Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

Rule one and two:

§1 Stay on topic

§2 No personal attacks, racism or name calling.

Now cut the crap and grow up.

I've seen that pic yeah; I know what you mean. Keep in mind though that his book was written partway through the 1800's and that it wasn't even very well accepted at the time. Thanks to that, the theory has been critized, reviewed and tested when possible, and after 150years it has finally been accepted by the academic world. It isn't like the world jumped on the banwagon as soon as the idea came out; the theory has gone through a lot of research and review and now in its latest form is pretty much solid.

 Some people say that there is an ongoing academic debate about the general principles behind evolution but they should know it isn't quite like that. There has been at least one study I'm aware of (that I'm having a little trouble tracking down again) that took a poll of this thread of scientific research. Its conclusion was that the only academic groups offering any argument against evolution were from a handful of small, (but very well funded and politically backed) American, Christian colleges. The "debate" isn't going on in any other country and even within the USA it is only religious schools protesting.

Implications? Well one might take that to mean these schools are the only ones searching for alternatives, but lets not forget what science is about. The theories are examined all around the world by scientists who have many religious people among their ranks. I don't know the demographics, but likely just as the general population scientists should have a large percentage who are religious. So here we have responsible academics doing their best to publish their findings, as they found them, regardless of their pre-formed ideas (whether religious or not) on the outcome. And what is the concensus found by Christian and non-Christian scientists alike? Well, evolution as we all know. Of course we can't believe everything we read in the paper, so to speak, but I've spent some time in a scientific environment. I've developed a lot of trust in these people to report their findings as they found them whether religious or not and so yes I throw my chips in with science on this one. To me the truth is not the gamble, mind you, the matter of which view will prevail in the USA is what I'm not sure about. Lucky the rest of the world has already settled it within themselves.

that is not far from the truth, all though there are more religius people then the christians in this world, that also protest against this theory.

Fair enough, I guess I mispoke. I didn't mean to insinuate that Christians are the only ones who oppose the theory. I meant to say that it is Christian organisations which are actually publishing articles etc. This is pretty well entirely due to funding from conservative politicians and groups in the USA sending cash to people whom it is in their interest to support.

when most of the world is working and learning that the theory is the truth, then its not many people that are trying to find the real trut

I think what you're saying is that there are not enough people trying to disprove the theory since it has become popular opinion that it is true. This is a decent point to consider, but consider this as well: you and I aren't the first to realise there can be a bias. Researchers of every kind are fully aware of the possibility of bias and go through hoops to rule it out of their work. The entire basis of modern science, as any real scientist keeps in mind, is that when performing a study we do not come to conclusions first. We come up with a hypothesis (an informed guess, based on proven principles, which is TESTABLE to be true or false) and only draw conclusions afterwards. This is much different from starting off saying "There is an ark out there (conclusion); now let's go find an ark out there (research)." The great thing about this strategy is it eliminates bias and even in the case of a hypothesis being wrong the research still gives us lots of information because it was proven wrong, not just not shown to be true (in at least one type of experimental design, not all work this way). It's a finer point but it is always taken seriously by true (most) scientists.

and only a few is trying to find errors with it

My above point tries to show how this just isn't how it goes. Each individual (proper) scientist is simultaneously testing to prove OR disprove it depending on how their research turns out. Any scientist trying to prove it is true or trying to prove it isn't has no place calling themself a scientist. What's more is to the trained eye, it become immediately obvious that this is happening when you actually look at how a particular study is conducted. This is the reason the academic community takes such a harshe attitude towards this small circle of religious colleges in the USA; they have been shown by their peers in science (again, often religious themselves) to be biased and not to be taken seriously.

i wish to one day stand in front of God and ask him all this questions

I understand your sentiment. The more we search for answers the more we find questions =p

allmost every media avoide comments on the matter of healing and things that can prove that its more out there then most of us know

You find a problem with it? I do too but I find these stories are OVERrepresented in media =p I say this because if you look at the numbers of people who go to supposed miracle sites (I mean ones actually sanctioned by churches, not just like some guy with a travelling show that supposedly heals people) then we find some interesting stats. Usually these sites attract in the thousands (and for older, better known sites) millions of people EACH YEAR. When we look at how many of these people ever experience a miracle it is never any more than a perfectly normal percentage of people healing spontaneously. Blind people, for example,(who usually are not blind at all, but just have awful sight) do tend to have peaks and valleys and some heal up somewhat on their own. Check that percent against the number of miracles and the numbers match. Same with cancer and one type of diabetes and the list goes on. In fact I saw something I thought was funny on a show that they debunk myths. They took one random site, a super-popular miracle site devoted to Mary in I think Italy. They ran the math and (just due to random chance) it turned out that the numbers said you were actually LESS likely to recover spontaneously by visiting the site. They knew it was just a mathmatical glitch that wouldn't show up at other sites but it was still funny.

Anyway though by all means I say continue with the paper. People can not have intelligent discussion of an issue without research. Yours will just add to this, but remember to do the world a favor: if your research turns out that really there doesn't seem to be anything magical going on, go forward and spread the word of your findings with just as much passion as you would have had you found what you wanted to find. That's what responsible research is all about =p

i would rather believe that Jesus existed, and open my eyes to what he does, instead of i would rather believe that Jesus existed, and open my eyes to what he does, instead of wasting time on a theori that is based on a lie."

And I hate to repeat myself on something but I find I must add: I have whitnessed a field of study (ancient history) which tells me that religious belief is based on a lie (that Jesus was a god-man). So I guess if there was a problem with believing in conclusions based on false premises (which is the case here) then I guess it is equally "wasting time on a theori that is based on a lie." to use the bible as a source of religion. I know some people don't like to hear this stuff, and I didn't like finding it out myself, but I really checked it out =/

Me as well, in Spain it is a popular name for men

Well, good luck.  There have been cases that have long been dismissed by the scientific community that have been documented and found to be possible, ie hypnosis, self-anasthesia, etc.  Just make sure you don't jump the gun and say "God!" when you have conclusive results:  the natural must be completely investigated before the supernatural can be considered.

yes and no

Jesus is real, but I'm tired of explaining and this is cutting down on my pie eatting time.

Set...down...the...pie!

And yeah, the evidence is a bit lacking atm.

is it supernatural because we can't explain it (yet)?

okei, just wanted to know;) and yes Mushasji, for most people it is^^

but for me its the truth=)

but how do you explain all those fi*beep*hings, like healing?

Natural spontaneous healing. Sometimes cancer goes away on it's own and that's a big one. Many other problems can work themselves out over time. As for an old man with a sore foot who hops out of the church big deal I guess, people with pains have good days and bad days. Ask anyone with a back problem.

I dunno about that, cuz if you do your study thinger and you actually really look into it, there should be an answer one way or the other. Especially if you manage to get info on a lot of cases.

there was something on tv about 'lourdes' (france), it had to do with healings, supposedly by mary  (i was just zapping, so didn't completely see it, but it was some new report/documentary ... i'm not sure but i think 'the church' doesn't really accept those healings as 'miraculeus' (like i said, i didn't see the whole thing))

Yes, Jesus exists.

All humans make tools and homes that prevent natural selection from working towards certain things. Put it this way, in the cultures who live in those climates, they have had for centuries many ways of coping with the cold and are really good at it now. Because of these tools and homes, an extremely hairy man is no more likely to survive than a regular man... like it just doesn't skew the statistics of his living or dying.

Since his odds of survival aren't affected positively it means genes from hairy people won't pass down any more than genes from non-hairy people. If the genes don't have any particular advantage then they won't become dominant over time and man won't become furry in the polar regions. Evolution is all about mutations which happen by chance to make one animal survive over another and over time the new trait becomes the norm because people without the new trait don't last as long. See what I mean?

Your text was either written by someone who wasn't using his critical thinking skills or it was written to show each theory and the "most common objections to it" not "the most reasonable objections to it." I hate that you are being taught creationism in a science class btw.... Even the textbook you're using isn't responsible. If you are interested in stuff I recommend getting yourself a book published in a country other than the USA.

i have 2 things to say... if we evolved for millions of years then why don't we keep evolving? and the other thing i read in a book comparing creationism and evolution  and the author was on evolutions sides but in the book he talked about the grand canyon and how it as made over millions of years. he gave pictures about how fish evolved and one thing i saw was modern day fish are in the very top of the grand canyon. if fish were supposed to evolve and the Colorado river was at the top of the grand canyon before fish evolved into modern day fish then how come A MODERN DAY FISH is at the top of where the first fish are supposed to be?

if you trust the evolutionary side then no, we are not evolving, evolution comes about by natural selection and suchlike, with todays modern medicines and ways of keeping ill people alive we do not evolve when we reproduce.

" if we evolved for millions of years then why don't we keep evolving?"

Who says we're not?

"he gave pictures about how fish evolved and one thing i saw was modern day fish are in the very top of the grand canyon. if fish were supposed to evolve and the Colorado river was at the top of the grand canyon before fish evolved into modern day fish then how come A MODERN DAY FISH is at the top of where the first fish are supposed to be?"

Another misconception.  Sometimes the best way for an animal to survive is by NOT changing (especially when the environment does not change.)  For example, we still have many of the same kind of insects and sea creatures around as when the dinosaurs were alive.

the thing is though that this discussion is about did jesus exist and yes he did cause there are several  other documents then the bible that were written around his time and they prove it...

there are several  other documents then the bible that were written around his time and they prove it...

They don't talk about Christ, they talk about other guys. If you check out those authors you'll see for yourself. There are 4 sources btw (who I could name but I presume the people who believe that know exactly who and have read it themselves right?), and they all mention "the anointed one" which is like saying "the holy man", and given the part of the world they were talking about (with hundreds of holy men running around the streets preaching) it cannot responsibly be assumed to be talking about Jesus in particular. Not every Xristos was Jesus Christ and they only become him when the wrong translator gets ahold of them.

. and actually studies show that people was larger before, cause of the air that has changed over the last 6000 years.

Ermm, where did you hear that anyway? I mean maybe there is such a study but I've only ever heard of people being smaller in the past. It even matches up with modern data that shows taller people get married more and have more children....(this would be a social thing, obviously).

They don't talk about Christ, they talk about other guys.

dude there are lots of other books that do you just have to look for the right ones. the books you have aren't the right ones.

They don't talk about Christ, they talk about other guys.
 its true it doesnt actually say christs name but they do define him by the "miracles" he made, i.e a few of them are abotu when he fed the masses, wether or not you believe them is another thing but they do conclusively show its the same person each time

dude you still don't have the right books! are you even checking every single book? there was a book that mentioned him but i don have and i cant remember its name