Did Jesus really exist?

[BillyP]

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.

John was the last gospel written, a first hand account written by the Apostle John around 90 AD......Luke wrote Luke and Acts.......he was not a disciple, but he was among those with first hand knowledge of Jesus....Matthew and Mark were written by Matthew and Mark, the majority of liberal atheists scholars notwithstanding......for verification, check the link you provided......apparently you were merely off key........

There's no proof that John's gospel was written in his lifetime. Please try again.

 

[BillyP]

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

Santa did exist. Just not the way we portray him today.

Kinda like Jesus?

 

[BillyP]

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.

So you admit you have no clue. It's a start.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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!

why would he have to be over a hundred?......

John was born about the same time as Yeshu and there is much speculation as to when John's books were committed to writing.
I guess he could have been around 80, which would have been a ripe old age back then.

if you guess he would have been 80 why did you say he was over a hundred.......momentary lapse into stupidity?....

 

[BillyP]

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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't threaten to burn the people I love for all eternity because they don't worship me. In fact, I think that sounds a little psychotic.

And now- The Ann and Jeff Show. Which one of these guys deserves to burn in hell for ever and ever?

Ann was a Jewish Girl who didn't accept Jesus into her heart. Probably because guys who believed in Jesus and wore "God's with Us" belt buckles invaded her country and made her hide in an attic for years. Then they found her, sent her to a concentration camp, where she died without accepting Jesus into her soul.

Then you have Jeff. Jeff was a homosexual cannibal who raped, killed and ate 18 young men. But Jeff accepted Jesus into his heart when he went to prison and got baptized, right before a fellow prisoner bashed his skull in.

Hmmmm. Now, if I were a fair and reasonable God, I'd really not burn either one of them, but if given a choice, I'd probably burn Jeff Dahmner before I'd burn Ann Frank.

But I'm not your loving Bible God who seems to be really obsessed about being worshiped.

Chirstian logic. Ann Burns in Hell, Jeffrey gets all his sins forgiven and goes to heaven.

Seriously, how fucked up is that?

The one who was perfect deserves to go to heaven.

and obviously, someone who refuses to even believe in the One who was perfect deserves nothing from Him.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

Santa did exist. Just not the way we portray him today.

And the same is true of Jesus.

true....Jesus is not what YOU portray him to be.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

Santa did exist. Just not the way we portray him today.

The Jesus myth is consistent with other similar myths that existed prior to the advent of Christianity, myths that were clearly appropriated by early Christians for obvious reasons.

except that the other myths you pretend Christianity are like aren't the way you portray them either.....we've seen that over and over and over.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't threaten to burn the people I love for all eternity because they don't worship me. In fact, I think that sounds a little psychotic.

And now- The Ann and Jeff Show. Which one of these guys deserves to burn in hell for ever and ever?


Chirstian logic. Ann Burns in Hell, Jeffrey gets all his sins forgiven and goes to heaven.

Seriously, how fucked up is that?

The one who was perfect deserves to go to heaven.

But that's not Christian Dogma.

Christian Dogma is that Jeff is on a cloud wiht a harp. He took Jesus into his soul.

Ann Probably died cursing Jesus and his Nazi followers. (Keep in mind, the Pope and Hitler were BFF's during the war.)

I certainly see a lot of atheist dogma in your post......no truth unfortunately.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

[

To answer that, Ullyses would have to speculate, and Ullyses knows that JoeB is the king of speculation. JoeB should have made millions or billions by now on the market, as JoeB is the king of speculation.

One answer could be, that John was a really old man when he wrote the Gospel. Anywhere from his early 80's to 94, if you think he wrote it from 85-100 AD.

So you don't have an answer to that, then?

It was a simple question. Why would an author who knew Jesus personally and was part of the story refer to himself in the third person?

Other people who wrote accounts of their life in that time period, like Julius Caesar in the Gallic Wars, used first person to describe themselves.

wtf, you've never read anything where the author places himself in the third person?......do you read often?.....

I read a lot, and I never see that. Sorry.

I doubt that was a literary device in the 1st century.

More likely. John was written by multiple authors, translated several times, and had the name of an apostle assigned to it before it was picked over hundreds of other gospels that were rejected because they didn't toe the party line.

more likely you don't know what the **** you're talking about.....

 

[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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

actually, there's the same proof we have that the document in the National Archives is the original copy of the Constitution......the statements of those who handed it down from generation to generation......

 

[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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

actually, there's the same proof we have that the document in the National Archives is the original copy of the Constitution......the statements of those who handed it down from generation to generation......

That's truly a pointless analogy.

There's nothing in the Constitution that makes appeals to magic or supernaturalism. Why do you feel a need to equate a document written to advance the human condition free of religious compulsion within a collection of tales and fables written by authors who were largely detached from, and not witnesses to the events they only had hearsay information about?

You avoid accountability for these issues when manifest reality would demand that you simply accept facts? Too difficult?

 

[BillyP]

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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

actually, there's the same proof we have that the document in the National Archives is the original copy of the Constitution......the statements of those who handed it down from generation to generation......

At least you admit that you have no proof. It's a start.

PS I don't care who wrote the Constitution and when and where...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No, he didn't really exist. Jews only say he did because we like the challenge his existence presents to our religion. Muslims too. We both love a challenge. (rolls eyes)

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why do you feel a need to equate a document written to advance the human condition free of religious compulsion within a collection of tales and fables written by authors who were largely detached from, and not witnesses to the events they only had hearsay information about?

quite simply, because the question we are currently discussing isn't "how do you feel about what was written in the document", but instead is, "can we believe the document actually existed?".......

that's why its difficult to get straight answers out of you folks.....whenever you get pinned down you pretend the argument is about something completely different.......

You avoid accountability for these issues when manifest reality would demand that you simply accept facts? Too difficult?

far too difficult to accept the "facts" which have manifested themselves to you, yes.....

 

[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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

actually, there's the same proof we have that the document in the National Archives is the original copy of the Constitution......the statements of those who handed it down from generation to generation......

At least you admit that you have no proof. It's a start.

PS I don't care who wrote the Constitution and when and where...

proper etiquette would be for you to say "oh, I lost that argument.....sorry I raised it".......

 

[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!

why would he have to be over a hundred?......

John was born about the same time as Yeshu and there is much speculation as to when John's books were committed to writing.
I guess he could have been around 80, which would have been a ripe old age back then.

if you guess he would have been 80 why did you say he was over a hundred.......momentary lapse into stupidity?....

As opposed to you believing that Yeshu spoke English which is permanent stupidity.

 

[BillyP]

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....

Actually, since the earliest scientifically dated fragment is from John and dated C.125AD, there's no proof that any gospel was written in the person's lifetime.

actually, there's the same proof we have that the document in the National Archives is the original copy of the Constitution......the statements of those who handed it down from generation to generation......

At least you admit that you have no proof. It's a start.

PS I don't care who wrote the Constitution and when and where...

proper etiquette would be for you to say "oh, I lost that argument.....sorry I raised it".......

Why? You actually have proof that any of the gospels were written during that person's lifetime?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As opposed to you believing that Yeshu spoke English which is permanent stupidity.

Yeshua actually. 'Yeshu' is a derogatory form meaning 'he whose name shall be blotted out and forgotten.'

 

[Hollie]

Why do you feel a need to equate a document written to advance the human condition free of religious compulsion within a collection of tales and fables written by authors who were largely detached from, and not witnesses to the events they only had hearsay information about?

quite simply, because the question we are currently discussing isn't "how do you feel about what was written in the document", but instead is, "can we believe the document actually existed?".......

that's why its difficult to get straight answers out of you folks.....whenever you get pinned down you pretend the argument is about something completely different.......

You avoid accountability for these issues when manifest reality would demand that you simply accept facts? Too difficult?

far too difficult to accept the "facts" which have manifested themselves to you, yes.....

As usual, you get angry and emotive when your attempts at argument fail.

If you are unable to distinguish between the self proclaimed "authority" of an ancient text and the self critical "authorities" of the historical record and the scientific process, that would seem to shed some light on explaining the general disconnect between your world view and the actual world.

I have no expectation that you will be honest enough to understand that the percentage of any religious faith that accepts any particular foundational dogma is hardly a basis for deciding whether the dogma is true or not. Given the plethora of gods throughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one imposed upon you is "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. The issues are coincident in that religionists within the same sub-sect dispute the content of their holy texts and they also dispute the interpretation of the content. Although, I suspect that you would be too naïve as to even accept there is such a conflict.