Showing Signs of PTSD? thread.

Jaxon! You are now SO off topic.

CLOSED.

The topic was my belly button lint.

What are YOU going to DO about it?

reply to post by ZuzusPetals


I have one word for you- Meds!

What in the world is going on in this page.

We have an atheist being bullied into proving Jesus' historical existence.

We have a member who was actually trying to help keep this thread on topic get accused of being off topic when he posted a link to a proper thread to discuss the Palin and McCain issues.



And then this:

Originally posted by Kapyong
Who?
None contemporary.

We've already established this fact.

Just later reports of Christian beliefs.

Nope! This was shown to be a speculative criticism without any evidence in other threads.

Toodles.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Nope! This was shown to be a speculative criticism without any evidence in other threads.

Toodles.

That's not what I saw.

I saw various believers making claims about overwhelming evidence.

But all we got was the usual list - Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc, etc.

None of which turned out to be contemporary, or based on historical evidence.

All they turned out to be were reports of Christian beliefs - exactly like I said.

Numerous posters evaluated the so-called evidence and showed it was not at all solid like the believers like to um, believe.

I read through it all - none of you could come up with anything solid, anything contemporary, anything actually historical.

We just get the same ol' stuff endlessly repeated -
"why would they die for a lie ?"
"the Gospels are by eye-wtnesses"
"there are Roman records of Jesus"
etc. etc.

You may very well believe there is over-whelming evidence,
you may very well believe there is over-whelming evidence presented on this thread.

I don't believe that at all-
because the actual evidence that believers actually come up with is weak as water.

We have people here arguing that the existence of Pilate shows Jesus existed !


Kapyong

Originally posted by AshleyD
We have an atheist being bullied into proving Jesus' historical existence.

Lol, yes thats a lost cause Ash....

Im still unsure as to how I was interpreted as someone who believes in Jesus.

And just for interest, Im not going to prove he didnt exist either....it would be like trying to push my beliefs onto others

Originally posted by Kapyong
That's not what I saw.

Please provide evidence to me that the Roman Historians took their writings from Christian testimonies. Thanks.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Well whenever you get a chance, I challenge you to prove Jesus' divinity to me, Ok?

[edit on 9/26/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Well whenever you get a chance, I challenge you to prove Jesus' divinity to me, Ok?

[edit on 9/26/2008 by AshleyD]

Lol, do you mean Jesus as in the son of god?

Or...

Jesus as in the catholic mexican guy that lives down the road from me?

Gday,

Originally posted by AshleyD
Please provide evidence to me that the Roman Historians took their writings from Christian testimonies. Thanks.

Please provide evidence Roman Historians took their writings from Roman records.

None of the alleged "evidences" show any signs of being from Roman records.

WHICH alleged "evidence" do YOU believe is from actual records, and not from Christian beliefs ?

Tacitus fairly clearly isn't.
Suetonius isn't.
Pliny isn't.
Josephus is a forgery, at least partially.


Kapyong

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Weatherman... I wonder if you could live down the street from me ?
I have a neighbor named Jesus- and he is catholic and came here from Mexico.

Funny thing about Jesus ( the neighbor ) is that I can in fact- no joke - offer concrete proof of his existence. You can travel to a certain place and see for yourself.

If he were willing- then you could, theoretically, touch him and smell him and whatever else. This is because he is an actual real person.

I thought there was going to be some proof ?

reply to post by Kapyong


Oh, ok. So speculation like I said. Thanks for replying, at least. Pliny is probably the only one I am pretty convinced of being taken from Christian testimony but not the others. In fact, the available evidence shows that the case is almost the exact opposite and that they most likely did NOT use Christians as a source.

[edit on 9/26/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


I would like to know just what Pliny said about Jesus... have I missed something ?

I recall Pliny travelled through the area of Palastine and recorded much detail. He did leave out the part about walking on water and other miracles.

I also recall that he ( Pliny ) mentions Christians, but not Jesus... am I misinformed ?

Pliny mentions Christians who sing songs to a Christ, as to a God.

No,
It's not evidence for Jesus.

But it's a perfect example of a reference which believers think IS evidence for Jesus.

Similarly for Tacitus - he gets Pilate's title wrong, he gets the victim's name wrong - clearly showing it was not from Roman records.

Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" whose caused disturbance in Rome in the 40s - how is this evidence for Jesus?

Josephus is at least partially corrupt, perhaps totally forged.

What else is there?
Talmud, Lucian, Thallus, Phlegon, Galen - all bogus, all far too late.

None of the alleged references to Jesus are hard evidence at all. None of them are contemporary. They are all from much later, and show clear signs of merely being repeats of Christian beliefs.

That's what I see over and over - people claim there is SO much evidence, but are reluctant to cite this alleged evidence.

When finally they do - it's the same old list - late repeats of Christian beliefs, or corrupt/forged, or not about Jesus at all.

Very unconvincing.


Kapyong

reply to post by Skelkie3


Pliny used the word 'Christ.' He never uses the name 'Jesus.'