Thank you for the response, Spidergoat. What you are saying is there is a possibility that Jesus did exist. Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed.
Did Jesus exist?
- Thread starter nds1
- Start date
Thank you for the response, Spidergoat. What you are saying is there is a possibility that Jesus did exist. Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed.
Why perpetuate a myth if He didn’t exist? Why not cut to the chase and say, “This person never existed?” Can you show actual examples of what you are implying?
Yea "they" did exist! a bunch of jesus' existed, but not one from a mythical town invented by religiousity!
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
The Lost City
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
My fantasies? I have medical proof.
Child abuse? are you for real? If i use your logic, then teaching children ANY morals and standards to live by is child abuse.
Lets not forget, this is all your opinion, just like i have my own.
Even christians know that Jesus wasnt born on Dec. 25. It was actually (according to jewish history of the taxation of the land), was sometime in september.
Forgive me! but your full of shit
**The status of a woman in 1st century Palestine was only slightly above that of a slave. Only Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because only men paid taxes. The presence of his fiancée or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled alone.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), has said: "Basic medical knowledge tells you that a heavily pregnant woman could not ride a donkey that kind of distance without losing her baby." 6
There is no record of a worldwide census having been made in the last decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been so disruptive that it certainly would have been recorded at the time in Roman documents. A census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee where Joseph lived. 8
It makes absolutely no sense to require Jews and other inhabitants of the Roman Empire to return to their ancestral town for registration. The economy of the Empire would be devastated if everyone had to make such a visit. The transportation facilities would be hopelessly overloaded. Censuses are always taken where people live -- in ancient times and now. **From the link above.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
Palestine was never a nation, Israel was and is.
"Tranporation system would have been hopelessly overloaded." What "sytem" was that, roads and short overland treks?
Evidence of what, oh foolish looking one?
Forgive me! but your full of shit
**The status of a woman in 1st century Palestine was only slightly above that of a slave. Only Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because only men paid taxes. The presence of his fiancée or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled alone.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), has said: "Basic medical knowledge tells you that a heavily pregnant woman could not ride a donkey that kind of distance without losing her baby." 6
There is no record of a worldwide census having been made in the last decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been so disruptive that it certainly would have been recorded at the time in Roman documents. A census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee where Joseph lived. 8
It makes absolutely no sense to require Jews and other inhabitants of the Roman Empire to return to their ancestral town for registration. The economy of the Empire would be devastated if everyone had to make such a visit. The transportation facilities would be hopelessly overloaded. Censuses are always taken where people live -- in ancient times and now. **From the link above.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
So you are saying that if you had a wife, that was pregnant before marriage, and the law was to stone her, you would leave her in a land by herself to go take care of this taxing buissnes, while she faced certain death? When i was in palestine about 3 years ago i actually saw a woman, probably a harlot, put into a sack with a wildcat of some sort to be mauled to death. The missionary i was traveling with told me that this was a regular practice around these areas and has been for hundreds of years. So, Why would joseph leave her behind again?
*sigh*
nds1 asks questions that don't have anything to do with the topic title. The first response is the extreme "no Jesus" response from Medicine*Woman, the second is the pure reasonless faith of Adstar.
No, the foundation of Christianity is the interpretation of the Resurrection itself, about which Jesus himself said nothing, but which Paul preached.
However, Jesus - not a Christian - is the (unclear) subject of the other questions.
I'm always alert against blanket dismissals of the description of the miracles, simply because they are described as miracles. Just because we believe that miracles "don't happen" doesn't mean that the events described as miracles didn't happen. Right here on this thread we have testimony from someone of an apparent miracle. Without going into the whys and wherefores, if Ragnarok had ascribed his healing to having met a real physical person (as opposed to his spiritual God), would we take it that that person really was the Son of God? If the miracles of Jesus were recorded on videotape that we could all examine, would we accept that they were truly miracles? Of course not. "Miracles" like that are shown on television all the time.
And again, miracles, son of God, whatever - none of this is actually anything to do with the topic title, "Did Jesus exist?" I believe that he did, but the debate about that does not generally involve discussing the veracity or otherwise of the miracles as described in the Bible, whether Jesus's teachings count as Christianity or whether someone whose doubt is in existence can be described as the son of some entity that the majority of us (on this board, at any rate) don't believe exists in the first place.
IceAgeCivilization, it's too easy to dismiss a reference to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online resource that we all have access to. Where it gives references, by all means go to the library and read the books it cites directly. The information directly provided in those books is not necessarily available online for us all to read and digest. That is what Wikipedia is for.
As to Mark 16:9-20, it is missing from all the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel. So if it was written in by Mark, he must have still been alive in the 4th Century, which would rather reduce his credibility as a 1st Century author. You can't have it both ways - either he's a credible witness, or he wrote 16:9-20, but not both. I believe he must have written something after the end of 16:8 (otherwise the book just stops and Jesus hasn't even Resurrected yet), but that has been lost forever.
nds1 asks questions that don't have anything to do with the topic title. The first response is the extreme "no Jesus" response from Medicine*Woman, the second is the pure reasonless faith of Adstar.
The question is Did Jesus Exist? It may surprise readers of this thread that there are atheists who do believe that Jesus existed (even though, as SouthStar pedantically pointed out, he wasn't called Jesus). Believing that Jesus existed (belief through reason, not faith) does not require a positive answer to any of the questions.nds1 said:
Yes. His name was Paul. It won't have escaped anyone's notice that these debates tend to take place between hardline atheists and fundamentalist Christians. Leaving aside the agnostics, the Christian viewpoint is not generally put forward by Episcopalians, Anglicans or other liberals, content to regard Jesus's message as "Love everybody, feed the poor, love God, turn the other cheek". That is not the real "message of Jesus". The message of Jesus is that Jesus's death and Resurrection are the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life for anyone who believes in Him. Even if he burbled about the Kingdom of God and mentioned believing in Jesus, the Son of Man, as the road to Salvation, those were just words. The death and Resurrection are the events that sealed the deal, and of course Jesus himself never said anything about coming back from the dead (except that one thing about destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days, which is allegorical and doesn't count).
No, the foundation of Christianity is the interpretation of the Resurrection itself, about which Jesus himself said nothing, but which Paul preached.
However, Jesus - not a Christian - is the (unclear) subject of the other questions.
But "was Jesus the son of God" is not really a question that we ought to be addressing here. That is a metaphysical religious question, that is actually not related to the question "Did Jesus exist?" I believe there is plenty evidence to be found in the New Testament that Jesus existed, but that does not compel anybody to believe Jesus was the son of any deity, or was a supernatural deity himself. Before someone says, "The only evidence is the words that describe what Jesus does, if you believe they mean Jesus existed, you must believe the mumbo-jumbo and the impossible miracles, too!", I would point out that the evidence I speak of does not necessarily consist of direct descriptions of the actions of Jesus, but merely a level of consistency with there being a real person as opposed to a fictional person. I won't go into those arguments here, but just to say that just because there was a real person does not mean that even overtly "proven" miracles would indicate that he was the son of God (or a God himself).
I'm always alert against blanket dismissals of the description of the miracles, simply because they are described as miracles. Just because we believe that miracles "don't happen" doesn't mean that the events described as miracles didn't happen. Right here on this thread we have testimony from someone of an apparent miracle. Without going into the whys and wherefores, if Ragnarok had ascribed his healing to having met a real physical person (as opposed to his spiritual God), would we take it that that person really was the Son of God? If the miracles of Jesus were recorded on videotape that we could all examine, would we accept that they were truly miracles? Of course not. "Miracles" like that are shown on television all the time.
Why would they have to be made up? I'm not claiming that everything is true or that everything is based on actual events. But if we work on the assumption that the Gospels were based at least partly on witness testimony - even second or third hand - does not mean that something didn't happen.
Any kind of out-of-the ordinary event, or even ordinary event, is unprovable at this distance of time. To make a claim about the miracles based on the lack of 21st Century-examinable evidence about them, is not really to say very much.
This is not true. The Gospel of John is not based on Mark, but is an independent account that (even in the Church it is acknowledged) does not match the other three Gospels. Later on, nds1 said something like "Mark is traditionally supposed to have been written by Mark the Evangelist". Well, the title "The Evangelist" means the author of the Gospel, so by tautology once again you are not really saying anything. (Thus John the Evangelist, after whom there are churches named, means John who wrote the Gospel of John, not John the Apostle, known to have been a different person). Religious Tradition states that Mark The Evangelist might have been the young man who ran away naked. There is of course no evidence to prove that, and rather more the other way.
You haven't demonstrated what is wrong with the written evidence that we have in the Gospels, other than a blanket statement that there is "ZERO evidence". If the Gospels are not counted as evidence, then any other "written" evidence would not be sufficient either, so why ask for written evidence?
And again, miracles, son of God, whatever - none of this is actually anything to do with the topic title, "Did Jesus exist?" I believe that he did, but the debate about that does not generally involve discussing the veracity or otherwise of the miracles as described in the Bible, whether Jesus's teachings count as Christianity or whether someone whose doubt is in existence can be described as the son of some entity that the majority of us (on this board, at any rate) don't believe exists in the first place.
IceAgeCivilization, it's too easy to dismiss a reference to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online resource that we all have access to. Where it gives references, by all means go to the library and read the books it cites directly. The information directly provided in those books is not necessarily available online for us all to read and digest. That is what Wikipedia is for.
As to Mark 16:9-20, it is missing from all the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel. So if it was written in by Mark, he must have still been alive in the 4th Century, which would rather reduce his credibility as a 1st Century author. You can't have it both ways - either he's a credible witness, or he wrote 16:9-20, but not both. I believe he must have written something after the end of 16:8 (otherwise the book just stops and Jesus hasn't even Resurrected yet), but that has been lost forever.
What early manuscripts show Mark 16:9-20 missing?
Srry when a thread gets heated we all have a tendancy to go off on tangents. I do enjoy the conversations here thouroughly though! I searched all over the net to find a forum where people actually had something to say. Sci forum has become quite the 'thinktank'.
That's a shocking story which really should be more widely promulgated in the media.Ragnarok said:
However, you've missed the point, which eventually was that there was no actual journey to Bethlehem, because no census would have made such a requirement. In other words, Joseph didn't leave Mary anywhere because he didn't go himself. The Bethlehem stories are untrue. They don't match each other (there are two stories, one in Matthew and the other in Luke) and they don't match known historical facts, such as the death of Herod the Great, the absence of any such census in Roman records and the nonsensical nature of any such census. (To say nothing of the fact that the Three Kings - or even the Three Wise Men - the birth in a stable, "no room at the inn", the ox and the ass paying homage... are all so completely fictional they aren't even to be found in the Bible.)
As it happens, the reason that thost stories are in the Bible is one of the stronger pieces of evidence that Jesus really existed and was not a completely fictional creation. You see, Christians who were from the Messianic wing of Judaism were anxious to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, and as such he had to have been born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke each tell stories that in one case has Joseph and Mary making the journey from Nazareth and in the other case has J, M and the kid escaping to Egypt and then making their way back to Nazareth afterwards. Nazareth is the seemingly unimportant detail that the two accounts nevertheless have in common. Even if we accept the assertions that outside the Gospel there is no reference to an early 1st Century Nazareth, it seems to me that there is far too much evidence that Jesus himself and certainly his companions who survived him into later decades, were known to be provincial Galileans. The Bethlehem stories were made up, then, to explain his truly qualifying for the Messiah-dom despite the fact that he clearly wasn't from Bethlehem.
Last edited:
I'm aware of that, Ragnarok - my beef is with the OP itself which doesn't seem to address the question of its own title, not that the thread has digressed somewhat!
IceAgeCivilization, I don't have the list to hand right now, my NA27 is at home. Certainly it is missing from Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and I'm fairly sure there is one 2nd Century papyrus extant with the end of Mark on it (Chester Beatty? P46? Someone else will know), and it's missing from that also. Though I will double check when I get home tonight.
There are also considerations of Greek style that make it clear that the same person did not write 16:9-20 as did the first fifteen and a half chapters. In addition there is a second, distinct version of what comes after 16:8, which itself is different from the style of the original "Mark", whomever he was.
"IF the assertions about Nazareth are true....," big if, and only an if.
My writing style has changed through the years, how 'bout yours?
And just because those passages may have been mistakenly left out of a few early copies doesn't mean it hadn't been written.
And just because those passages may have been mistakenly left out of a few early copies doesn't mean it hadn't been written.
ragnarok said:
audible said:
then seeing as you've posited that you have proof, I would like the names of the doctors, ( so I can write and confirm it) the medical journal it was written up, ( so I can contact the journalist) the newspapers it must have been in, (again to contact the journalist for verifcation) because this miracle must have took the world by storm and I have never heard anything about it, so anything you have that can prove your case, I would like to see, it must be written down in the Annals of church and media, so I and I'm sure we would like to see this so called evidence, I would also like to know if this miracle has been investigated Thoroughly.ragnarok said:
you could however alway earn yourself a million dollars, by going here. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
audible said:
what the fuck has morals to do with religion. but telling them theres a sky daddy looking after them and they must pray to it or else they will go to hell, it's lies and as good as child abuse [mental scaring).ragnarok said:
no not really, you subjective beliefs are yours and yours alone, thats not my opinion that just is. having no evidence and then lying to children and making them frightened and fearful, is child abuse, this is not my opinion it's fact.ragnarok said:
Don't have anything to do with the topic???????
The first question is "Did Jesus Physically Exist?" The Topic of the Thread is "Did Jesus Exist?" Where's the problem Silas?
For Question 1, we are looking for any historical evidence supporting or disproveing the PHYSICAL existence of Jesus.
Question 2 asks "Did Jesus as The Son of God exist?" This is also a very important qeustion. Just because the physical man of Jesus existed doesn't mean he was the SON OF GOD.
What evidence would prove Jesus was the Son of God?
1) First-hand written accounts of any of the amazing miracles of Jesus from any of the 1,000's of people which witnessed them other than the apostles. Some of these miracles include turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 people with a loaf of bread, etc. NO miracles like this are seens today.
2) First Hand written account of anyone who heard the "Great Earthquake" which supposedly occured after Jesus' death on the cross
3) First-hand written account of the tomb of Jesus with the gigantic stone removed.
4) etc,
If I saw Jesus feed 5,000 people with a loaf of bread, turn water into wine, or walk on water in the ocean, I would probably be a little bit more inclined to believe.
Apparently the Bible agrees:
John 6:9-14
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
KJV
John 20:29-31
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
KJV
So the 5,000 people, Thomas, and probably many others believed that Jesus was THE SON OF GOD after they saw miracles performed by Jesus up-close. So yes, Silas, if we saw a video of some of these miracles being performed and we knew the video wasn't edited, we would be more inclined to believe. John even states that the miracles were performed and were written so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So even John knew that we need miracles to believe.
Not really. I myself am quite convinced of the reality of Nazareth, but I was saying that even if you doubt the existence of Nazareth, there is too much incidental evidence of his (and more importantly, his Apostles') Galilean origins which indicate the non-fictional aspect. After all, if you were creating Jesus as a fiction who was nevertheless a son of David, you would simply have him born and raised in Bethlehem. Accepting the existence of Nazareth on faith (as opposed to reasonable consideration of the Gospel evidence) doesn't help your case that Jesus not only existed but that he should be worshipped as the Son of God.
As it happens, I only answered your question about Mark because I knew the answer and thought I could express it better than it had been done by others. Since you are clearly not willing to examine even your blind faith that the Gospel was written all of a piece by one man named Mark (which faith is not even a Biblical imperative), there isn't much point in discussing the whys and wherefores of Biblical scholarship. The traditions behind the authorship of the books of the Bible (Moses, Joshua, Ezra, the named authors of the Gospels, the named authors of Hebrews, Timothy and the Catholic epistles) are really just that: tradition, primarily based on the name attached to them. People with no less a faith than yours were the first to question that unbiblical orthodoxy, and in the process learnt a great deal more about the creation of the Bible. In many cases I've no doubt it strengthened their faith.
As a skeptic and lover of truth, I'm always wary of constantly citing Randi, even though I'm a member of the JREF forums and very much support his work. In this case, I simply don't believe that evidence for a past miraculous happening qualifies for the Challenge, in that it is not something that can be repeated under controlled conditions.audible said: