Did Jesus really exist?

[DOC]

Hearsay....

You have no eyewitnesses to non-living chemicals becoming (over time) a one celled living orgnanism and it can't be repeated by scientists but you have no problem believing that occurred.

 

[joobz]

You have no eyewitnesses to non-living chemicals becoming (over time) a one celled living orgnanism and it can't be repeated by scientists but you have no problem believing that occurred.

Actually, we have one better. We have a notarized papertrail supporting the evidence of common origin. It's called DNA. The signatures of each diversion are seen in the ERVs contained within. The facts of evolution are overwhelming.


Now we have never seen a single person rise from the grave 3 days later. Although we have seen multiple examples of resuscitation.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

DOC, you have no eyewitnesses to Jehovah creating the world and all its living things. Moses, the alleged author of the Pentateuch, certainly was not around when the world was being "created," and that's assuming that Moses even lived at all. Also, what does this have to do with the account of Jesus' resurrection? I and several others have already debunked your eyewitnesses claim, so why are you still going on about it?

 

[articulett]

Actually, we have one better. We have a notarized papertrail supporting the evidence of common origin. It's called DNA. The signatures of each diversion are seen in the ERVs contained within. The facts of evolution are overwhelming.


Now we have never seen a single person rise from the grave 3 days later. Although we have seen multiple examples of resuscitation.

No talking snake, either...
and Nobody walking on water--

 

[amb]

I'm not so sure you want to use Julius Caesar as an example since we have some of his actual writings, but the point is still sound.

Personally I don't really understand this seeming need to disprove the existence of Jesus.

Disprove Jesus existed, you disprove the whole damm christian religion. Right?

 

[amb]

I noticed you used the word "resuscitated" for some reason instead of Resurrected Lord. Paul definitely mentions the resurrected Lord as well as His human birth of a woman. Also Mathew is generally considered the first Gospel.

The majority of biblical, or N/T scholars disagree. Mark was the most primitive and may have had the Q document in front of him, as probably did Thomas.
Luke, Mathew, and to a certain extent, John, all had Mark in front of them when they composed their versions of events, and other sayings that were floating around at the time were added, which Mark makes no mention of.
That proves as time went on the the bigger the myth grew,
untill Jesus was thougt to be God himself.
It has all the hallmarks of a legend growing bigger as time went on until John, who makes him God himself.
I smell a rat as well as the cat.

 

[DOC]

DOC, you have no eyewitnesses to Jehovah creating the world and all its living things. Moses, the alleged author of the Pentateuch, certainly was not around when the world was being "created," and that's assuming that Moses even lived at all. Also, what does this have to do with the account of Jesus' resurrection? I and several others have already debunked your eyewitnesses claim, so why are you still going on about it?

Which eyewitness claim are you referring to and what post did you debunk it in.

 

[amb]

The facts are that there were no eyewitnesses to the Jesus legend.
The whole story is hearsay. The earliest writings we have belong to Paul who was writing at least 20 years after the supposed death of Jesus, by which time the myth had time to grow out of all propotions to the facts.
Voice recorders were 2000 years into the future . Imagine word of mouth year after year being reliably told with no mistakes whatsoever? No way Hosea.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
You have no eyewitnesses to non-living chemicals becoming (over time) a one celled living orgnanism and it can't be repeated by scientists but you have no problem believing that occurred.

Actually, we have one better. We have a notarized papertrail supporting the evidence of common origin. It's called DNA. The signatures of each diversion are seen in the ERVs contained within. The facts of evolution are overwhelming.

Common origin and evolution has nothing to do with how life originally started from non-living chemicals (referred to as abiogenesis).

Now we have never seen a single person rise from the grave 3 days later. Although we have seen multiple examples of resuscitation.

Ah, the ol' Christ never died theory. Josh McDowell discusses it in his article "Evidence for the Resurrection":

"Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

In other words Jesus would have been bloodied beat up sickly mess covered with embalming oil. And he would of died eventually anyway. Also he wouldn't have been able to suddenly appear in a locked room like he did to the apostles.

https://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/Mystery/2easter15.htm

 

[DOC]

The facts are that there were no eyewitnesses to the Jesus legend.
The whole story is hearsay. The earliest writings we have belong to Paul who was writing at least 20 years after the supposed death of Jesus, by which time the myth had time to grow out of all propotions to the facts.
Voice recorders were 2000 years into the future . Imagine word of mouth year after year being reliably told with no mistakes whatsoever? No way Hosea.

There were many eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

The apostle John. -- John 21: 24

The apostle Peter -- 2 Peter 1: 16

And over 250 eyewitnesses were "still alive" when Paul wrote his epistles.
1 Corinthians 15; 6

And do you think an intellectual like Paul would have went through these kinds of beatings:

(2 Corinthians 11; 24-28)

if he wasn't convinced of the evidence that changed him from someone who persecuted Christians to probably the greatest evangelist of all time.

 

[amb]

There were many eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

The apostle John. -- John 21: 24

The apostle Peter -- 2 Peter 1: 16

And over 250 eyewitnesses were "still alive" when Paul wrote his epistles.
1 Corinthians 15; 6

And do you think an intellectual like Paul would have went through these kinds of beatings:

(2 Corinthians 11; 24-28)

if he wasn't convinced of the evidence that changed him from someone who persecuted Christians to probably the greatest evangelist of all time.

Did they actually see a bodily Jesus, or did they ''think'' they saw one.
None of these ''eye'' witnesses left any written accounts of their seeing this person. Someone else wrote the gospels, not these so-called witnesses.
Even though they bear their names.
Actually, the more you study the historical Jesus, there more it becomes inplausible and ludicrous.

 

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC
You have no eyewitnesses to non-living chemicals becoming (over time) a one celled living orgnanism and it can't be repeated by scientists but you have no problem believing that occurred.

Common origin and evolution has nothing to do with how life originally started from non-living chemicals (referred to as abiogenesis).

Very true. I missread your post as a indictement of evolution, which would have been at least a logical comparison.
Let's see how abiogenesis and the resurrection compare:

1. Belief:
I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. I simply think it the most likely method for the origin of life. I am willing to reconsider based upon new information.
The Resurrection is the corner stone of christianity. It is used to "prove" christs divinity. No christian will ever consider the possibilty of it being untrue.

2. Evidence:
There is no evidence for abiogenesis. But the theory doesn't contradict any of the known mechanisms of chemistry and physics.
There is no evidence for the resurrection and the resurrection contradicts centuries of medical evidence which demostrates that people don't come back from the dead.

On either level, it's a faulty comparison.

Ah, the ol' Christ never died theory. Josh McDowell discusses it in his article "Evidence for the Resurrection":

"Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

In other words Jesus would have been bloodied beat up sickly mess covered with embalming oil. And he would of died eventually anyway. Also he wouldn't have been able to suddenly appear in a locked room like he did to the apostles.

https://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/Mystery/2easter15.htm

All of this assumes that he would have no help. This is just a silly assumption.

1.) We have nothing except for the account of the apostle writers that JEsus came back from the dead. All stories of other people's sightings amount to nothing more than hearsay, and is not proof of anything.
2.) since the gospels are in doubt of who actually wrote them, you don't really even have the witness accounts of the apostle writers.
3.) even if the accounts of seeing him 3 days later are true, it wouldn't prove he rose from the dead. You are missing proof of his death.
4.) For additional proof, the bible uses the fact that there was a heavy stone in the way of the tomb. If the stone could be placed in front, it can be removed. Actually the fact that the stone was removed is evidence that he had help getting out.
5.) 3 days later is enough time to clean someone up and get them moving (weakly)

 

[joobz]

Did they actually see a bodily Jesus, or did they ''think'' they saw one.
None of these ''eye'' witnesses left any written accounts of their seeing this person. Someone else wrote the gospels, not these so-called witnesses.
Even though they bear their names.
Actually, the more you study the historical Jesus, there more it becomes inplausible and ludicrous.

Yup. Like I've been saying, it's all hearsay.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Very true. I missread your post as a indictement of evolution, which would have been at least a logical comparison.
Let's see how abiogenesis and the resurrection compare:

In addition to what you said I'd like to add another point about how the "logical comparison" he's attempting fails.

Life is here now. Objective fact. The fact that it must have come from somewhere is therefore given.

Jesus, OTOH, is nowhere to be seen. To make the comparison accurate Jesus being alive would have to a self evident fact. He'd have to be still walking around 2,000 years later to make himself a given fact.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

I presume you mean, no evidence for how it happened. Life being here is proof enough of abiogenesis. Some might be generous and say we can't rule out the superstitious mechanisms for how it happened, but it definitely happened or life wouldn't be here now.

 

[joobz]

I presume you mean, no evidence for how it happened. Life being here is proof enough of abiogenesis. Some might be generous and say we can't rule out the superstitious mechanisms for how it happened, but it definitely happened or life wouldn't be here now.

Yes, I was using abiogenesis to mean the naturalistic origins of life (a type of chemical evolution mechanism). That is what DOC was referring to.

 

[articulett]

I think "original sin" is also a cornerstone of Christianity... it's the reason Jesus was supposedly put to death (per his dad's plan--who was really him.) That's why religious people have such an issue with evolution I suspect. It's hard to fit the Adam and Eve story into common descent--yet many religions manage to do it. If you can make sense out of the crucifixion "paying for sins past and future"-- then you can retrofit evolution so that at some point humans became "sinners" in need of sin erasure via blood atonement of god incarnate.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Do you think that reposting the same discredited source over and over again somehow makes it true? Using the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular logic.

In other words Jesus would have been bloodied beat up sickly mess covered with embalming oil. And he would of died eventually anyway. Also he wouldn't have been able to suddenly appear in a locked room like he did to the apostles.

https://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/Mystery/2easter15.htm

No, Jesus would have been a rotting decomposed corpse. The Jews did not practice embalming. After just a couple of weeks, he would have decomposed beyond recognition. His followers could not have gotten away with shoving a rotting corpse in people's faces and claiming it to be their messiah. Their only way out of this was to invent a resurrection story, and then include details like the "500 witnesses" in order to make it sound more believable to gullible idiots.

Usually when a corpse goes missing from a morgue, the medical examiners do not assume that the person came back to life and ascended to heaven. They'd have to be quite literally insane to believe that. But I suppose that if you make that insanity part of a religion, it gets a free pass, right?

 

[amb]

I think "original sin" is also a cornerstone of Christianity... it's the reason Jesus was supposedly put to death (per his dad's plan--who was really him.) That's why religious people have such an issue with evolution I suspect. It's hard to fit the Adam and Eve story into common descent--yet many religions manage to do it. If you can make sense out of the crucifixion "paying for sins past and future"-- then you can retrofit evolution so that at some point humans became "sinners" in need of sin erasure via blood atonement of god incarnate.

''From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer?''

~Thomas Paine~ ''The Age of Reason'' All the best, Angelo.

 

[Darkhole]

A question, has anybody here any knwoledge about the Dead Sea scrolls.

There is a claim fom christians they proof the existence from Jesus?
I found this on Wiki, is that all there is known?

Spanish Jesuit José O'Callaghan has argued that one fragment (7Q5) is a New Testament text from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, verses 52–53. In recent years this controversial assertion has been taken up again by German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede. A successful identification of this fragment as a passage from Mark would make it the earliest extant New Testament document, dating somewhere between 30 AD and 60 AD. Opponents consider that the fragment is tiny and requires so much reconstruction (the only complete word in Greek is "και" = "and") that it could have come from a text other than Mark.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Did Jesus Exist?:

You might want to read

Jesus: A Historians review of the Gospels by Michael Grant. It's pretty interesting so far.