125 replies to this topic

[Lion6969]

Alienated Being, on 22 November 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Nice ad hominem.

Thanks

Quote

I don't need reports to reinforce my existence... my existence can be proven through the collection of cultures from my body. As for Jesus, no skeletal or DNA remains have been found of him to reinforce his existence. All we have are loose descriptions of him. Secondly, holy books have been written and translated so many times that it is hard to accept them as being credible pieces of evidence.

No! You see if you existed then we would have no record of you too, no bones no DNA etc or hugely unlikely. So we would not be able to say you definetly existed. However you don't understand this point, reports of Jesus orally go much further back than written documents, you see the problem used to be with western historians whereby they dismissed oral traditions and scripture too, but credible and contemporary historians take the whole picture, for example to dismiss scripture in jesus's case would be tantamount to learning the history about the Romans from the Persians and not accept any roman sources. It's not an academic approach to do so, is it! So the point is simple there are 1000s of oral reports added to scriptural support, concurrent reporting, the same person mentioned in other cultures of the time and later, mentioned in other scriptures etc. To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.

Quote

Oral reporting? Reporting from different regions? All of what you claim acts as agents in support of Jesus can be used to support Noah's Ark. I guess we can assume Noah's Ark existed, as well...

That's because you dont understand the nature of oral reporting and verifying it. For example if a 100 people said you existed and they saw you, met you etc, these 100 people report this to another 100 people, years later or hundred years later the same tradition and oral report is doing the rounds, for me to claim those are false, I would have to prove the first 100 conspired, followed by the generations, until it goes into to the realms of impossibility unless all those people conspired on huge massive international scale! Go ahead prove the conspiracy.

Quote

So, am I to assume that you are implying that all academics whom dispute the claim that Jesus existed are incredible? The proof is that there are so many vague descriptions of this man claimed to be Jesus that it is hard to accept him as being a real person, hence why so much debate surrounding his existence continue to this day.

So many vague descriptions, not so vague if we can determine they refer to the same one person, if you believe they are false you have to prove them to be so and prove the conspiracy. There maybe discrepancies in the reports but that does not negate his existence, simply because there are so many reports that concur too. Overwhelming belief of many generations internationally in the existence of this man, even the talmud which is rabbinic commentary on the Torah refers to Jesus, written by rabbis during his time and later, clearly they knew this man existed, but because you dismiss religious documentation and like your scholars you are part timers and selective in what evidence you prefer to support your arguments that sources like the Talmud which curse and talk about him in a derogatory manner refer to his existence and claims, the Talmud was there before Jesus was still being added to during his lifetime and after. Why dismiss such a source, it's simply rabbinic commentary on the Torah and the book Jews take above the Torah in how to live like a Jew etc as well containg laws, dogma, parables, commentary, it also refers to Jesus. Is that not good enough proof too?

[freetoroam]

Hilander, on 23 November 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

I believe Jesus was a real man and it doesn't surprise me they got his birthday wrong.  We celebrate his birth every year on the wrong day.  Considering the bible was written years after the fact I bet part of that is wrong.  Most holly books were written to control.  I also don't think we should literally be following them.  I'm not saying don't be religious, I am but not blindly so but some things that may of been right or accepted in that time isn't today.  Fortunately most of us have grown up.

Its not just his birthday, his  name at the time was  yehōshu‘a (Joshua), he would not have been called jesus, thats the Greek name for him. but thats just a small technical change and misunderstanding compared to the rest of the novel.

Edited by freetoroam, 23 November 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[freetoroam]

Jesus aka yehōshu‘a (Joshua) was a common name in those areas. i believe they still are, so this looks like a case of mistaken identity, right name, wrong person.

[freetoroam]

Does this mean i can get a refund on all those christmas presents i bought over the years? I am sure I can drag out my bank statements for the month December over the past 20 odd years.
I am not religions, but for the sake of my friends, bought them all a little something over the years....I FEEL AS IF I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED!!!!!

[notoverrated]

i never thought there was a debate on if he was real always thought it was whether or not he was a magical god baby.

[Jinxdom]

Lion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.

How about the church proves that the bible isn't a 2000 year old fiction book first? For all we know Jesus could literally be like the Forrest Gump of ancient times. Isn't it just as ridiculous to claim a character from a story book is real as well?

[docyabut2]

It was said he was born at the time of a roman census.


http://en.wikipedia....us_of_Quirinius

[Ligia Cabus]

It is important? How many useless arguments will be raised to flee the heart of the issue? The message is important. Not the messenger. The message remains valid there more than 2000 years. But how people can not understand or do not want to understand the message, then they stay losing time around of  the peripheral aspects of the matter. And the message is: Love your neighbor as yourself, whoa!

[docyabut2]

It was said Herod the Great died in 4bc so maybe the census was under Herod Archelaus


Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD.

[C235]

Who's birth were we celebrating then??? :P

[Coffey]

freetoroam, on 23 November 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

Does this mean i can get a refund on all those christmas presents i bought over the years? I am sure I can drag out my bank statements for the month December over the past 20 odd years.
I am not religions, but for the sake of my friends, bought them all a little something over the years....I FEEL AS IF I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED!!!!!

Well you have been scammed if you beleive Christmas was Jesus's Birthday.

It never was his Birthday, it was a pagan holiday and they made it Jesus's Birthday to push out paganbism and make the transition to Christianity easier.

Same with Easter etc.

[dougeaton]

Alienated Being, on 22 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Most scholars? I would not say that most scholars believe that he existed. In fact, a look at the history of debates surrounding the existence of Jesus will reinforce my statement. Many, many scholars believe that so many fantastical claims surrounding Jesus' existence taint the validity and legitimacy of the story, making it appear as being very unlikely that such a man existed.

Ok, I was just saying.....however Jesus existed, the claims, well that is for christians to debate.

doug

[freetoroam]

Coffey, on 23 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Well you have been scammed if you beleive Christmas was Jesus's Birthday.

It never was his Birthday, it was a pagan holiday and they made it Jesus's Birthday to push out paganbism and make the transition to Christianity easier.

Same with Easter etc.

i know. I have had this argument out with others on another thread. My answer was tongue in cheek cos I am not religious.
I was just trying to point out the sheer cheek of the whole thing!

Edited by freetoroam, 23 November 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[freetoroam]

Ligia Cabus, on 23 November 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

It is important? How many useless arguments will be raised to flee the heart of the issue? The message is important. Not the messenger. The message remains valid there more than 2000 years. But how people can not understand or do not want to understand the message, then they stay losing time around of  the peripheral aspects of the matter. And the message is: Love your neighbor as yourself, whoa!

Is that all! thats an awful lot of book for just one message.
As for the love my neighbour...........well, you want to come and meet my old neighbour, love was the last word or thing on my mind.!

[Alienated Being]

Lion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

No! You see if you existed then we would have no record of you too, no bones no DNA etc or hugely unlikely.

Your poorly formed sentence makes it difficult to understand your point. I will answer this point in terms of how I interpret it.

That was my point; it is hard to accept the notion of Jesus' existence as a reality simply because there are no remains (other than claims and loose references to him in other scriptures) of him in the physical sense. This is why there is much controversy surrounding other notable characters in history, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the like. We don't know if they existed (Socrates moreso, as there exists a debate surrounding whether or not he was a character created by Plato).

Quote

However you don't understand this point, reports of Jesus orally go much further back than written documents, you see the problem used to be with western historians whereby they dismissed oral traditions and scripture too, but credible and contemporary historians take the whole picture, for example to dismiss scripture in jesus's case would be tantamount to learning the history about the Romans from the Persians and not accept any roman sources.

Again, I am to assume that all of those historians whom discredit these scriptures and oral traditions as being evidence for anything are incredible? The reason for this is because oral traditions and scriptures can be tainted over time. Chances are, all of these oral reports that have been documented have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over the course of thousands of years... It is hard to take these "scriptures" and "oral reports" as evidence for anything. From what I have gathered, also, is that the references in The Talmud were concluded to have been parodies based off of parallel passages in The New Testament.

To me, it seems that these historians are only incredible simply because their sentiments to not intertwine with yours.

Quote

It's not an academic approach to do so, is it! So the point is simple there are 1000s of oral reports added to scriptural support, concurrent reporting, the same person mentioned in other cultures of the time and later, mentioned in other scriptures etc. To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.

Other cultures at the time, huh... and you do not believe that these stories could not be passed on to other cultures as a result of hearsay? How do we know for certain that these people really saw Jesus?

Quote

That's because you dont understand the nature of oral reporting and verifying it. For example if a 100 people said you existed and they saw you, met you etc, these 100 people report this to another 100 people, years later or hundred years later the same tradition and oral report is doing the rounds, for me to claim those are false, I would have to prove the first 100 conspired, followed by the generations, until it goes into to the realms of impossibility unless all those people conspired on huge massive international scale! Go ahead prove the conspiracy.

I most certainly do understand the nature of oral reporting, but the fact of the matter is that these oral reports have occurred over thousands of years, which leaves them as holding very little credibility or legitimacy. If you are believing in these oral reports that are thousands of years old, then I feel bad for you.

Quote

So many vague descriptions, not so vague if we can determine they refer to the same one person, if you believe they are false you have to prove them to be so and prove the conspiracy. There maybe discrepancies in the reports but that does not negate his existence, simply because there are so many reports that concur too. Overwhelming belief of many generations internationally in the existence of this man, even the talmud which is rabbinic commentary on the Torah refers to Jesus, written by rabbis during his time and later, clearly they knew this man existed, but because you dismiss religious documentation and like your scholars you are part timers and selective in what evidence you prefer to support your arguments that sources like the Talmud which curse and talk about him in a derogatory manner refer to his existence and claims, the Talmud was there before Jesus was still being added to during his lifetime and after. Why dismiss such a source, it's simply rabbinic commentary on the Torah and the book Jews take above the Torah in how to live like a Jew etc as well containg laws, dogma, parables, commentary, it also refers to Jesus. Is that not good enough proof too?

They are very vague, and these connections are made in terms of assumptions... very loose connections, also.

Furthermore, read my above statement regarding the Talmud.