Did Jesus ever exist? (evolution, Neanderthal, theory of evolution, create)

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

Sir, take a closer look and you'll see that they used more than the Bible. Also, I think I'll put my stock in their consensus as they study this for a living and have doctorates in this kind of scholarship. The consensus is in: Jesus was a historical figure. Does this mean he was really the son fo God? Does this mean he really did resurrect? Does this mean he said who he says he was? No one can say for sure, but they can agree that he was a historical figure. Also, contemporary debates and reviews are way past this stage. Currently, the most controversial topics are in the resurrection and claims of divinity by Jesus. in other words, no one is really writing papers anymore questioning his historical status. Sure, you can find a few from the fringe, though.

I have gone back to check the research sources, and read several reviews. I was right. He used only the Bible or Bible related sources. Not acceptable in any research I will accept.
I also included a few good reviews on his works by Robert M. Price. You might want to read a few of them before you use him as a reference again.

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by cncracer

I have gone back to check the research sources, and read several reviews. I was right. He used only the Bible or Bible related sources. Not acceptable in any research I will accept.
I also included a few good reviews on his works by Robert M. Price. You might want to read a few of them before you use him as a reference again.

I agree. It is what is called circular reasoning. It is true because I said it is true. What are my sources? Here, I wrote it is true, therefore it is true.

Real scholars do not start and end verifying something by never finding anything but the thing they are trying to verify.

[doss1]

A 5 minute Google search and found what you wanted to read, right? Well, what do you expect in this age of a "bubblegum-chewing" blogosphere?

Besides, the guy you cited has to self-publish his own work. If you even read his posts on infidels.org, you'll see he's asking for money to help get his stuff off the ground.

No one takes him seriously. Price is all alone amongst thousands of pieces of scholarship.

Look, I'm not going to be playing a game of my-source-is-better-than-yours. I've made my point and have contemporary scholarship (again, affirmed by atheists, agnostics as peer reviewed) to back it up. I don't know what else you want. I am not asking you to believe everything, but at least be open-minded.

At least the scholars were.

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

A 5 minute Google search and found what you wanted to read, right? Well, what do you expect in this age of a "bubblegum-chewing" blogosphere?

Besides, the guy you cited has to self-publish his own work. If you even read his posts on infidels.org, you'll see he's asking for money to help get his stuff off the ground.

No one takes him seriously. Price is all alone amongst thousands of pieces of scholarship.

Look, I'm not going to be playing a game of my-source-is-better-than-yours. I've made my point and have contemporary scholarship (again, affirmed by atheists, agnostics as peer reviewed) to back it up. I don't know what else you want. I am not asking you to believe everything, but at least be open-minded.

At least the scholars were.

All I expect is truth that can be documented; it looks like you will accept much less. We all have our own set of acceptable limits on documented research and I think we are at the point of having to agree our level of acceptance are not going to reach the same point.
I do have to confirm the search engine use. Saves many hours of research while cutting through the bull.

[doss1]

I agree, but what is truth? There's a reason scholarship leans one direction in this case. It could not be true, but this is all we have to go on at this point.

I agree search engines save lots of time, but we must be careful in relying on it.

[damonwv]

I wrote another big long winded post :P

This one was in another thread on another forums actually with people talking about the same topic.. Did jesus exist, What about other stories that resembled the account of jesus, before his time. What about other religions, other gods... the story itself that has been passed down from adam and eve.


In the other thread people were talking about Mithras, and Dynosus <sp>
About these gods being born of virgin mothers, and attoned for us. But when you read the actual story of it, you find that it was these guys that did the copy catting not to mention, the virgin birth of mithras wasnt from a women at all but from a Big Rock, that he was made, and as this living rock, now human would have left a nice hole on the big rock, as a cave.. any how here is the quote and then my long post ..

My post is more about us as people and how we are..

(Thread from another website )

Originally Posted by Rickyj
Your belief that the story of Jesus came from Mithras is unfounded. It comes from people such as yourself who grasp at straws because they don't want Jesus to be reality. There is little similarity between the two and if there was any borrowing, it was the cult of Mithras doing the borrowing.

www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html

I must have overlooked your thread, or didnt start reading this far back in the thread.
Im glad you posted that link, and there are many more on the web about the story.

As i read on , i noticed that no one really cared about your link, or responded to it.
I know the reason why, its because people do not want to hear or believe that Jesus is " the man " sort to speak.
Its our natural tendency to want to rebel and deny, especially when it comes to doctorine that suggests to us how we should live and or believe.
People will make all kinds of non-sensical arguments, and attempt to devalue anything that is said by anyone.

I just got done having dinner with my pastor at ruby tuesdays and we had a great discussion about this thread, and the existence of Jesus.

I explained to him peoples thoughts of how so many religions have alot of similiarties with one another, and also alot of differences.
It was a simple explanation of our documents from the past give the solid evidence needed for Jesus existence. The record of Joesypheus <sp> is indeed accurate, and if people wasnt to disclaim anything about jesus, then you have to deny every thing else, or discredit what joesypheus said. You just cant pick and choose what you like and dislike. Its history and thats the way it is.
Just like the bible, its not a book of fairy tales, it is a very well documented history book, supported by extra biblical writings from scrolls, or other texts and or locations found by archeologists, that confirm locations mentioned in the bible, as well as found written text.

Also our first record of documents, the earliest is perhaps maybe 1200 ish or so BC from what the pastor indicated . ( btw this pastor is also a historian, and theologian at a respectful college ).

We talked about the stories of religions that Pre dated the old testament history. There is no such thing.
What was written by moses, and later descendants is accurate information.

Lets give an example here. Lets just say God does exist, adam and eve was real. They knew god, god knew them. Adam and eve sinned, they were cast out of paradise. they moved on and have alot of off spring, and then they have offsring and so on and so on. You start to get a populated bunch of areas.
During all this time, the story of God, and the knowledge adam and eve had have been passed down through generations. The story is well known, because it started at 1 source, and has been taught to generation after generation. So regardless of where people lived, ( im sure people were every where at this time ) the account of creation and all those laws were still being passed down.
Then you have a GREAT flood, only 8 people lived, they knew the entire account of history from the beginning from being taught by people that taught them, and so and so on. The story is passed on again, just as adam and eve started, noah and his family keeps it going.
People get spread out again and the story gets spread again as the people move.

Now think about this.. In all the relgions you see of the past to current, what do alot of them have in common ? A great flood, or great catastrophy, a vessel with survivors ( even the japenese or chinese word for number 8 looks like a boat which reflects the 8 people on a boat ( go figure ). Also alot of these stories in other religions talk about a redeemer or attonement, ect ect there is a list of similarities.
Now isnt it our way of life to rebel ? To make things the way we want them to be ? Imagine knowing a certain religion back then, not really liking it, so were going to change it around to how we like it, and name it something different.. this time we will call it, laws of hammurabi, or hinduism, or bhuddism, or Islam, or any of the tons of other relgions we see popping up now a days.

So what we started with orignially, has been adopted by so many other people and religions, new gods are created, what was once a monotheistic society ( back at adam and eves time ) turns into a polytheistic society becuase people want to reject God.

Even one of the oldest documents known ( scroll of isiah ) talks about the coming of jesus.. and it was fulfilled extactly the way it was written.
People argue well there were other virgin births, other gods who came and died for us, any of that you throw up to discredit the account of jesus, or the old testament, I take you right back to what I said above.

if you still choose to discredit and argue the point, thats fine. I expect you to.
Regardless of the answers we give you all, regardless of how much they really do make sense, more then likely you will still choose to reject and listen, because your heart remains closed to hear truth. No one wants to believe , because they dont want to be held accountable for what they do . And i dont blame you all. I am a human being as well. I am not greater then any one in this thread, in fact i like to see my self as lower then others , because I know I am a sinner, I know I cant win my way in gods favor by doing good deeds, but only through the attonement of Jesus am I saved.
Im not worthy of god, Im am evil , my heart is full of sin, but I repent, and ask for forgiveness for who I am, and try to better myself daily to make our God happy

[alexiana]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

Sir, take a closer look and you'll see that they used more than the Bible. Also, I think I'll put my stock in their consensus as they study this for a living and have doctorates in this kind of scholarship.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I find it HILARIOUS that Christians will believe scientists when it supports their beliefs (ie the historical actuality of Jesus) but will balk at scientific evidence when it goes AGAINST their beliefs (ie that homosexuality is a mere variation of heterosexuality and is not abnormal).

Hypocracy anyone? And no, there is not a shred of evidence, outside of the bible which supports the Jesus hypothesis. Believing in Jesus means subscribing to circular logic, ie, "because Jesus is in the bible, he must be real" and "because the bible is real, Jesus must be real". This kind of reasoning does not pass the scientific litmus test.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by alexiana

And no, there is not a shred of evidence, outside of the bible which supports the Jesus hypothesis.

This is a classic case of not understanding the Bible.

If I put all evidence of George Washington into one tome and called it "GEORGE", you'd say not one shred of evidence exists for George Washington other than that located in "GEORGE".

The Bible is not 'a' book. The bible is a collection of multiple books and different manuscripts from different authors across numerous year collected into one volume. You're holding a library of multiple sources when you pick up the Bible and look for Jesus. This seems to be a common lack of understanding among folks.

Having said all that, I do believe sources outside those provided by the Bible have been cited here as well. I've never met a very well-educated atheist that would argue long that Jesus the man ever existed. It's His divinity that usually draws the debate from the versed, not His existence.

[alexiana]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

This is a classic case of not understanding the Bible.

If I put all evidence of George Washington into one tome and called it "GEORGE", you'd say not one shred of evidence exists for George Washington other than that located in "GEORGE".

No I wouldn't, and that's not a valid comparison. Unlike the Jesus myth, the evidence of George Washington is not hearsay, in that it is not just from secondary sources. There are documents written and signed by George Washington, there are first-hand accounts of George Washington's speeches and statements recorded at the time they were actually said, rather than after the fact.

In the case of Jesus, everything is hearsay and there is no quality evidence outside of the bible which supports his existence. That is fact.

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

The Bible is not 'a' book. The bible is a collection of multiple books and different manuscripts from different authors across numerous year collected into one volume. You're holding a library of multiple sources when you pick up the Bible and look for Jesus. This seems to be a common lack of understanding among folks.

Having said all that, I do believe sources outside those provided by the Bible have been cited here as well. I've never met a very well-educated atheist that would argue long that Jesus the man ever existed. It's His divinity that usually draws the debate from the versed, not His existence.

It wouldn't matter if the bible was a collection of 5,000 books -- that doesn't change the fact that most everything contained within is unsupported by evidence.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by alexiana

It wouldn't matter if the bible was a collection of 5,000 books -- that doesn't change the fact that most everything contained within is unsupported by evidence.

Your opinion is noted.

So is mine.