Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

like i said i dont have it and i cant remember its name

dude, the reports proving jesus existance are in the exact time frame, coinciding with each other on the locations, describing the exact same miricles and some decribing his own commandments, stories and suchlike, it had already been accepted by serious debators on both sides that jesus existed, the only thing thats up for discussions were the miricles

lol, vote ;-)

Says the brownie bandito...

Yeah fair enough I agree that he existed as well; I just think he was a regular Joe that had a lot of fanciful stories written about him after his death. There are crazy stories of magic and miracles from all kinds of famous people back then.

Well, I think the purpose was to discuss like if he had any powers... I'm on mant. Going to fant next era (needed to warm up again after a break from vu).

This is not over, but I'm tired of arguing, so maybe it is.

Right, now we need a post, did Jesus have powers? and make me argue more.  I'm done arguing, I need a cider bottle...

well, since you ask :-p

did he have supernatural powers or performed miracles?

no, he did not ... :-)  not one ...

they fear Harry, because he has better devilish 'powers' ... he can kill God!  and it's a much better story ofcourse ;-)  and true aswell ...

eyewitnesses?

it's 'just' a book?

because jesus has independant reports of the miracles and his existance, other ones are usually just mentioned in their own religious texts

yes, the accounts that has been accepted as proof of jesus existance also describes the miracles he mde, though that part of the miracles is always disputed

other ones are usually just mentioned in their own religious texts

You ever check up on that or are you just randomly putting words together in hopes that no one challenges it lol? Never mind I know the answer to that. What you've said is false, the vast majority of god-men have far more sources claiming their existence than Jesus because their myths have been around longer. What's more is that the vast majority have no holy book. S0o0o0o, I can't say I have any idea where you got the notion you spoke above.

 Are you saying that it is enough to have sources backing them up because if so then you're about to pick up a whole pantheon =p Look at Dionysus. He was a god-man without any official holy book yet was said by the entire Mediterranean to have performed many miracles and there are more sources supporting him than Jesus. Osiris' info was mainly thought to be written on a certain monument in Egypt but then writings from their scribes were found to be referred to by other sources (we had just lost them in fire at Alexandria) We know a lot of what they said though about his rituals and miracles. Augustus was foretold by a pillar of fire (familiar?) and the story is found in a couple ancient sources. Repeated sources trace the lineage of Caesar, and Romulus and Remus (the supposed founders of Rome) back to Aphrodite and Ares. . The list really goes on I assure you.

The worst part is that many stories of gods walking the earth doing this and that exist outside of holy books because holy books were rather rare back then. One of the only holy books to even come out of that period was the New Testament and the information discussing Jesus outside of it is negligible. Essentially, your reasoning for believing in Jesus and not in dozens of other gods actually makes a lot more sense simply turned against you because they ONLY had outside sources and Jesus practically speaking has ONLY his holy book.

So you believe that all those gods and famous men like Augustus had supernatural powers?....

So you believe that all those gods and famous men like Augustus had supernatural powers?....

No...

I've been checking in to some things this afternoon on the ancient sources and it's not looking good so far. I start at some random Christian website that claims ancient evidence of Jesus with quotes like "there was a wise man named Jesus, and he performed many surprising miracles" with a citation to, say, Josephus. I then check my Josephus translated by unbiased publishers and find the quote reading "there was a wise man named Jesus who did many good works." I'm sure you can see how I don't like where this is going. Good works can mean a lot of things, namely his standing up for the poor and oppressed... I don't see miracles in that passage. Also one Christian source says "he appeared three days later restored to life" and the actual translation says "he appeared alive three days later"... doesn't even say he died =p, but he is writing decades after and wasn't a witness himself; he's just repeating a story he heard so I don't  put much stock into his account anyway.

oh really? i forget that? you probably know that they also exagerated a lot? added stuff? changed things? that they all did that?

belief? or denial?

do you think that today, things don't get overexagerated? because people 'believe' in something? can you believe in something, but refute analogies?

if you accept/believe jesus did miracles, then so did all the others before him ... and then what? which one of them would be the 'true' one?

i'll 'vote' for Odin...

un-biased testimony?

it was biased when it was first written, and then lateron it even got worse (when the romans, blablabla ... )

what about those other texts that are found? the church doesn't 'accept' them ... wondering why (because it may contradict what their 'holy bible' says?)

tell your friend a story, let him tell it to someone else, etc ... after a few times check with your original story  ... then imagine this going on for hundreds or thousands of years ... what story could you get?

And another thing: what about psychics today with far more witnesses than Jesus had? Is that not enough to convince you? If not then why? Isn't "proven" even better?

What about those magnetic bracelets that cure athritis? Lots of people come on the ads for those telling you how well they work. Obviously that has lots of witnesses so those must be true as well right?

What about hicks and weirdos in the USA being abducted by aliens? There are hundreds of these people swearing that it's true so then it must be right? Surely several hundred (thousand maybe? I'm not sure) people TODAY saying it is better than a couple dozen people 2k years ago right?

Surely there is something more important than the fact that some people have talked about supernatural things happening. We need something else. You guys wanna say that that thing is faith yet your faith falls on whoever got to you first or else your personal preference. Please for the love of everything great could you be honest with yourselves and everyone else and ask yourself "why?" What really IS this "faith" you have? I have my ideas but I'd love to know what believers think it is (and preferably in doing so come up with anything at all to answer to the things I've said about it).

lol people cant seem to get into their heads that just because someone is born into a religion doesnt mean thats the only reason its still going, there are huge numbers of converts and suchlike to prove that wrong. I say unbiased because the reports are not written by believers of chirstianity, stop using the tired old excues that people only stay with the religion because of birth it just doesnt work anymore

1. yes of course it does, that doesnt necisarily mean its just because of your parents, it just means you have spent a longer time around the religion therefore you have had time to reflect upon it so if someone has been scrutinising their religion all their life and still stick with it they truly believe, not just because they were raised that way.

2. have i ever said i disagree with physics and suchlike, are you even aware of the amount of catholic, jewish, musilim etc physists or scientists there are? I dont see why your talking about physics anyway what bearing does that have upon this?

3. of course people choose religion to fit what ever they beliee to be true/ better fit or w/e its exactly the same with physics, you make an idea that fits with the universe and it becomes a rule, every point of view is based on "whats the best fit for you"

finally i sed that the idea was tired BECAUSE its been used so many times and answered so many times. If a person is raised within a religion sure they will be influenced by it but when someone gets to 20 or 30 then they are capable of really looking at it and as they stick with it it must be true to them.

I wrote "psy-chics", as in people who claim to have psychic powers. I was saying what about fraudulent claims of supernatural things that are supported by hundreds or thousands of people who are naive and ignorant? They have tons of claims, witnesses, supporters etc, right now in our day and age. Most reasonable people know it's all fake but some don't. Also some religious people believe it (I dunno it just seems to go hand in hand if you ask me) but some don't. I was asking then why does anyone believe "spooky stuff" and secondly how can someone think it is false yet still rely on the comparatively scanty evidence for Jesus for example. What makes the bible more reliable than the many people who support psychics (or aliens or bigfoot or magic spells etc)?

Anyway to respond to that stuff you said Kass:
so if someone has been scrutinising their religion all their life and still stick with it they truly believe, not just because they were raised that way.

What about people who were born Shinto, scrutinized it their entire life and stuck with it? Are they just as correct as a Christian who does so? If not then why? If so then how is any religion "right"? If no religion is right then what is the point in it and why should people entertain discussion with religious people who think they are "right"?

of course people choose religion to fit what ever they believe to be true/ better fit or w/e...

Religions attempt to give a complete account of the meaning of existence and everything that came before and will come after. The truth of these questions does not change based on what I choose to believe. How can that fact be responsibly overlooked when speaking of the philosophy of religion?

you make an idea that fits with the universe and it becomes a rule

Now this is just you talking, because no scientist of any kind and only very particular philosophical schools (who are dismissed as extremist and decadent by the rest of the philosophical community) would ever say this. The idea that what I think to be true becomes a law of the universe is absurd.

Mushasji wrote: "it becomes a rule AFTER it has been irrefutably been PROVEN, not sooner, otherwise it's a theory"

Not entirely so. There are no "proofs" in physics, only in mathematics. Scientific theories exist to generate hypotheses which are subject to testing. As a result, such hypotheses may be corroborated (pass the test) or refuted (fail the test). A theory with many corroborated hypotheses and no refuted ones is said to be well supported, but it remains a theory for all eternity, eg. the Theory of Relativity.