Proof that JFC existed?
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Why the Attitude?
Also, can you "give me some links to some sort of evidence" that FS (Fuggin Socrates ( just trying to address you on your level
)) existed?
Just out of curiosity, do you have reason to believe that he did not exist, or would you claim to be agnostic on the question?
Also, can you "give me some links to some sort of evidence" that FS (Fuggin Socrates ( just trying to address you on your level
)) existed?Proof?
It is a good question. Back in the good ole days they didn't do much to keep a grave and headstone in place for criminals. That is what he was considered to be. Furthermore, if there is any truth to the story, there is no grave. Taking all the conspiracy theories into consideration. Here's the only proof possible that Jesus Christ, named Yeshua, existed. Four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all tell the same story. They didn't sit around a campfire and tell it to an interpreter. They wrote it down at separate times, or dictated to scribes.
We think 2000 years ago was a long-long time ago. But, I stood in Germany and climbed a staircase in a watch tower that was built by Romans at the time Yeshua walked the Earth. In Europe, there is physical evidence of all kinds, related to the events described in the KJV Bible and the Quran.
Furthermore, Jerusalem still stands. Now, given there is a great cultural gap between us here in the US and you there in Australia, we tend to think things we cannot see before us are not real. Keep this in mind. The Jewish people of Jerusalem do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But, they in no way deny that Yeshua walked the Earth. Why would a people that dismiss Yeshua as the Messiah, 'know' he was in fact a real person.
To Whit: The reason it is so hard to believe in Christ is <b>because</b> he was human.
There really isn't much argument about whether or not Yeshua was alive at the time defined in the Bible and the Quran.
The argument is about whether or not he is the Messiah.
It is a good question. Back in the good ole days they didn't do much to keep a grave and headstone in place for criminals. That is what he was considered to be. Furthermore, if there is any truth to the story, there is no grave. Taking all the conspiracy theories into consideration. Here's the only proof possible that Jesus Christ, named Yeshua, existed. Four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all tell the same story. They didn't sit around a campfire and tell it to an interpreter. They wrote it down at separate times, or dictated to scribes.
We think 2000 years ago was a long-long time ago. But, I stood in Germany and climbed a staircase in a watch tower that was built by Romans at the time Yeshua walked the Earth. In Europe, there is physical evidence of all kinds, related to the events described in the KJV Bible and the Quran.
Furthermore, Jerusalem still stands. Now, given there is a great cultural gap between us here in the US and you there in Australia, we tend to think things we cannot see before us are not real. Keep this in mind. The Jewish people of Jerusalem do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But, they in no way deny that Yeshua walked the Earth. Why would a people that dismiss Yeshua as the Messiah, 'know' he was in fact a real person.
To Whit: The reason it is so hard to believe in Christ is <b>because</b> he was human.
There really isn't much argument about whether or not Yeshua was alive at the time defined in the Bible and the Quran.
The argument is about whether or not he is the Messiah.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Proof?
Absolutely absurd. Read something on the Synoptic Problem. I encourage you to pay particular attention to the admonition found beneath the index in the referenced site:
Yes...inconsistency
CA;
I also have a very hard time with the inconsistencies in the text. It isn't mathematics. People are subjective. It isn't the same 'exact' story according to anyone. Interpretation is also subjective. In being so, we are warned to view some text books written today as subjective, even incorrect.
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#meth
"Why should there be the method of science? There is not just one way to build a house, or even to grow tomatoes. We should not expect something as motley as the growth of knowledge to be strapped to one methodology." -Ian Hacking
CA;
I also have a very hard time with the inconsistencies in the text. It isn't mathematics. People are subjective. It isn't the same 'exact' story according to anyone. Interpretation is also subjective. In being so, we are warned to view some text books written today as subjective, even incorrect.
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#meth
"Why should there be the method of science? There is not just one way to build a house, or even to grow tomatoes. We should not expect something as motley as the growth of knowledge to be strapped to one methodology." -Ian Hacking
Heifen,
Welcome to sciforums.
No, for a credible proof of Jesus's existence you need to provide forms of other independent and secular evidence.
Welcome to sciforums.
Why? Why is there any need whatsoever to believe something without supporting evidence, especially incredible stories about gods. If there is evidence then we can safely say we 'know', if evidence cannot be found then the best we can say is that we 'don't know'.
While the writings can be verified as being old their existence doesn't provide evidence to any truth about what they say. If someone in the distant future found an a book of fiction written today how would they know if it was fiction or a true story. Without any other supporting and independent evidence then no conclusion as to truth can be achieved. In ancient times myth making was commonplace as a form of entertainment. There was no requirement for objective journalism in those times.
Books of fiction can also give very believable accounts of people who do not exist.
But there are no other independent accounts of his existence. You cannot use as a source something that you want to prove. The bible says Jesus existed. How do we know the bible is telling the truth? To say that the bible says so is not acceptable. That would be like accepting without question the testimony of a murderer who says he is innocent.
No, for a credible proof of Jesus's existence you need to provide forms of other independent and secular evidence.
It has been well established that the authors of the gospels are unknown and that the books were written by a multitude of authors. Your dates are also some way off. Mark was first at around 80CE.
The author's of Mathew are unknown. Mathew was also written around 90CE so any author would have to have been around 80 years old to be a reliable witness capable of understanding what was happening. Given that the average life expectancy in those times was around 28, then there is very little credibility that Mathew was written by any eyewitnesses.
It is a story variation copied from earlier mythologies.
Alternatively we evolved or were the result of abiogenesis. Either theory has more evidential support than the creation stories.
Read some of science around the facts and theories of evolution.
Or the universe has always existed which means no creation event is needed.
And many here will not accept those assumptions, and in fact such claims are very much the essence of many debates here. If you base your arguments on these assumptions then you are doing little more than preaching.
Pure speculation.
Nonsense. There is no logic in following ancient commands that are not of benefit to mankind.
This is preaching and is unwelcome.
Then consider the possibility that your unsupported beliefs might be utterly wrong and argue accordingly.
I believe this is the closest you can get!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jesus021021.html
Love
Jan Ardena.
Disciple of Jesus
Registered Senior Member
If you bothered to read my post properly you will note that i said this is the closest thing.
Do you agree that it is a step in the right direction though?
There is actually no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus.
Love
Jan Ardena.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Proof that JFC existed?
Unfortunately, there is no scholarly concensus concering authenticity, and the whole thing is taking on some of the aytributes of pious fraud. See, for example,The whole thing truly is somewhat disgraceful.
It even warrants an exclamation point!
Unfortunately, there is no scholarly concensus concering authenticity, and the whole thing is taking on some of the aytributes of pious fraud. See, for example,The whole thing truly is somewhat disgraceful.
Re: Re: Re: Proof that JFC existed?
My dear sir
The question was asked to show some evidence of the existence of Jesus, i did that.
I am not bothered whether or not the finds are authentic or not, as i believe he existed.
Having read the links you provided, the questions raised are credible in the realm of scientific study, but in my opinion, they are desperate attempts to disprove the existence of Jesus.
I do not see why people are so desperate, it makes no sense to me, if, for the purposes of this argument, Jesus did exist, wouldn't you be glad to know that? If not, then why not?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
It even warrants an exclamation point!
My dear sir
The question was asked to show some evidence of the existence of Jesus, i did that.
I am not bothered whether or not the finds are authentic or not, as i believe he existed.
Having read the links you provided, the questions raised are credible in the realm of scientific study, but in my opinion, they are desperate attempts to disprove the existence of Jesus.
I do not see why people are so desperate, it makes no sense to me, if, for the purposes of this argument, Jesus did exist, wouldn't you be glad to know that? If not, then why not?
Love
Jan Ardena.
DarkMadMax
Registered Senior Member
I am not bothered as well ,because for me the fact that some man named jesus existed in named historical period and was crucified as a criminal and rebel in the end doesnt change a thing.
But for starter of this thread it important by some reason , so he queries authencity of existing evidences.
Why should be someone glad? I could care less about someone with dubious reputation living about 2000 years ago. He didnt even make antyhing particulary important to be remembered with .
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Under some circumstances it would be fun watching both sides cherry-pick numbers to suite their biases. I would think, however, that the nontheist 'side' would want to be more dispassionate in its methodology. For example:
You also write: "Given that the average life expectancy in those times was around 28, then there is very little credibility that Mathew was written by any eyewitnesses." with no substantiation, and without noting the distorting effect of infant mortality. See, for example, Roman Life Expectance. I will be interested in comparing your numbers as they relate to this matter.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof that JFC existed?
Thank you. Theists are rarely so open about pious fraud.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof that JFC existed?
There was no need for that.
Love
Jan Ardena.
There was no need for that.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Originally posted by DarkMadMax
Jesus did exist, wouldn't you be glad to know that? If not, then why not?
Sorry my grammer is getting worse, I meant to ask “If Jesus did exist……"
Why should be someone glad? I could care less about someone with dubious reputation living about 2000 years ago. He didnt even make antyhing particulary important to be remembered with .
If your answer still stands, and if he did exist, there would be no need of this debating, we could move on to the next stage, don’t you agree?
Love
Jan Ardena.
CA,
Good points. I had taken the life expectancy of 28 from references some time back and have not seen any reason to update them. Your article is interesting.
Looking around it was not difficult to find other references that conclude a 25 year life expectancy as typical for those times.
As for the date of Mark: I take that from the research on Q where Q3 made references to the war and where Mark made use of Q3. That puts Mark between 75CE to 80CE.
Good points. I had taken the life expectancy of 28 from references some time back and have not seen any reason to update them. Your article is interesting.
Looking around it was not difficult to find other references that conclude a 25 year life expectancy as typical for those times.
Now of course these are averages and I suspect it would have been possible for someone of greater wealth to live a more healthy lifestyle, although zero knowledge of hygiene means that anyone of any class could die from any number of the numerous diseases that were rife at that time.
As for the date of Mark: I take that from the research on Q where Q3 made references to the war and where Mark made use of Q3. That puts Mark between 75CE to 80CE.