Did Jesus really exist?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be


When one reads anything in the bible, he is reading something written my man, unsupported, undocumented, devoid of evidence, and consequently irrelevant.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

What most theists continue to fail to understand – or more likely refuse to understand – is that their bible is in no way 'evidence' of the existence of 'god,' 'heaven,' or 'Jesus' as some sort of demigod.


The bible was written by men, it is consequently irrelevant, where it's ridiculous for theists to cite bible passages as 'proof' of anything.

Why would you think Christians believe the Bible to be 'proof' of God?

We have faith, something that you, nor anyone else can touch.

The Bible is a book.
The most printed book in the history of the world.
The most translated book in the history of the world.
The most read book in the history of the world.
The most quoted book in the history of the world.
And the most important book in the history of the world.

If you can prove any of these things wrong , I would love to show your ignorance to you.

God proves Himself in far more ways, to each individual, than by reading a book, even if it is His book. Christians regard the Bible as the rulebook, not the proof.

 

[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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

Uh...No.

Who is God s Suffering Servant The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 Outreach Judaism
Scripture referring to the Children of Israel in the singular.

 

[Hollie]

What most theists continue to fail to understand – or more likely refuse to understand – is that their bible is in no way 'evidence' of the existence of 'god,' 'heaven,' or 'Jesus' as some sort of demigod.


The bible was written by men, it is consequently irrelevant, where it's ridiculous for theists to cite bible passages as 'proof' of anything.

Why would you think Christians believe the Bible to be 'proof' of God?

We have faith, something that you, nor anyone else can touch.

The Bible is a book.
The most printed book in the history of the world.
The most translated book in the history of the world.
The most read book in the history of the world.
The most quoted book in the history of the world.
And the most important book in the history of the world.

If you can prove any of these things wrong , I would love to show your ignorance to you.

God proves Himself in far more ways, to each individual, than by reading a book, even if it is His book. Christians regard the Bible as the rulebook, not the proof.

What you fail to realize is that Islam has perfected your false religion.

How do we know? Mo' said so. Mo' heard second hand from the gods per the angel Gabriel.

Can you can prove any of these things wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What most theists continue to fail to understand – or more likely refuse to understand – is that their bible is in no way 'evidence' of the existence of 'god,' 'heaven,' or 'Jesus' as some sort of demigod.


The bible was written by men, it is consequently irrelevant, where it's ridiculous for theists to cite bible passages as 'proof' of anything.

Why would you think Christians believe the Bible to be 'proof' of God?

We have faith, something that you, nor anyone else can touch.

The Bible is a book.
The most printed book in the history of the world.
The most translated book in the history of the world.
The most read book in the history of the world.
The most quoted book in the history of the world.
And the most important book in the history of the world.

If you can prove any of these things wrong , I would love to show your ignorance to you.

God proves Himself in far more ways, to each individual, than by reading a book, even if it is His book. Christians regard the Bible as the rulebook, not the proof.

What you fail to realize is that Islam has perfected your false religion.

How do we know? Mo' said so. Mo' heard second hand from the gods per the angel Gabriel.

Can you can prove any of these things wrong?

Pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam – all merely variations on the same man-made theme: man's response to his fear of death, his ignorance of a strange and terrifying world, and his desire to subjugate his fellow man, the consequence of man's ignorance and hate.


Religion and 'god' are creations of man, as there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, where it is solely the responsibility of theists to prove otherwise – and failing that, the fact that 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists remains a fact.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What most theists continue to fail to understand – or more likely refuse to understand – is that their bible is in no way 'evidence' of the existence of 'god,' 'heaven,' or 'Jesus' as some sort of demigod.


The bible was written by men, it is consequently irrelevant, where it's ridiculous for theists to cite bible passages as 'proof' of anything.

and what atheists continue to fail to understand, is that we have no intention of ever providing them with proof.....either accept without proof or reject it.....just stop whining about it........

 

[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.......

But dogmatically, which one did I get wrong.

the full list?.....let's see....
clouds, harps, the assumption that Jeff believed, the assumption Ann cursed Jesus, Nazis following Jesus, Pope/Hitler BFF......I think that's everything for that post.....

Clouds and Harps are a metaphor. The real heaven involves kissing God's ass for all eternity. Oh, joy.

I have no reason to doubt that Jeff's conversion in prison was sincere.

I have no reason to doubt that Ann probably cursed Jesus when the Nazis said shit like "Jews, you are being punished for murdering Christ".

Yes, the Nazis were Christians. And, yes, Pope Pius XII was pro-Nazi.

as I said.....atheist dogma.....I prefer facts.....

Then why do you follow the bible?

oh that was clever....did you see what he did there?.....he implied he knew what the fuck he was talking about......

 

[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?....

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

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

Uh...No.

Who is God s Suffering Servant The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 Outreach Judaism
Scripture referring to the Children of Israel in the singular.

interesting isogesis

 

[Hollie]

What most theists continue to fail to understand – or more likely refuse to understand – is that their bible is in no way 'evidence' of the existence of 'god,' 'heaven,' or 'Jesus' as some sort of demigod.


The bible was written by men, it is consequently irrelevant, where it's ridiculous for theists to cite bible passages as 'proof' of anything.

and what atheists continue to fail to understand, is that we have no intention of ever providing them with proof.....either accept without proof or reject it.....just stop whining about it........

And what you extremists don't understand is that making claims to magic and supernaturalism will always be subordinate to facts and reason.

So yeah, stop whining when your claims, amounting to ".... because I say so", are dismissed as so much whining.

 

[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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

Uh...No.

Who is God s Suffering Servant The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 Outreach Judaism
Scripture referring to the Children of Israel in the singular.

interesting isogesis

Yes. Reading something into a verse hundreds of years, or even 1,000 years, after it's revelation in order to fit Yeshua is definitely isogesis.

 

[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!

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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

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.

???....why would you think I believed Jesus spoke English?.....

So I put forth to you the same challenge I put forth to Archer...
Learn a bit of Hebrew, read the Bible from Genesis onwards and catch all the mistranslations and misquotes the Romans implemented to conquer the world's tribute.
I did notice your silence when Archer and I had our exchange.
Especially the Isaiah 53:8 nonsense the Church conjured up.

When you look at Isaiah 53, you can see that it is talking about a man, or more precisely, the Messiah, there is no way, it can be interpreted as a nation, no matter how much your Rabbis want it to be

Uh...No.

Who is God s Suffering Servant The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 Outreach Judaism
Scripture referring to the Children of Israel in the singular.

interesting isogesis

Yes. Reading something into a verse hundreds of years, or even 1,000 years, after it's revelation in order to fit Yeshua is definitely isogesis.

So, where in the Torah does it say that money is ok to replace blood as a sacrifice?

 

[Genevieve]

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.

If he didn't exist, maybe it doesn't matter because enough people believed he did to make our calendar years coincide with the approximate time of his birth.

I believe he did exist.
But of course, everyone gets to decide what they believe...........and I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else what to believe.

 

[Indeependent]

"So, where in the Torah does it say that money is ok to replace blood as a sacrifice?"

I think you are reverse engineering TNT's obsession with blood into the Torah.
The Torah has no undue obsession with sacrifices.
The main purpose of sacrifices was to get people to visit the Temple and eat with other people they never met before.
It was sort of a communal get together.
In fact, without the sacrifices, the Kohanim would have starved.

Let's be a bit more disciplined about sacrifices.
There are many categories...
The Passover offering.
A peace offering.
A completely burnt offering.
A sin offering for an ACCIDENTAL sin that COULD have been avoided.
An offering if you're no sure you committed an accidental sin.
A dough offering.
A bird offering.
And a good deal more.

There is NO sacrifice for a sin committed on purpose.

The paradigm of TNT does NOT exist in TJS.
And this is the problem with starting life off with the Gospel According To Matthew rather than Genesis.

 

[MaxGrit]

and what atheists continue to fail to understand, is that we have no intention of ever providing them with proof.....either accept without proof or reject it.....just stop whining about it........

lol yeah they going to have forever in Hell as proof

 

[JoeB131]

and what atheists continue to fail to understand, is that we have no intention of ever providing them with proof.....either accept without proof or reject it.....just stop whining about it........

lol yeah they going to have forever in Hell as proof

Yup, because a loving God burns people forever for not believing in him.

 

[Hollie]

and what atheists continue to fail to understand, is that we have no intention of ever providing them with proof.....either accept without proof or reject it.....just stop whining about it........

lol yeah they going to have forever in Hell as proof

I'm just not surprised at how hate, resentment and even self-hate are so often attributes of the hyper-religious.

 

[BillyP]

as I said.....atheist dogma.....I prefer facts.....

Then why do you follow the bible?

oh that was clever....did you see what he did there?.....he implied he knew what the fuck he was talking about......

What's the matter, you have no real answer to my question? You prefer facts? Here's one: the bible is fiction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus is The Lord and the overwhelming historical evidence is clear that he did exist in a physical form here on earth.

Really. What historical evidence is that? gospels that can't even agree when he lived?

Tacitus (ca. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (The Annals xv.44).

Just one small example. Need more? Oh that's "Christ" BTW as in Jesus...Christ.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in hisAnnals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

 

[sealybobo]

[

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.

Oh that explains everything except the fact that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

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 think Christians have had plenty of time to prove themselves and clearly they did not do a good job. Just look at America. How many wars have we had since the War of Independence? We're always at war and we are a Christian nation.

How have we done with healthcare and poverty?

U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News