Did Jesus exist?

Greetings,

Ayodhya said:
Who says I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

Just like I thought.
Totallly unable to admit you were wrong.
So typical of apologists.

According to the historical record - Josephus was born c.37.
Thus,
history shows you are wrong.

But,
we can all see you are incapable of admitting you were wrong.


Iasion
 
Here's another interesting thought:

One arguement in support of the existence of Jesus would be the incredible effect this character, myth or not, has had on the entire world. 33% of the entire world is Christian. How could a hoax or fake story of Jesus turn into a major world religion unless it was true?

Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png

(image taken from Wikipedia.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png )

On the other hand, how then did Islam become the religion of 21% of the world population unless Islam, the phrophet Mohummad, and Mohammud's visions were also true? Islam couldn't have become a major religion unless it was real. A hoax couldn't turn into a major religion.

So one cannot claim that Christianity = Truth because it has become a major religion.

Intersting to note that Mohammud had visions from the great Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel is the same angel which appeared to Mary and Joseph, the alleged parents of Jesus. So unless Gabriel is just playing with everyone's heads for fun, something is wrong here.

It would be tough to argue that Mohammud didn't believe that his visions were authentic, since he died for his beliefs, along with many other Muslims who died for their faith.
 
Ayodhya said:
According to your "historical" record probably.
Click to expand...

Ha ha :)

So,

YOU claimed Josephus was historical evidence for Jesus.

YOU claimed to argue from HISTORY.

It was ' your history ' when you thought it supported your faithful beliefs.

But then,
when I pointed out that HISTORY showed your argument was wrong -

Suddenly you changed your tune -
now you dismiss it as
' my "historical" record '

In other words - you don't care about history, you don't care about evidence, you don't care about honesty.

You just care about preaching your faith.

I can confidently predict that Ayodhya will totally ignore the list of alleged "evidence" I posted, just like all the other apologists have ignored it.

Because the facts shows there is no historical evidence for Jesus.
Therefore, the apologists have to ignore the facts.

Expect more preaching.
Here it comes ...


Iasion
 
Iason is a psychic!

Evidence:

I can confidently predict that Ayodhya will totally ignore the list of alleged "evidence" I posted, just like all the other apologists have ignored it.
Click to expand...

Ayo:
Josephus proves the existence of Jesus in my excerpt.
Click to expand...

There Iason made a prediction and it came true! he must be devine, have special powers to look into the future, or just is plainly aware of the leaps and bounds apolegetics will take, to make their bs true! ;) :D
 
Please do not call me Ayo.

Iaison is not divine because Jesus is the only divine human who has ever lived.
 
Greetings,

Ayodhya said:
Josephus proves the existence of Jesus in my excerpt.
Click to expand...

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. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
  • The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who read and commented on Josephus.
  • Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
  • 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:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

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.

Such is the alleged "evidence" for Jesus - that the best example is :
* late
* tampered with
* possibly completely forged



Iasion
 
Ayodhya:

Actually, Josephus was born in 37 AD. This would mean he was never alive whilst Jesus was.
 
One of the historical texts Iasion pointed out in reference to the existence of Jesus was a writing by Pliny the Younger.

"Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111-113 CE. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters."

Text above is from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html


Below is a letter written from Pliny to Emperor Trajan which has references to "Christ"
Text taken from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

To my understanding Pliny was writing the letter to make sure he was dealing with the accused Christians properly, since Christianity was illegal at the time.

"Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

So Pliny doesn't make any direct references about the existence of Jesus here. He is simply stating that Christians worshiped a figure called Christ. So, as Iasion said, this document does not prove the existence of a historical Jesus. It does prove the existence of the belief of a Christ among Christians though.
 
Without a patronizing tone, I applaud both nds1 and Iaison for their tenacity despite stupidity, but I simply had to, how did Harper Lee put it, get inside IAC's skin for a bit and see how pleasurable ignorance can possibly be.

In other words, I pretty much faked being a fundamentalist. Your quarrel is with IAC, not me.
 
very well done.

I actually believed you. Though the whole "ignore the avatar, I like art" thing got me a bit suspicious.
 
Redefine91 said:
very well done.

I actually believed you. Though the whole "ignore the avatar, I like art" thing got me a bit suspicious.
Click to expand...

I actually regret doing it.
Some of these people seem dedicated to helping others realize something and I apologize for any additional anguish I may have caused them. :(
 
Ayodhya said:
I actually regret doing it.
Some of these people seem dedicated to helping others realize something and I apologize for any additional anguish I may have caused them. :(
Click to expand...

Hey when you have something that awesome to share, you jump at any instance to let others know about it.
 
Jesus stated in John 5:46 that "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." So he is stating here that Moses wrote of him, or prophesized his coming.

Below is the only text out of the entire Bible in which Moses mentions something which could be what Jesus was referring to. See Below:


Deut 18:15-22
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
KJV


This is very interesting. I don't see anywhere in this text any talk of a "Messiah", I only see talk of another "prophet." There is no mention of a man which will come who will save the world, or which would have supernatural powers and would be able to perform miracles.

Was Moses talking about Jesus here, or some other prophet?

Also if he was talking about Jesus, was he referring to Jesus as the Son of God, or as another prophet like Abraham, Moses, etc.?
 
Have you heard the story of the Mormon church?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget scientology;)

Ayodhya you could have kept the sharade and I've would never have doubted your stupidity! Now I just wonder who fools the fool. Got me! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top