Did Jesus, Buddha & Mohammed really exist?

[Skull Pilot]

Ignoring what it says in the holy books themselves, what evidence is there that any of these three gentlemen actually walked the earth?

Or, to put it another way, even if they were real people - what evidence is there that they were 'special'?

Probably. But the Jesus that did live didn't look like the blue eyed Anglo that people worship.

In reality he probably looked more like Saddam Hussein.

They were special in the sense they led huge cults.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wait, you mean that Jesus was not one of the blue-eyed blond Jews of that time?

Man, some people are going to be REAL disappointed!

 

[Unkotare]

It's no surprise that someone so busy worshipping himself would find faith so hard to understand.

I understand faith perfectly .

I wasn't talking to you, idiot. YOU are just too damn stupid to understand faith (or just about anything else).

 

[there4eyeM]

There would have been witnesses, definitely, but whether they actually saw miracles seems unlikely. Most likely the gopels are allergories, or oral history and stories - they may have had little basis in reality.

Did Jesus really turn water into wine?

I suspect not.

What is the difference between hallucination and perception?

 

[Saigon]

Probably. But the Jesus that did live didn't look like the blue eyed Anglo that people worship.

In reality he probably looked more like Saddam Hussein.
.

That's true!!

A disturbing thought...but very true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ignoring what it says in the holy books themselves, what evidence is there that any of these three gentlemen actually walked the earth?

Or, to put it another way, even if they were real people - what evidence is there that they were 'special'?

1) All three are recognized historical figures. Of the three, only Jesus Christ is even disputed as a historical figure, and that by very few people. Most historians accept now that there really was an actual man by that name whose evangelism and subsequent execution by the Romans sparked the religion which eventually became Christianity. Siddhartha Guatama (the person you think of as "Buddha") and Mohammed are clearly-recorded historical figures (although, because Gautama's life was so long ago, and has been shrouded over by a lot of mythos, it's difficult to determine specifics like dates).

2) The evidence that they were special is that all three have major religions dedicated to their teachings. How special did you need them to be?

 

[Saigon]

2) The evidence that they were special is that all three have major religions dedicated to their teachings. How special did you need them to be?

So does L Ron Hubbard.

By special I mean super-human, miraculous.

Do we have any evidence that any of these three men ever performed a single act that you or I could not perform before a gullible audience?

 

[Cecilie1200]

2) The evidence that they were special is that all three have major religions dedicated to their teachings. How special did you need them to be?

So does L Ron Hubbard.

By special I mean super-human, miraculous.

Do we have any evidence that any of these three men ever performed a single act that you or I could not perform before a gullible audience?

If there was "evidence", it wouldn't be a miracle. It would just be science.

 

[Saigon]

Cecile -

Excellent answer! I guess I have to accept that!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile -

Excellent answer! I guess I have to accept that!

Well, there are several things you have to consider, in your skepticism.

1) There are any number of things that go on every day around us that are truly miraculous, but because they're common - ordinary miracles, you might say - and because science has observed a lot about how they happen, we go "Ho hum" and ignore them, assuming that because science tells us how, that means it has told us why.

2) Lots and lots of people have wandered around throughout history, expounding on their viewpoints and beliefs and trying to gain followers, and most of them never get paid any attention, and of those who DO get attention and followers, nearly all of their "religions" die out right after the "prophet" or "Messiah" or however they style themselves does. Almost none of them manage to produce anything lasting. Jesus, Mohammed, and the various Buddhas (because there have been more than one, although Siddhartha Guatama is generally considered the Supreme Buddha) all managed to start movements that lasted centuries and attracted hundreds of millions of followers long after their deaths. That's pretty freaking amazing, and makes them special, whatever you might think.

3) Usually, the only evidence we have for ANYTHING that anyone did centuries before we existed is exactly the same evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha: eyewitness testimony. Sure, you can go to Europe and see old stone forts littering the landscape, but what evidence do you really have for who built them and how and why? Mostly, you have the testimony of people who claim to have been there. It's up to you how trustworthy you consider those witnesses to have been, and whether or not you WANT to believe what they have to say.

 

[JoeB131]

[



I wasn't talking to you, idiot. YOU ).

Well, it is hard to tell. you are the internet equivlent to a crazy homeless person who screams at lamposts...

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Ignoring what it says in the holy books themselves, what evidence is there that any of these three gentlemen actually walked the earth?

Or, to put it another way, even if they were real people - what evidence is there that they were 'special'?

Probably. But the Jesus that did live didn't look like the blue eyed Anglo that people worship.

In reality he probably looked more like Saddam Hussein.

They were special in the sense they led huge cults.

Jesus probably looked like the guy on the right. And Muhammad may have looked similiar to the man on the left.

 

[there4eyeM]

There would have been witnesses, definitely, but whether they actually saw miracles seems unlikely. Most likely the gopels are allergories, or oral history and stories - they may have had little basis in reality.

Did Jesus really turn water into wine?

I suspect not.

What is the difference between hallucination and perception?

Is this 'too heavy' for anyone to answer?

 

[Unkotare]

[



I wasn't talking to you, idiot. YOU ).

Well, it is hard to tell. you are the internet equivlent to a crazy homeless person who screams at lamposts...

And you are still and forever a faceless nobody hiding under his desk and only daring to mutter under his breath here online about your idiotic Marxist fantasies.

 

[JoeB131]

[



I wasn't talking to you, idiot. YOU ).

Well, it is hard to tell. you are the internet equivlent to a crazy homeless person who screams at lamposts...

And you are still and forever a faceless nobody hiding under his desk and only daring to mutter under his breath here online about your idiotic Marxist fantasies.

Well, at least I can hold down a job...

No doubt, you'll be waiting for the liquor store to open to get your bottle of ripple when you self medicate.

 

[Hollie]

There would have been witnesses, definitely, but whether they actually saw miracles seems unlikely. Most likely the gopels are allergories, or oral history and stories - they may have had little basis in reality.

Did Jesus really turn water into wine?

I suspect not.

What is the difference between hallucination and perception?

Is this 'too heavy' for anyone to answer?

I'll admit, I'm kinda' stuck.

 

[PratchettFan]

The existence of a cult populated by people who would have been aware of whether or not the personality upon which that cult was based ever actually existed is fairly strong evidence. This was not a cult which sprung up far from where the man lived. It was exactly where he lived and the members of the cult were his contemporaries. I simply do not buy the argument that they were somehow confused about his existence. They would have been eye witnesses and they were convinced.

You are free to believe otherwise. However, I see the denial of the existence of the man as pointless.

The problem here is that you have a different definition of "Evidence" than I do.

You have Mark, who wrote in the 2nd century, and got a lot of stuff wrong. He was definitely not a Jew, given his ignorance of Judean Law and Geography.

You have Luke and Matthew, who plagarized Mark (90% of Mark appears in either Luke or Matthew).

You have John Drinking the Bong Water. But as weird as John's Gospel is, most of what we call modern Christianity comes from John.

Now, keep in mind, a visit to a sight like SNOPES.com will show you just how fast bullshit legends can evolve and be believed by millions of people with no evidence. For instance, everyone and his brother will tell you Richard Gere had a gerbil extracted from his rectum, but that simply didn't happen.

No doubt we do have different definitions of evidence. I take into account human nature and don't expect photocopies of birth certificates.

However, you are now in the position of basically denying the existence of the early church. You seem to be of the opinion that it suddenly burst into existence in the 2nd century. That seems a tad odd to me, but to each his own.

 

[PratchettFan]

Probably. But the Jesus that did live didn't look like the blue eyed Anglo that people worship.

In reality he probably looked more like Saddam Hussein.
.

That's true!!

A disturbing thought...but very true.

Why is that disturbing?

 

[Sallow]

Flavius Josephus;
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,—a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; ( Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, section 3).

Interesting you post this. Because most of the people familiar with Josephus writing don't think he wrote this.

They think it was added by Christian Priests.

 

[HUGGY]

Did Jesus, Buddha & Mohammed really exist?
If they didn't post on the internet they didn't.