Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

a reply to: Dfairlite

There is no physical evidence. This thread alone has shown the OP's evidence isn't there. Further research supports that. The only evidence I see of crazy people are those that refuse to become rational in their thinking and continue to support a theory that has no basis other than the writings of a book they surround themselves with. At best, there are multiple preachers that were Jesus-like in their proselytizing. He's the idea of Christianity through the multiple sects. He's the effect, not the cause.

originally posted by: coastlinekid
Hey Dad!

You better get on top of these silly children...

put them in there place already!!!


LOL!!!

I bet you think that was clever. You're grounded.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Shucks!...

I was planning to go get ice cream...

see, the q is not if he existed or not. The Q is when he was born and when he died.
These dates are totally out of order and the so called illuminati knows this.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

And that's supposed to mean something?

It's called Projection gottaknow




www.youtube.com...

a reply to: awareness10

do you feel that gottaknow read the thread or has done any research on the subject?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I read the thread like 4 times over these last few hours as well as delving into internet sources and resources the entire time. Also, I've been looking into this rather heavily the last month or so as well as sporadically throughout the last year.

What can I say? I'm into learning.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: awareness10

do you feel that gottaknow read the thread or has done any research on the subject?

Thats rather personal, i don't know him. I have no idea what he's studied, or what his inner beliefs are. I fail to understand why that would have anything to do with me. Unless i was sychoanalyzing him for covert reasons.

Why do you ask

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I read the thread like 4 times over these last few hours as well as delving into internet sources and resources the entire time. Also, I've been looking into this rather heavily the last month or so as well as sporadically throughout the last year.

What can I say? I'm into learning.

I am happy to hear that.

If that is the case, why would you say this?

I'm just glad the truth of the non-existence of Jesus is finally getting out there.
The sooner it becomes accepted by society, the better. So sick of being lied to with this garbage.
I think we'll see a lot more of this information becoming mainstream in the next decade and beyond.
There will always be people who just accept on faith, but for those who want to learn and question, the knowledge is out there(and in here).
Very exciting and I have ATS to thank for leading me onto the road for learning the truth about this.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Because I mean it?
Because people need to learn and realize the truth?
My final sentence references not just this posting, but many others over time that led me to the happy discovery of the hogwash that has been spoonfed into our brains for centuries and controls the majority of the population.

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Because I mean it?
Because people need to learn and realize the truth?
My final sentence references not just this posting, but many others over time that led me to the happy discovery of the hogwash that has been spoonfed into our brains for centuries and controls the majority of the population.

yes well, whether or not religion is a control mechanism used by the "powers that be" isn't really the topic of the conversation, is it?

Can you admit you might have stumbled into this conversation with your bias clearly showing? Perhaps you could clarify your own position on the subject relevant to the discussion? Do you think there is sufficient evidence to suggest Jesus was a historical individual (outside of the religious narrative)?

If not, why?

Are you capable of separating your personal opinions about the Christian religion from the subject of whether or not the new testament was based on a real person?

Jesus did exist but had a diffrent name .
The real prophet at that time was Jmmanuel and the author of the Talmud Jmmanuel was Judas Iscariot.

The name Jmmanuel is mentioned, with different spellings, in the Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." And we find it again in the New Testament, Matthew 1:23: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

For further information regarding the genuineness of the Talmud Jmmanuel, please see the extensive research of James Deardorff ! google is your buddy

Why so blinded: What then of the other religions, some of them believe he didn't exist and others, that he didn't die on the cross. Why do you believe one religion over another there are many, and not all are hostile. Is this religion supposed to be superior to all the others?

But, for the record, i don't feel Religion of any kind has done mankind any justice, it's only created groups of have's and have not's. People who are deemed better than those who aren't in the special little group.

a reply to: [post=19228261]DeadSeraph[/post

"yes well, whether or not religion is a "control mechanism" used by the "powers that be" isn't really the topic of the conversation, is it? "

It is in a way. Without that control, there wouldn't be a conversation. If people weren't so driven to find evidence where there is none, there would be no need for it. But, the topic is mainly regarding the "proof" offered by the OP which was quickly and deftly sorted out to be wrong.

"Can you admit you might have stumbled into this conversation with your bias clearly showing? Perhaps you could clarify your own position on the subject relevant to the discussion? Do you think there is sufficient evidence to suggest Jesus was a historical individual (outside of the religious narrative)?"

Certainly! My bias for knowledge is strong. My bias against Christianity is based on the fact that I was raised in the belief system that to this day, messes with children's heads and turns this world into a fantasy-based psycho ward.
My position is the same as others have posted here. There is no direct contemporaneous evidence that such a singular man existed. There were, instead many jesus-like preachers who became the conglomeration of the figure used today. This article points out the many different facets that just don't fit together: www.patheos.com...

"Are you capable of separating your personal opinions about the Christian religion from the subject of whether or not the new testament was based on a real person?"

I acknowledge the entire bible as a work of ridiculous and horrifying fiction written by political figures/others and nothing more. The facts that the NT were written beyond the supposed time of Jesus' existence only amplifies the blatant and elaborate lies.

a reply to: awareness10

Jmmanuel wasn't preaching religion,thats one of the reasons they falsified his name and what message he was bringing to mankind.

All ideologies are idiotic whether religious or political for it is conceptual thinking the conceptual word which has so unfortunately divided man.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

a reply to: WhySoBlinded

What do you believe about Jmmanuel, do you believe he's what xians believe Jesus is, alive up in heaven rapture ready kind of guy or that he was just a wise man, who tried to wake people up to this place the world believes is reality?

Or something else. And i would agree with what you said.

The world has been divided , tricked, and nothing divided can stand. There is always an ounce of truth in everything to offset the untruths in order that the many will believe the lie. And many have.

Thankyou for your input.

a reply to: awareness10

Hi,
i dont know if you ever heared of Wendelle Stevens but he has a lecture about this subject

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: WhySoBlinded

No i haven't but i'll take a look at the link you've left in a few hrs. Thankyou.

Christians are so pretentious. It's almost admirable, given that their savior never actually existed.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Are you immune to the effects of confirmation bias? If not, then my suggestion stands.

Do you find it strange at all that in your initial presentation you only discuss "two sides" in the debate when actually there are, as I pointed out, multiple viewpoints being espoused?

Are you saying you never ran across the concept of "false dilemma" or "false dichotomy" in your debate experience?

Let's just remember, you would never make a mistake in terms of "debate tactics" and yet, you open your argument with a fallacious premise?

Okie dokie.

Furhter, what "rules of debate" are in use here, aside from the outlines in the T&C?

If you're going to judge performance based on your estimation of good and bad "debate tactics" should you explain to the group what your expectations are before judging us?

You wave your hand at a range of "bad behaviors" but of course, you don't refer to any specifcs so that you can be challenged on the points of fact.

Seems to me like you're the one playing dirty forensic pool here, Dfairlite.

I hope you have a good day as well.