Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Cavemonster]

Humm, Jesus Christ never existed? I will put studying this on my To Do List right after my job, my family, my health, and trying to start my own business.

Either way, it does not matter or mean anything. Does the nonexistance or existance mean something to you? If something so meaningless has meaning to you, I have to suspect this meaning is driving your belief.

Some few people on an internet forum is low on the cred gague, even if that is somewhat true with The Discovery Channel.

Yeah, those grapes were probably sour anyway.

 

[RandFan]

i think of something fun to ask you and I wonder how you will respond.

Maybe we like to see others sputter with their claims like you did. Perhaps we like schadenfreude. Watching someone post what they think is killer evidence only to be picked apart and shown to be nonsense.

Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?

Because it would be impossible to lie about that. Because all the fragments in the world for holy relics must be true. People don't lie.

Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?

Yep, you got us. If it's one thing about religious people they NEVER make false claims or act in an inappropriate manner.

Seriously Bill? So long as the Church claims it to be true that's all the proof you need. Joseph Smith claimed to see Christ. It must be true.

Wow! I didn't know any claim by any religious organization is de facto truth for you. If I have a ministerial certificate would you be interested in that real estate deal I was telling you about?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Mormonism is just a silly backlash to the industrial revolution. Old cherished traditions were being questioned by a new land and new inventions. People wanted to find something real that was also tied into the Bible. I don't know why you keep bringing up Smith. I have friends who are Mormons, but I find them to be uneducated and sad.

You connecting this to Mormonism is sad too.

You still never answered why you are here?

i think of something fun to ask you and I wonder how you will respond. I am a little upset that some of my cousins are conspiracy theory buffs. Since I cannot act out my frusturatoin on them, I redirect to you.


Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?


Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?


Did Apostle Thomas exist? If not, who started Christianity in India?


This sounds very much like a conspiracy theory where every indication disproving or debunking it because part of a larger, every growing, conspiracy. It seems just like the moon landing conspiracy, the jfk conspiracy or even the flat earth people.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The story of Jesus is completely different in that we have thousands of accounts giving exact details of His life within 30 years of His crucifixion.

Hmmm...
"thousands of accounts" within "30 years".

Let's see if we can get an objective numerical estimate on Bill's exaggeration index.

There are 4 Gospels - they are the only 'accounts' of Jesus life. One could perhaps add some epistles even though they have no "accounts of Jesus" life in them. But let's be generous to Bill and say there are 10 'accounts' of Jesus' life (4 Gospels, Paul, James, Ignatius, Clement and a few more.)

So, that's TEN when Bill saids "thousands".
Making his exaggeration index to be HUNDREDS.


The Gospels are usually dated around 70-100AD or so.
(Christians push at least one as early as 52.)
If we are generous to Bill and allow ANY book about Jesus to count - then we would have THOUSANDS of them by maybe the 5th century (after Tertullian and Augustine and others.)

Bill said 30, I estimate 400.
Making his exaggeration index to be about a DOZEN.

In the next 100 years after His death, there are thousands of references to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

In the period 33CE - 133CE there are no more than three or four at BEST (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius)
Exaggeration factor : THOUSANDS

References to the N.T. writers by non-Christian writers 33-133CE ?
Zero.
Infinite exaggeration achieved !

We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers,

"Many others" = none worth discussing.

but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians.

Aha !
So there are the THOUSANDS that Bill loves to bring up! The later COPIES by believers !
Because having a vast number of copies PROVES a book is true - so Mao's Red Book is true, so is Harry Potter, so is Scientology, so are the JWs, right Bill !
Fail.

The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.

It's not history Bill. But you believe it is - without question.
There's the problem.


K.

 

[Buckyball]

"Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?"

Almost every dead person on Earth has a body... how in the WORLD is that evidence?

"Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?"

I'm pretty sure everyone who has ever lived has a skeleton... again, how is that evidence?

So, because someone told you it's John the Baptist, everyone else has to explain why it isn't?

Huh?!?!?!?!?!

 

[RandFan]

Mormonism is just a silly backlash to the industrial revolution. Old cherished traditions were being questioned by a new land and new inventions. People wanted to find something real that was also tied into the Bible. I don't know why you keep bringing up Smith. I have friends who are Mormons, but I find them to be uneducated and sad.

Translation: It's okay to bash Mormons and be skeptical of Mormonism but silly claims about a 2,000 year old dead guy are wrong. (special pleading).

You connecting this to Mormonism is sad too.

Is this supposed to be argument? Am I supposed to care about your opinion?

i think of something fun to ask you and I wonder how you will respond. I am a little upset that some of my cousins are conspiracy theory buffs. Since I cannot act out my frusturatoin on them, I redirect to you.

I think of something fun to respond to you with and I wonder how you will respond. It's frustrating that you think your obsession with some dead guy and our obsession with the truth makes us bad.

Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?

I don't know. Ignorance is not an excuse to substitute fantasy for the truth.

• Prove that anyone is buried there.
• Prove that the person buried there is Peter.

Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?

I don't know. Ignorance is not an excuse to use substitute make believe. That's not how skepticism works. Here's a hint:

• Prove that that the skeleton is John the Baptists.

Did Apostle Thomas exist? If not, who started Christianity in India?

I don't know. Ignorance is not an excuse to use substitute make believe. That's not how skepticism works. Here's a hint:

• Prove that the Apostle Thomas started Christianity in India.

This sounds very much like a conspiracy theory where every indication disproving or debunking it because part of a larger, every growing, conspiracy. It seems just like the moon landing conspiracy, the jfk conspiracy or even the flat earth people.

What do you mean "conspiracy theory"? Do you mean like 9/11 or do you mean like the Conspiracy to not treat blacks infected with syphilis so they could be used as guinea pigs? If the former, no. If the later, could be. Big deal.

The uh, CT thing isn't going to work Bill. It's dead on arrival. I spent years battling CT in the JREF CT forum. I know something about it. This ISN'T IT.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Other first and second century writers who wrote about Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation, are:

Believers dating from about 60 years to almost two CENTURIES later, preaching Christian beliefs.

• Clement (A.D. c. 30-100) the Bishop of Rome

60 years after the alleged Jesus, Clement mentions essentially just TWO sayings of Jesus. Nothing about a historical Jesus. (Why is the "30" mentioned? What is the source?)

• The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. c. 70-130)

A book of preaching - the first Christian book to use "pierced" of Jesus. But nothing about a historical Jesus. We have no idea who wrote it, but Christians insist on making up early dates for people we know nothing about - in this case the "70" is completely made up from thin air.

• Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) the Bishop of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John

Polycarp says nothing about being a student of John. John says nothing about Polycarp. But LATER, in the 180s, Irenaeus claimed he was. A common pattern - no evidence, just LATER CLAIMS. The "70" is made up, again.

• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110) the Bishop of Antioch

Some letters were written around 110, or maybe forged in the 130s. Note the made up "35". No historical accounts of Jesus - just some preaching of claims that sound a little like the Gospels. NO mention of any actual written Gospel.

• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200) the second century Bishop of Lyons

One and half CENTURIES after the alleged Jesus, he was the very FIRST to name and number our four Gospels - initially the Gospels were UN-NAMED documents. No connection to a historical Jesus.

• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) the second century apologist

A century and more after Jesus. Nothing historical there.

• Clement (A.D. 150 -215) the second century Bishop of Alexandria

A century and more after Jesus. Nothing historical there.
Did you know he said things like this :

'"For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen," according to Plato; since "each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul" of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. "He that loses his life," says the Lord, "shall save it;" either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord's sake, as He did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope '

Is that historical evidence for Jesus, Bill ?
Preaching about 'the cross' meaning :
loose, and withdraw, and separate your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life
?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Other first and second century writers who wrote about Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation, are:

Hmmm .. one final point here -

This thread is about the Historical Jesus, rememember?

And yet here you confuse the Historical Jesus with "the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation".

Didn't you say people who confused the two were, um .. what was it again ?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

But I have seen at least two stories on The Discovery Channel that insist that Jesus existed based on first hand historic accounts.

This is exactly how Christianity started - people made CLAIMS about books. It's still going on to this day.

And many Christians simply believe these claims about books.

In reality - there are NO "first hand historic accounts". If there WAS, then Bill and other Christians would quote them every single post.

Instead we get CLAIMS - and we know that, when pressed, the best Bill will come up with will be :
* the Gospels
* THOUSANDS of accounts of Jesus
* Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, etc.
* Clement, Barnabas.
the same ol' stuff we've been talking about for centuries.


K.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Peter is burried under the vatican. I guess he could have lied and made up his imagionary friend, Jesus, whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

But how is that idea NOT silly?

So what you are saying, i guess, is that Peter was like Joesph Smith. But it would be like saying that 13 other people who died for claiming to have known Jesus first-hand also died for their lies.

And lots of these people were tortured but never confessed that Christ was never real. Joesph Smith, on the other hand, was never tortured (but he, ironically, did try to get out of being shot by saying a Mason's Cry for Help).

What you are saying is possible, I guess, but not very plausable.

Were the people who claimed to have known Christ first hand also lying, or did they too not exist?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?

In a gap between some walls they found a pile of rubbish - bones of several humans (but no human head at all) and bones of chickens and pigs. But nearby was scratched graffiti "Petros blah blah".

So suddenly it's the "Tomb of Peter" !

What a laugh.

Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?

Jesus Bill - some claims about ancient relics?
Are you serious ?


K.

 

[Buckyball]

"Peter is burried under the vatican. "


LOL!!! Suuuure he is, despite the fact that Christianity did not pervade Rome and the Roman Empire until centuries after Jesus's life.... what a bunch of nonsense.

It is MUCH easier to believe that certain people who wanted to validate the pope and Christianity merely made this claim.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Peter is burried under the vatican. I guess he could have lied and made up his imagionary friend, Jesus, whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

But how is that idea NOT silly?

No less silly than Joseph Smith's claims to have been visited by angels...

So what you are saying, i guess, is that Peter was like Joesph Smith. But it would be like saying that 13 other people who died for claiming to have known Jesus first-hand also died for their lies.

Hey, Is this a DOC sockpuppet? 11 (or 13?) guys believed in Allah so much that they hijacked a few airliners and flew them into buildings. Does that give their belief system any more credibility?

And lots of these people were tortured but never confessed that Christ was never real. Joesph Smith, on the other hand, was never tortured (but he, ironically, did try to get out of being shot by saying a Mason's Cry for Help).

And, yet, that's still not evidence for a historical Jesus. Plenty of people have been tortured for their particular brand of religion/theology. Many have died refusing to give up their beliefs, that doesn't make any of those beliefs any more factual than any other belief.

What you are saying is possible, I guess, but not very plausable.

In your opinion. Perhaps you are right, but that doesn't make your arguments any less fallacious.

Were the people who claimed to have known Christ first hand also lying, or did they too not exist?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Peter is burried under the vatican. I guess he could have lied and made up his imagionary friend, Jesus, whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

They found a pile of RUBBISH in a hole in the walls.
With pig bones, chicken bones, even bones of two humans - but NO head.

Then they found "Petros" scratched nearby.
Now it's the Tomb of Peter !

But how is that idea NOT silly?

I think the Tomb of Peter claim is completely silly!


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

The ONLY such claim - a vague claim to have experienced his "majesty". In a book FORGED by someone other then Peter. The LATEST and most obvious FORGERY in the whole N.T.

where the people who claimed to have known Christ first hand also lying, or did they too not exist?

There are NO claims to have known Jesus first hand.
VISIONS of Christ don't count.
CLAIMS by OTHER unknown people don't count.


K.

 

[one666]

Jesus existed but only as a Rabbi and never once proclaimed himself " The son of God" The Roman Catholic Church ofcourse claim him to be the son of their manmade God while during his lifetime Jesus only claimed to be the son of man as we are all sons of men

 

[bikerdruid]

Jesus existed but only as a Rabbi and never once proclaimed himself " The son of God" The Roman Catholic Church ofcourse claim him to be the son of their manmade God while during his lifetime Jesus only claimed to be the son of man as we are all sons of men

welcome to the forum.
have at the jackals!
good luck.

 

[RandFan]

Peter is burried under the vatican.

And you know this because?

So what you are saying, i guess, is that Peter was like Joesph Smith. But it would be like saying that 13 other people who died for claiming to have known Jesus first-hand also died for their lies.

Much worse. We don't even know if they existed.

And lots of these people were tortured but never confessed that Christ was never real. Joesph Smith, on the other hand, was never tortured (but he, ironically, did try to get out of being shot by saying a Mason's Cry for Help).

Your little anecdotes all suffer the same problem. We don't know what happened. There were no news organizations. There was no video. There were only oral accounts passed around like Chinese Whispers again and again, then written down in Aramaic (long since lost), translated to Greek (the early records we simply don't have). What's troubling is that is told you again and again and it just doesn't reside in your brain. WE - DON'T - KNOW!

What you are saying is possible, I guess, but not very plausable.

You don't even know what I'm saying. Lies, legends, myths, stories, whatever. It doesn't matter we don't know. A story was told. It was embellished and told again. Embellished again, repeat over and over, written down, copied, copied, copied embellished along the way, translated. ON and on. It can't be relied on. WE - DON'T - KNOW!

Were the people who claimed to have known Christ first hand also lying, or did they too not exist?

Since no first hand accounts exist... wait for it, yep, you got it, WE - DON'T - KNOW!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Jesus existed but only as a Rabbi and never once proclaimed himself " The son of God" The Roman Catholic Church ofcourse claim him to be the son of their manmade God while during his lifetime Jesus only claimed to be the son of man as we are all sons of men

Well, I'm almost convinced. Perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence? That would definitely sway my position on this matter.

 

[RandFan]

Jesus existed but only as a Rabbi and never once proclaimed himself " The son of God" The Roman Catholic Church ofcourse claim him to be the son of their manmade God while during his lifetime Jesus only claimed to be the son of man as we are all sons of men

Well, I'm almost convinced. Perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence? That would definitely sway my position on this matter.

I'm with Bob. I don't give a damn if he did exist. I only care when people state categorically about something that we haven't sufficient evidence. If people said that from the evidence they THINK he did, well fine, I'll shut up. I like Hitchens' argument that there were too many obvious lies about the guy. Like the lie that he was from Nazareth. Why tell that bit of nonsense if you could make it up whole cloth? Some have argued that the entire story wasn't invented together and at some point the scribes had to reconcile the text and had to make decisions as to the best way to do so.

I don't know myself but I'm here waiting for the evidence. Of course the silly little unlettered faith promoting rumors Bill keeps demanding prove something prove absolutely nothing.