Did Jesus really exist?

[PostmodernProph]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

??...you have evidence none of the gospel writers met Jesus?.....never mind, I know you just made it up....

 

[sealybobo]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

??...you have evidence none of the gospel writers met Jesus?.....never mind, I know you just made it up....

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD.

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.

Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,

The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,

You've been played playa.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Wow! Out of 20 people and not one person voted that Jesus was the Lord? OMG it is only a matter of a couple hundred years and all the current religions are going to be reduced to cults and the bible belt in the deep ignorant south. I love it that not 1 in those 20 said they believed Jesus was lord. I think the gig is up on this bogus religion.

I know it hurts Christians feelings but they need our help. They are brainwashed and they are the ones that need to hear the truth.

Sorry, but I don't know who Jay-A-Zus is. If there was some respect shown in the poll, then the numbers might actually reflect the consensus. It's much like most liberal polls. Just make up silly things then pass them off as fact.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

??...you have evidence none of the gospel writers met Jesus?.....never mind, I know you just made it up....

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD.

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.

Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,

The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,

You've been played playa.

You might want to pull your pants up, for your ignorance is showing.

All of this information, comes from the NASB study Bible, which most universities use in their studies. So, it's a college textbook.

The Book of Matthew, was written by Matthew, as early as 50 AD, or as late as the 70s AD.

The Book of Mark, was written by John Mark, composed from the 50s or early 60s AD or as late as 70 AD.

The Book of Luke, was written by the Doctor Luke, as was the Acts of the Apostles. The commonly suggested periods for writing is 59-63 AD. Acts was written in 63 AD.

The Book of John, was written by John the disciple. And was written perhaps as early as the 50's AD and no later than 70 AD. OR(there are 2 separate views regarding this Gospel), around 85 AD, the first view is what recent Bible scholars believe.

The Book of Revelation, written by John, and most scholars date the book at 95AD.

The latest books of the Bible I could find would be dated around 105AD, a far cry from 150 AD.

Matthew and John both knew Jesus, Luke may have heard Him, but there is no account of him ever meeting Jesus, firsthand, and Mark was a close friends of Peter's, it is not told when the 2 met or if Mark ever met or even saw Jesus.

Now, you can argue all you want, but this is what is taught in universities all over the world.

By the way, you just got schooled, playa!

 

[Hollie]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

??...you have evidence none of the gospel writers met Jesus?.....never mind, I know you just made it up....

??... you have evidence that any of the authors of any of the bibles are speaking on behalf of the gods?

I know you just made that up....

 

[JoeB131]

There's no actual proof that Jesus existed. Kinda like Santa Claus.

You mean besides eye witness accounts

And people don't Martyr themselves for Santa Claus

What Eyewitness accounts?

Paul never met Jesus and neither did any of the Gospel writers.

So they are all second hand accounts.

??...you have evidence none of the gospel writers met Jesus?.....never mind, I know you just made it up....

Um actually, Luke says he never met Jesus. Some have claimed Matthew did, but then why would he need to plagarize Mark so heavily.

I mean, you guys really are invested in your Imaginary friend, aren't you?

 

[JoeB131]

[Q

Matthew and John both knew Jesus, Luke may have heard Him, but there is no account of him ever meeting Jesus, firsthand, and Mark was a close friends of Peter's, it is not told when the 2 met or if Mark ever met or even saw Jesus.

Now, you can argue all you want, but this is what is taught in universities all over the world.

By the way, you just got schooled, playa!

If Matthew Met Jesus, then why did he plagarize so much material off of Mark?

94% of Mark's Gospel is repeated in Matthews.

Matthew and Luke are both about 45% Mark's gospel, 25% of a Gospel known as "Q" - mostly quotations attributed to Jesus. The rest is added material, including the contradictory nativity stories that place Jesus' birth 10 years apart.

John's Gospel was the last one written, well after John could have possibly lived had he been a contemporary of Jesus.

 

[Dot Com]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

he may have existed but wasn't a sky pixie as organized religion would like everyone to believe.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

[Q

Matthew and John both knew Jesus, Luke may have heard Him, but there is no account of him ever meeting Jesus, firsthand, and Mark was a close friends of Peter's, it is not told when the 2 met or if Mark ever met or even saw Jesus.

Now, you can argue all you want, but this is what is taught in universities all over the world.

By the way, you just got schooled, playa!

If Matthew Met Jesus, then why did he plagarize so much material off of Mark?

94% of Mark's Gospel is repeated in Matthews.

Matthew and Luke are both about 45% Mark's gospel, 25% of a Gospel known as "Q" - mostly quotations attributed to Jesus. The rest is added material, including the contradictory nativity stories that place Jesus' birth 10 years apart.

John's Gospel was the last one written, well after John could have possibly lived had he been a contemporary of Jesus.

According to some scholars, they think Matthew might have been written before Mark, or at possibly the same time.

It's interesting how you call it plagiarizing, when in fact, if they both were around, they would have both seen the same things. That would account for many of the similarities. (if 3 people attend a football game and 1 of the 3 is rooting for the losing team, the stories of the two that were rooting for the winning team could be similar, though, the story of the losing team, will probably be told in a different view). So if Matthew, Mark(who never said he didn't see Jesus, we just have no evidence to suggest he did), and Luke all saw the sermon's that Jesus taught, that would explain the quotes of what Jesus said.

Many scholars suggest that Mark was a friend of Peter's, but no timetable is given to how long they were friends, or whether Mark ever even saw Jesus, so most arguments about Mark, are un-provable either way.

And even using the latest date John wrote his Gospel, which would be around 55 years after the death of Jesus, would put him at approximately 75-85 years old when he wrote it, thus he could be a contemporary of Jesus.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

he may have existed but wasn't a sky pixie as organized religion would like everyone to believe.

You are totally correct!

He existed.
He was not a sky pixie
Most organized religions don't believe in Him.

Hey, you are 3 for 3.

He was the Son of God.(God made flesh, God the Son, Lamb of God, Perfect Sacrifice, Etc. Etc. Etc.)
He was crucified and rose the 3rd day.
Christianity if the organized religion that believes in Him.

Now, I am 3 for 3 also.

 

[Indeependent]

Jews do NOT believe in the Christian Satan.
The word Sah-Tahn means "adversary".
Sah-Tahn is mentioned briefly in Job as a messenger of God, no more, no less.
And no, we do not know if Job was an allegory or actually occurred.

Satan, a transliterated word, has the primary meaning of Slanderer.

Slanderer was slandering Job.

Satan is not a messenger of God.

Simple answer to this statement...Read the chapter.

 

[Indeependent]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

 

[JoeB131]

[
According to some scholars, they think Matthew might have been written before Mark, or at possibly the same time.

Actually, no scholars believe that.

[
It's interesting how you call it plagiarizing, when in fact, if they both were around, they would have both seen the same things. That would account for many of the similarities. (if 3 people attend a football game and 1 of the 3 is rooting for the losing team, the stories of the two that were rooting for the winning team could be similar, though, the story of the losing team, will probably be told in a different view). So if Matthew, Mark(who never said he didn't see Jesus, we just have no evidence to suggest he did), and Luke all saw the sermon's that Jesus taught, that would explain the quotes of what Jesus said.

Um, no. It really wouldn't account for how whole passages were lifted verbatim. Or how Matthew and Luke could both produce the "Q" Gospel passages working independently.

What makes the most sense is Mark was written first, right after the destruction of the Temple. Luke and Matthew took Mark and the "Q" Gospel, and did a "fan-fic" treatment that added stories to reflect their own biases.

[
Many scholars suggest that Mark was a friend of Peter's, but no timetable is given to how long they were friends, or whether Mark ever even saw Jesus, so most arguments about Mark, are un-provable either way.

The story I was told in my Catholic Upbringing was that Mark and Luke were followers of Paul.

[
And even using the latest date John wrote his Gospel, which would be around 55 years after the death of Jesus, would put him at approximately 75-85 years old when he wrote it, thus he could be a contemporary of Jesus.

First, almost no one lived to be 75 or 85 even with the best of medical care, much less spending his life in exile on a small island, as Tradition says of John. And most traditions show the Gospel of John having been written closer to 100 AD.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

Scholars believe Matthew and John were! As both were Apostles.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

[
According to some scholars, they think Matthew might have been written before Mark, or at possibly the same time.

Actually, no scholars believe that.

[
It's interesting how you call it plagiarizing, when in fact, if they both were around, they would have both seen the same things. That would account for many of the similarities. (if 3 people attend a football game and 1 of the 3 is rooting for the losing team, the stories of the two that were rooting for the winning team could be similar, though, the story of the losing team, will probably be told in a different view). So if Matthew, Mark(who never said he didn't see Jesus, we just have no evidence to suggest he did), and Luke all saw the sermon's that Jesus taught, that would explain the quotes of what Jesus said.

Um, no. It really wouldn't account for how whole passages were lifted verbatim. Or how Matthew and Luke could both produce the "Q" Gospel passages working independently.

What makes the most sense is Mark was written first, right after the destruction of the Temple. Luke and Matthew took Mark and the "Q" Gospel, and did a "fan-fic" treatment that added stories to reflect their own biases.

[
Many scholars suggest that Mark was a friend of Peter's, but no timetable is given to how long they were friends, or whether Mark ever even saw Jesus, so most arguments about Mark, are un-provable either way.

The story I was told in my Catholic Upbringing was that Mark and Luke were followers of Paul.

[
And even using the latest date John wrote his Gospel, which would be around 55 years after the death of Jesus, would put him at approximately 75-85 years old when he wrote it, thus he could be a contemporary of Jesus.

First, almost no one lived to be 75 or 85 even with the best of medical care, much less spending his life in exile on a small island, as Tradition says of John. And most traditions show the Gospel of John having been written closer to 100 AD.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you knew all Bible scholars.

Sorry you were brought up Catholic, you were sorely mislead!

And I'm not worried about tradition, I focus on what scholars believe, I actually think they know more than I do, and more than you do too.

 

[Indeependent]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

Scholars believe Matthew and John were! As both were Apostles.

Link to a reputable scholar?
John lived to be over a 100?
God bless him!

 

[JoeB131]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

Scholars believe Matthew and John were! As both were Apostles.

No, Scholars don't believe that. Scholars believe that the names were assigned to these Gospels decades after they were written, possibly my multiple authors.

 

[JoeB131]

[Q
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you knew all Bible scholars.

Sorry you were brought up Catholic, you were sorely mislead!

And I'm not worried about tradition, I focus on what scholars believe, I actually think they know more than I do, and more than you do too.

Yeah, the Catholics were getting it wrong for 1500 years before you protestants showed up and showed us how to do it "right".

Not because some Fat, Horny King wanted to get rid of his infertile wife.

Pictured- Chick Magnet!

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

Scholars believe Matthew and John were! As both were Apostles.

Link to a reputable scholar?
John lived to be over a 100?
God bless him!

Even Wiki lists him at 94. From 6-100 AD
John the Apostle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I am not sure what you want, as far as reputable scholar, though, there are several hundred sites I could link to. Some from Christian sites, some from atheist sites, some from other sites.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The Gospel According to {X} is called The Gospel ACCORDING to {X}, NOT The Gospel Of {X} or The Gospel WRITTEN by {X}.
The Gospels were NOT written by the Apostles.

Scholars believe Matthew and John were! As both were Apostles.

No, Scholars don't believe that. Scholars believe that the names were assigned to these Gospels decades after they were written, possibly my multiple authors.

Yes they do!