Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

I think he existed but didn't do all the stuff he did in the Bible, I think that his "Miricales" where stories used to convert the masses by the early Roman-Catholic Church.

(BTW, just to clear things up I am Catholic and do worship Jesus)

;-)

it has been proven by 3 (non bible related) texts that jesus did exist, only the belief in the miricles he did are under contention (yes im a cathylik 2)

.......what?

well said

well the main root of santa IS real lol, st nick used to go round putting presents in poor childrens shoes, though i have to admit the big fat dude in red is a little bit warped from the original xD

Yes he is! I saw him last year on the beach, taking a bath with a couple chicks. His red nose was brownish, thou.

He told me. He speaks seven human languages and has a masters grade in physics. That is how he makes Santaīs sleigh fly.

As a person the chance that Jesus is very high, historic texts, and I don't mean the pseudo word of god called the Bible, exist that point at Jesus being real. But that's not to say that Jesus is the son of god or anything, he was just a guy with a ideas way ahead of his time.

"Errrr...   Minge, that was completely... stupid, as well as blasphemous"

It's only blasphemous only if you believe Jesus is the son of god.

Actually it was pretty damn funny, to bad Swifty didn't want to really get flamed and removed the best one. The Jesus '*beep*ing' Christ, that one I laughed my *beep* off when I first saw it.

...

oldman, you don't have to hurt his feelings ... if that's what he believes ...

:-p

wtf , don't back to these things , yes he exist

happy now

and people will say now :

1. give a proof ?
2. tell us more ?
3. your a lier , cuz you didn't witness and see him ? and you belive in myths
4. bla bla bla , i am an atheist , marx told me that these thingswill be said and so i must ignore this , cuz we are made out of matter .

oh come on grow up , for god sake (and i know you don't belive in him) just shut up , your just increasing your suffering in hell .

what i am saying ? i am talking to myself in these threads .

Sir Iwasfrozen VI , leave abydos , and face me . man to man with no kingdoms

1. if jesus would never exist then people won't be beliving in him just years since he dies .
2. jesus is no son of god , he is just a messanger to transport a message from god to jews ; i made your life suck with my excosting rules , i am now want to make your relgion easier . ( jews rules by tora is so defficalt to be done , you can't eat somthing came from animals with somthing came from plants . even each of those have it's own plate ) and many more exosting rule god put on them cuz they were so bad .
3. no i havn't , i live in the 21cen , and i wish i wasn't . but quran said many many things about messiah son of marry . ( old names was created by 2 names , your name and your father , like my name  * mohamad son of muhannad , i use my father name , but quran made jesus greater , since he have no father , messiah son of marry .
4. stupid marx will have the wrong of all atheist , cuz he created that relgion , he won't survive with his own wrong actions , i wonder how he will when more than 1 hunder million persons wrong will put on his scale .

happy now

no it's sence

how do you know moses exists ? cuz ther is jews .

how do you know mohamad exists ? cuz ther is muslims .

how do you know that jesus exists ? cuz 25-30% of the world are christions .

Atheism is the belief that their is no God, rather they believe (on faith) that the world happened some other way. Therefore, it is a religion, (in, admittedly, the loosest sense of the word.) in that atheist's believe in evolution as the creating force, that caused us all to be here.

From Encarta;
"a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by"
Evolutionists believe that we came to being through evolution, and Atheists (who are almost always evolutionists) believe, strongly, that there is no God.

Atheism isn't a religion in any kind of way, not unless you think the laws of physics are some kind of god. That said evolutionists aren't necessarily atheists, there are many who believe in some sort of god, regardless of how you name it, so they are very much deists.

okay , let me say

i wonder how the only thing you noticed from my saying is that atheist is a relgion . how an interesting people you are !

Come on! Donīt fight about this. There are some things nobody can proof, and thus people rely on faith. Nobody should care if you think Jesus, or Mohammad, or Buddha is the real god, except for you. Get over this!

There may have been a guy called Jesus but none of the stories about him are true. He got the same water-wine walking on water coming back from the dead fairy tale that half a dozen other guys had at that time. His birthday celebration is a far more ancient germanic-roman day of pagan worship.

If Jesus existed it doesn't matter because he was just some guy who repeated a bunch of philosophies that other guys said way before him. What's more is that his being the son of God is a fairy tale because God is a fairy tale just like leperchauns and aliens and ghosts.

Evolutionists hold that we can be pretty darn confident in our beliefs when they are backed by good solid evidence. The religious believe things without evidence by using faith or rationalism based on false premises.

 If the "religious scientists" really understood the difference between religion and science they would pack up and go home. The very religious fight with a ferocity directly proportional to the evidence weighed against them. Deep down inside, a certain proportion of religious people know they are fooling themselves and fight anyway, every bit as hard as the ones who truly don't know any better. A certain percentage, within the previous particular proportion of them, will someday stop fighting and accept reality that there is no such thing as magic. These are the people I try to reach when I debate against God, not the ones who have no potential to ever see the truth.

This is written in a horribly dry (and WILL be taken as offencive) tone due to space-restrictions; I got straight to my points because a guy could write volumes if he didn't =p

LMAO at Swifty
First time I saw those awhile back I lost it at the Cyber and BRB one :D

I'm usually not so mean... but.... you're *beep*ed up.

Also, can you present one piece of solid, irrefutable piece of evidence supporting evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

all of those articles have multiple dozen of references for your pursual.

Sloth, those articles contain no facts that support the entire theory of evolution, they merely report the small visible improvements between animals. First off, all documented improvements are from losses or different uses of information in the gene pool. If a specie doesn't have something, it cannot gain something (or at least, no such radical improvements have been documented.) For a change in information, everything has to be there at the start. There is no proof that a specie can gain information, all evolution has supporting it are small improvements in population using the current gene pool, and theoretical piecing together of information. (If it looks and functions alike, it clearly must have a common ancestor! That kind of thinking.)
There are no hard facts that prove evolution. There are facts that agree with evolution, but none that prove it.
If I say that I have not committed a crime, someone may agree with me, but there are no facts to prove that said crime was not committed by me. Savvy?

So far, there are no hard facts for evolution (at least those that have been presented to me, which are quite a few) that prove that evolution is the only way it could have happened.

Have you ever read anything written in Answers In Genesis, or Creation magazine, or even anything written by any Christian scientist, or are you just generalizing your beliefs on an unfounded and false premise, just as you say we religious people do?

Yes, yes (I think it was the same one), and yes again. I go to every talk presented by christian "scientists" and evolutionists offered in my area as well.

Also, can you present one piece of solid, irrefutable piece of evidence supporting evolution?

No; as I have said scientists use evidence to come to the most logical conclusions available based on all accumulated data. This type of science will not prove anything to a person using beyond-reasonable scepticism about the data. In other words evolution is proven to the same degree of satisfaction that allows us space travel, motorization, biotechnology, nuclear technology, computerization and robotics. If 1+1=2 were brough up as evidence supporting evolution, christian scientists would quote that silly little exercise that proves it isn't, even though everyone knows that it is unreasonably sceptic.

Or is that just based on faith, rationalism and ultimately false premises

Nope, evidence. What's more, when a single book of fiction makes impossible claims, I feel the onus is on that book to prove itself in the face of overwhelming scientific data spanning literally thousands of years.  Evolutionists have shown some data, now let the religious offer some.

First off, all documented improvements are from losses or different uses of information in the gene pool.

This is a tired old argument from like the 80's lol. I can't believe people are still saying this.

If a specie doesn't have something, it cannot gain something (or at least, no such radical improvements have been documented.)

This is why this argument was supposed to go to rest in the 80's, but unfortunately not all christian-who-call-themself-scientists are up to speed on current scientific research. The current thread of research involves a process called polyploidy and certain genetic mutations called transposons. Long story short, they can combine to add chromosomes to things, thus exponentially increasing information. It is more common to hold onto outdated objections and hope the opponent is as ignorant as the last person against whom the argument worked. This is a fantastic example of a false premise.

There are no hard facts that prove evolution. There are facts that agree with evolution, but none that prove it.

The claims in the bible are said to be the perfect word of God. If something in it is a lie or otherwise fictional, then God's own word is wrong. Since there was no Adam and Eve, we don't need to go on to think about Satan or Hell or even sins etc. Erunion has done a good job of charactarizing the christian-that-calls-himself-scientist view of science, "those articles contain no facts that support the entire theory of evolution". Unlike the bible, though, scientific theories do not have to contain a 0% error rate in their claims to remain apt. When something is shown false, the data used to prove that thing false simply ADD to the theory, not tear the whole thing appart.

First off, all documented improvements are from losses or different uses of information in the gene pool

Outdated. Wrong.

For a change in information, everything has to be there at the start

Rationalization based on that outdated and wrong data.

There is no proof that a specie can gain information, all evolution has supporting it are small improvements in population using the current gene pool

Outdated. Wrong.

So far, there are no hard facts for evolution (at least those that have been presented to me, which are quite a few

If you made an attempt to be exposed to the facts you would find them at least numerous if still not convincing. Luckily we don't have to rely on that though, because thousands of people, called scientists, seek out exposure to as many facts as possible on this issue every day. The downfall is that their audience will never include all the people who choose to debate on the issue. This makes some people argue based on what was known in the 1980's and others argue based on the nearly three decades of comparatively light-speed research since then. The worst part is that in an absolute sense, the former can still call what they quote "research" (and they do....at EVERY TURN) despite the fact it is now widely (though not enough so) known as false.

wow,
*pats Sloth*

any more questions? ^^