Did Jesus actually walk this earth? Did he actually exist?

Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
But the greatest proof to me is that ALL of the disciples went to their death still peoclaiming the truth of a risen Christ who was the Son of God.

Really?
Where is the evidence for that, Grandma?
It's just STORIES from later.

Anyway -
people DIE for FALSE beliefs all the time - so what?

* Muslim suicide bombers die for their beliefs - will you become one Grandma?

* Heaven's gate cult died for their beliefs - will you be joining them Grandma?

* The Jim Jones cult died for their beliefs - so what?


People DO die for FALSE beliefs all the time - it proves NOTHING at all.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
But the greatest proof to me is that ALL of the disciples went to their death still peoclaiming the truth of a risen Christ who was the Son of God.

Really?
Where is the evidence for that, Grandma?
It's just STORIES from later.

Anyway -
people DIE for FALSE beliefs all the time - so what?

* Muslim suicide bombers die for their beliefs - will you become one Grandma?

* Heaven's gate cult died for their beliefs - will you be joining them Grandma?

* The Jim Jones cult died for their beliefs - so what?


People DO die for FALSE beliefs all the time - it proves NOTHING at all.


K.

Just to let you know...Grandma wont be sending an answer or reply right away...I am her daughter and she just got sent back into the hospital today. I noticed she replied here and you replied back to her. She must of replied right before she had to leave.

Good luck trying to convince her though...she claims to of seen Jesus herself. Once, when her son died, she saw her son walking with who she feels was Jesus. The other time was during a NDE that was very vivid. I witnessed her 'seeing' things and it was the most phenomenal thing that I have witnessed in my life.

Is it proof? Well not to anyone but her. Is it our mind making these visioins...images...? It could be...but that is for the individual to decide.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The writers of the four Gospels, all met Him touched him walked with Him, witnessed the miracles, witnessed His crucifixtion, resurection ascention etc, they where His deciples.

Wrong.

According to CHRISTIAN dogma -

G.Mark was written by Peter's secretary in Rome - someone who NEVER met Jesus.

G.Luke was written by Paul's travelling companion - someone who NEVER met Jesus.

That is - only TWO Gospels were written by disciples (according to Christian beliefs.)


But according to scholars -
not one of the Gospels was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.


Yet, you claim -
"The writers of the four Gospels, all met Him touched him walked with Him,"


So, who do you think wrote G.Mark and G.Luke ?


Kapyong

Rubbish, according to Disinformation Dogma and liars maybe. By the way look up the word Dogma, its not a dirty word. Scholars of what? Disinformation?

Who wrote the actual books is a red herring, it is what is written thats important, anything to find a loop hole huh? Sorry there aint any. God wrote it, secretaires or not, for crying outloud disinf merchants are clutching at straws arent they.

It has been suggested that Shakespeare didnt write shakespear, so what??

Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

This is one of many scriptures that refute what you are saying. Here are a few more. What's your game by the way?? Are you a wind up merchant or what.

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:


1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.


1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.


1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.




[edit on 2-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

This thread's argument is a bit of non-starter for me, personally, but there is some really interesting debate, and I've enjoyed reading it. Thanks to the OP.

BUT...

If we universally applied the same principles (about the absence of contemporary accounts), we would be disbelieving the existence of many ancient historical figures other than Jesus. The fact of the matter is that there simply weren't as many records back then, except for those conquerers who smashed their way across the known world, carving their names into monoliths and keeping a bevy of scribes retained under the royal budget.

Absence of evidence doesn't necessitate evidence of absence.

The evidence that does exist for Jesus is good enough for the vast majority of serious scholars, theologians and historians.

It's interesting to note that the ones who DO make a big hoo-haa about his non-existence often seem to have a sensational new book out as well. More sales for alternate-history books. It's trendy at the moment. Dan Brown opened the floodgates, and now everyone thinks they can make a million.

reply to post by Roark


getting back to the original question: Yes I do think that a figure whom we could identify with as' the historical Jesus', did walk the earth at one time or another.
I think a lot of us chase or tails trying to find reliable sources of the life of Jesus, as the ones that have economized so much on his fame/existence have long-ago buried the truth; and secondly stylized their own versions of his history to support their own agendas.
I guess we may never really know.

I firmly believe that Christians need to do their homework on the history of the bible and their religion itself.

reply to post by Deus est mortuus


Its rarely of any consequence what homework they do. they seem to be only able to remember the things that are supportive of irrational belief, and forget the starkly obvious ambiguity.
It surprises me that we have not encountered yet another flurry of bible quotes that prove nothing other than blind faith.

Originally posted by spellbound

But what Jesus taught is true, whether He existed or not, we have a clue as to how to live.

Always forgive, always love and always care about all animals and people.

Where do you come up with that, based upon the teachings of Christ?

Jesus was sent to separate the lower castes from the upper castes. Anyone who has an ear for the truth was invited to join the ranks of the ruling elite on the backs of the peasants.

The poor are a burden on society, Jesus went down to show those who would listen that you can't talk sense into illiterate morons or power mongers, but it never hurts to try.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Kapyong:
"1,2 Peter - forged, not by Peter
1,2,3 John - forged, not by John
Jude - forged, not by Jude
James - forged, not by James"

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

OK I'm open minded.
Would you mind proving that?

WTF?

This is your evidence?

That's the consensus of modern NT scholars, I'll cite some comments therefrom -

1 Peter

Eric Eve writes: "The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

What evidence do you have that Peter documented his own testimony and didn't have a third party more versed in the writing style of the day, write down his testimony?

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way."

What's this some kind of psychological analysis of Peters thinking?

Were all of the good topics, at seminary school, about the life and times of JC already beat to death by 1,000 other scriptual students? Seems like the author is really making a stretch here.

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "An argument often cited against the authenticity of 1 Peter is the lack of personal reminiscences from the life of Jesus, something one would surely expect in a letter from one who had accompanied him from Galilean ministry to resurrection. In defense of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited taht are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 9)

Totally incomprehensible double speak.

Did you even read this stuff Kapyong or are you just wholesale cutting and pasting?

What's your personal opinion on the matter?

I see that you cut and pasted more of like stuff below. I'll read through it as well just to see if I can gleam anything at all from it.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Kapyong
2 Peter

Kummel presents the arguments ...

The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16).

You are dismissed Kapyong.

You have proved nothing.

You are a waste of time.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Grandma
But the greatest proof to me is that ALL of the disciples went to their death still peoclaiming the truth of a risen Christ who was the Son of God.

Really?
Where is the evidence for that, Grandma?
It's just STORIES from later.

Anyway -
people DIE for FALSE beliefs all the time - so what?

* Muslim suicide bombers die for their beliefs - will you become one Grandma?

* Heaven's gate cult died for their beliefs - will you be joining them Grandma?

* The Jim Jones cult died for their beliefs - so what?


People DO die for FALSE beliefs all the time - it proves NOTHING at all.


K.

At least 100,000 million people have been put to death for nothing more than resolving notto denounce a faith in Christ as saviour, all the other lunatics you mention where, sadly, put to death by their maniacle satanic leaders. So what??

Originally posted by Deus est mortuus
I firmly believe that Christians need to do their homework on the history of the bible and their religion itself.

I firmly believe the fact that you have said "Christians need to do their homework" that you have been deluded by the likes of Michael Tsarion.

"Do your home work' are his favourite four words and he has his deciples running of studying the works jung and lovely people like blavastky and crowley. Is that the sort of homework you mean?

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Deus est mortuus

 

Its rarely of any consequence what homework they do. they seem to be only able to remember the things that are supportive of irrational belief, and forget the starkly obvious ambiguity.
It surprises me that we have not encountered yet another flurry of bible quotes that prove nothing other than blind faith.

Listen mason, you have no proof for what you believe other than what has been robbed and perverted from holy writ. The bible has been irrfuteably proven to be divinely inspired, that ones in the bag. It's done and dusted, so stop posting throw away nonsense and smokescreens. It aint gonna wash. Blind faith is not required, it is the blind who do not believe it inspite of the FACTS!





[edit on 2-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Kapyong
2 Peter

Kummel presents the arguments ...

The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16).

You are dismissed Kapyong.

You have proved nothing.

You are a waste of time.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by In nothing we trust]

hear hear, and he has from this day hense been renamed Krapwrong!

In conclusion, The OP is taken from ww.nobeliefs.com whch is clearly a rationalist athiests website under the guise of "freethinkers" and their modus operandi is a conspiracy against relgion.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Gday,

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Just to let you know...Grandma wont be sending an answer or reply right away...I am her daughter and she just got sent back into the hospital today. I noticed she replied here and you replied back to her. She must of replied right before she had to leave.

Sorry to hear that,
hope she is well soon.

K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Who wrote the actual books is a red herring, it is what is written thats important, anything to find a loop hole huh?

A Red herring?
Then why did YOU claim 4 Gospels were written by eye-witnesses?

I pointed out they weren't.

You quickly change subject and go the attack.

Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What evidence do you have that Peter documented his own testimony and didn't have a third party more versed in the writing style of the day, write down his testimony?

What?
I have no evidence for that, because I didn't claim that.
Did you misread something?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What's this some kind of psychological analysis of Peters thinking?

No, it's a modern expert explaining one of the reasons scholars agree it's a forgery.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Were all of the good topics, at seminary school, about the life and times of JC already beat to death by 1,000 other scriptual students? Seems like the author is really making a stretch here.

I really don't get your argument.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Totally incomprehensible double speak.

It's quite clear to me.
What part did you have trouble with?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Did you even read this stuff Kapyong or are you just wholesale cutting and pasting?

Yes, I have read the modern NT scholars and why they agree these books are not by the people whose names they bear.

Have you?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What's your personal opinion on the matter?

That all those books were not written by the people whose names they bear. Like modern NT scholars do.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
You are dismissed Kapyong.
You have proved nothing.
You are a waste of time.
[edit on 2-7-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Wow !
ONE post in reply to me and then you gave up on discussing the facts and moved on to silly personal attacks.


A new record.


Kapyong

The question was whether Jesus really lived or not. Facts are hard to state as there really aren't any. He would have been born about 5-4 BC. Again hard to say as Matthew (I believe) says that Jesus was born during the reign of Harod the great. He died in 4 BC. Luke says that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census which didn't take place until 6 AD or so (My memory may fail me here). As the gospels weren't written until 70 AD or later (some state the later 3 around 100 AD) and Jesus died no later then 36 AD you can see how a memory lapse may happen. I am more inclined to believe the slaughter of the male babes to be a more memorable event then the census and would have to say that Luke is the mistaken one in this discrepency. Of course such a long time after his death you might have trouble believing that the purported writers really did the writing and not someone else. And so more chances for innaccuracies pop up. Difficult to really say if Jesus was really born during this time then.

Well if you can't prove a person was born, you might prove he died. Where is the tomb, burial chamber, or grave is the logical question. Taking away the devine which can't be proved we can turn to what may have happened. Crucifixion. This was a painful humiliating way to die to really drive home a point. Was a roman way to execute. If Jesus was crucified then it was done by the romans, and not at the behest of the Jews. Jewish law would have had him stoned to death. One would look for records during this era. Of which you may have guessed there are none, at least not for deaths. You could try to find various burial chambers, but really the practice was just to toss the body into a communal ditch and leave it for the animals. so no body would be left to find.

Crap I just showed that you can't prove it one way or the other. That said, You have 4 gospels; canon, there are others not officially part of the bible. And while I can believe that someone would make up a story about a man, I can't believe that several someones would make up stories about the same man unless he actually existed. This; of course, says nothing about the accuracy of what is written. Literary licence was most likely taken as it always is.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Who wrote the actual books is a red herring, it is what is written thats important, anything to find a loop hole huh?

A Red herring?
Then why did YOU claim 4 Gospels were written by eye-witnesses?

I pointed out they weren't.

You quickly change subject and go the attack.

Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong.


Kapyong

It is you who claim the four Gospels where not written by eye witnesses, not me, it is a mute point. The authors of the four Gospels, who ever they may be, claim to be eye witneses. You are stating that no one claims to be eye witnessess, which is bunkum. Im not attacking you. Im blowing your straw man arguement into the weeds, its is a nonsense position and a non issue.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Imago Dei]