| Archive for SwapitShop Lounge |
| Hammers10 |
Did Jesus really live?do you think he did? |
||||
| Paddy |
Lol no | ||||
| Konker92 |
agreed, next question? |
||||
| Jack |
He almost certainly did. But I don't believe he had magical powers. | ||||
| cuddlyewok |
I love these really short answers. They are so constructive - not. To myself, I do beleive that a man named Jesus lived, but not the man mentioned in the bible. I have looked into this, and found the following: No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person. The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John. The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies. What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him! If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus". The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet. So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him? Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart, and graves opened. Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.). If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men? Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find that many Christians fail to mention this embarrassing fact. To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence. |
||||
| Hammers10 |
1. that was either copid from the internet or took one hell of a long time to write
2.JESUS LIVED |
||||
| cuddlyewok |
As i mentioned in the text, I looked into it, and found that information. It was sourced from various sites. As for your point of Jesus Lived. Did you read my post? If so, what can you add to add weight to your side that Jesus actually lived? Does it make it true if I say that Hercules and Zeuss lived? No, because no one would beleive it without proof, and the same applies to Jesus. A century or so ago, when people beleived what they were told by the church, they knew no different. In todays day and age, with access to historical texts and artifacts, as well as the science to date such things, it amazes me that people, like yourself, can just blatantly accept what the church wants you to beleive. I would love to read what you have to write regarding your evidence as to Jesus actually living. |
||||
| Jack |
Here's where the evidence is from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
It's always useful to include your source, cuddlyewok 
|
||||
| Peew4K |
I think there was jesus but he never had powers, also people see him as being white, he wouldn't have been white, alot of things abouot jesus aren't true, but he probably was alive | ||||
| Paddy |
Whats This Jesus's relation to god anyway?
Yes there problery was a gifted man back then, who could fix/make things, do things other people could do. So they must of throught he had special powers, and through time its been twisted into what it is today |
||||
| cuddlyewok |
This is true, I should have done. I took the bulk of it that was relevant, to provide evidence as such, that Jesus did not exist as the person we "know" of today. It would be nice though, if others actually sourced any information to back up their own claims, rather than stating he lived, with no explanation as to why they think he lived.
This leads back to the article I took extracts from, which mentions that there was no written works about "Jesus" during his life. If he he was a gifted man, or they thought he had special powers, then surely something would have been documented, considering every other historical figure has at least some documentation written during their existence. Also, how come the islamic writings of the Qur'an depict a totally different Jesus, one who was not crucified? (Source ) How can the same Jesus be crucified for the christians, and not for the muslims 
Also, how come the Jews believe that Jesus existed, but existed as a Jewish man only, with no special powers. They do, however, agree that he was executed by the Romans. After his death, he was then given divine status by the Christian church.( Source ) So, that is 3 religions, which each give a different account of the supposed Jesus, and his life. All three though, still cannot produce any evidence that he actually existed. This then leads back to people who claim he did exist. - Prove it. |
||||
| minxybeca |
*bows down to Stuart*
You.are.awesome xD |
||||
| KieraN |
Some people believe just because they have been brought up religously..and they probably would of thought differently if brought up without any religion. (Like Paddehh  )
|
||||
| humandalek91 |
I believ Jesus existed and was 100% God. The only problem is that in the Bible it says Jesus prayed to God. Which means that God is over 100% so i'm confused. All i'm sure that i believe is Jesus existed and he was the son of God. I was brought up religiously like K!3R4N said. Well that's my opinion - anyone else? | ||||
| kenny |
I think jesus was real but not the son of god.
A man can survive in a desert for 40 days with no food or water? BS and Jesus did it with Mary Magdelin who was actually a prostitute watch the film Dogma for more info :p |
||||
| dalek07 |
I was told someone called Jesus lived, but he wasnt the son of god and he diddnt have the powers! | ||||
| matchoftheday |
no | ||||
| cuddlyewok |
Care to elaborate on that answer? Just a plain no is not constructive in a debate, as we need your reasoning too, behind your opinions. |
||||
| a l e x |
I do believe there was a guy called Jesus but he didn't have all these special stuff n' all | ||||
| ManicStreetPreacher |
Studying GCSE Philosophy & Ethics, this is one of my areas.
As probably said, it depends on your background. I was brought up to be Protestant and went to a CofE junior school, and I did believe in God, Jesus, the like. However now I'm older I am starting to question it. There is definatly evidence to say that a man named Jesus did live in and around the 1st century AD, however no evidence that he was the son of God, had magical powers etc. Most people will say "Look at the Bible." However, the Bible contradicts itself in many places. For example, St. Paul in one place says 'women should be seen and not heard', but in another he says 'women should be treated, respected as equals and given the same rights as men.' Jesus is a very good role model, just look at the way he treats everyone as equal, despite race, nationality, gender etc. This can be refered back to Genesis 1:27 when everyone was made in God's Image. I certianly believe Jesus existed, but his powers are just a fable. (I'm not religious, I'm agnostic) |
||||
| ManicStreetPreacher |
Disclaimer: Sorry If I've offended anyone. | ||||
| cuddlyewok |
This is a debates section, where your views count, and therefore, if anyone is offended, which they should not be, then they can come and debate their reasons for being offended
Good views by the way Manic
|
||||
| ManicStreetPreacher |
Thanks. Good point about being offended. I didn't think of that! |