Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
May be execution of JC wasn't as significant as today's fundies make it to be. After all, who gave a damn about some poor carpenter? I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
If this Jesus was just a nutter wandering around the desert claiming to be a 'messiah' then I would agree. That nobody at the time would have paid such a nutter any attention would account for the reason that there is no contemporaneous account of the dude.
On the other hand, if the Bible account is correct then there is no possibility whatsoever that he would have gone un-noticed.
From my understanding, Jesus wasn't allowed to leave anything behind. e was a Creator Son doing a job and when He died, His body was put back into the earth at an accelerated rate. It was done by the Life Carriers and no traces were to be left behind. Just my belief. I don't expect anyone to believe that either.
Some fundies will hate you for that opinion, considering all the "genuine" bits of the cross, and the (*coughfakecough*) shroud of Turin.
Some fundies will hate you for that opinion, considering all the "genuine" bits of the cross, and the (*coughfakecough*) shroud of Turin.
Yeah, well, they don't like anything I really say anyway. Some may be a little interested but that's it. They don't like to think and if they have to think about anything I say, off to the drug store for meds. I don't care anyway. It's not them I have to worry about.
The cross may be real and the shroud may have indications but neither are actual proof of His actual existance. I'm pretty sure that any dna is probably gone since the cross has been in all kinds of weather and the shroud, apparently, has been in at least 1 fire that I know of. Oh well. Another day at CD.
Your Bible is not verifiable archaeological evidence.
The bible verifies Archeology giving it proof as being a reliable source for other things that it speaks of. But yes, the bible is archeological evidence. We find pieces of it all over the middle east, enscribed in stones and written on pottery fragments and pieces of parchments. These verify that the documents we have are ancient.
Would you then agree that Sherlock Holmes was real....because 22a Baker Street, London is a real location?
We all know that Sherlock Holmes was a ficticious character. We know that the written used a real street address. I am saying the plausiblility increases as the facts line up.
It's not a 'fact' at all. It's your belief.
Where...your Bible?
Caesar never heard of your Jesus.
You do not know of Caesar hearing of Jesus or not!
There is nothing.... other than your Bible, a forged document in the work of a Jewish historian and a few mentions of 'Christians' by historians writing decades after the events.
You mean historical documentation, right?! Christian, or Rather Jews who became followers of Christ righting about their first hand accounts of the events of the life of Jesus Christ.
Really! What about the place names that don't match up? Nazareth for example. There was no city/town of Nazareth in the 1st century CE
Nazareth is not a city/town, it means branch and is a reference to the remenant of the Royal house. These are the decendants of King David. The area they lived was among this branch (Nazareth). Jesus was a decendant of King David.
There is not one mention of a crucified 'man-god' in the whole of the Roman archive.
But there is tons of documentation of Crucifixtions at the time. Of which Jesus was one of them.
May be execution of JC wasn't as significant as today's fundies make it to be. After all, who gave a damn about some poor carpenter? I'm sure he wasn't the only one. I don't think Romans would have any reasons to keep a record of such an insignificant event.
I think you have a point there. When you consider the fact that executions were very common and brutal in those days and the Romans staged bloody events in Rome just for entertainment like we would watch a football game today. I tend to think that Jesus did actually exist but the events in his life weren't written down until long after his death and as those stories were told and retold they were greatly embellished.
Whether the writing is on cave walls or sheeps skin it is archeological/historical evidence!
The fact that the place names match up with the text, supports plausibility.
Wrong, and you know it. Boy; the disconnect between valid empirical data / evidence and Christians' ideas of "proof" is never more glaring than here on C-D. All that ancient writings can do is point out what to look for when you're collecting your actual archeological data. The bible's nothing more than a clue book as regards archeological studies. In and of itself, it's only "true" if you desperately want it to be. Sorry, but that's exactly the way it is, NIKK.
Direct archeological evidence: let's see if an on-line dictionary (since you don't like to believe us) will elucidate the meanings for you, NIKK:
Ah yes; here it is, and it only took me, what? 20 seconds? Archeoloogy...
Wiki. There are many more, but perhaps you get the "drift"? Material evidence, not wishful ancient mythical writings that fed on each other until there were several versions that were adjusted over time to sorta-kinda jive and erase the obvious errors.
Hey; even L. Ron Hubbard had some "adjusting" to do, and his was always a work of fiction! He laughed all the way to the bank, sorta like the Catholic Church still does! Oddly, folks choose to believe it, as evidenced by their significant monetary contributions. Such is the sad and fiscally diminished lot of the dedicated spiritualist, huh?
In my long educational career, both learning and teaching, I've read about, oh, 40+ different intro biology texts, plus many more on genetics, geology, evolution, physics, astronomy, and others. Waaayyy more than four or ten or even fifty different bibles (and that's even a problem; in general, biiology texts do not argue about the basics, but the biblical versions? Whew! Stand back, and keep those Q'Ran preachers away from those KJ Version, OT and NT types separated, in their respective cages!)
So, it's back to the OP big "Q" for you, my good fellow. Is there ANY archeological evidence for Jesus' existance? Not by the definition of "archeological". Because of that, the bible first cluing folks to look for actual evidence of Jesus' existance, and finding, essentially, none, it seems ever more likely that as the son of the messiah, he's just a figment, a ruse, a construct. You know, by the strict rules of investigation and evidence.
I thus now anticipate hearing that, along with all the other disicplines of science, archeology's also now officially Satanic.
Kele, get out while you can, girl! Save your soul, hide and spirit!
The bible verifies Archeology giving it proof as being a reliable source for other things that it speaks of.
Sure the Bible mentions people and places that existed but so do many works of fiction. It doesn't make everything in the book true.
Quote:
But yes, the bible is archeological evidence. We find pieces of it all over the middle east, enscribed in stones and written on pottery fragments and pieces of parchments.
We might well do but that doesn't prove the Jesus story true or prove that some dude lived inside a fish for days.
Quote:
These verify that the documents we have are ancient.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is ancient too. Do you believe it?
Quote:
We all know that Sherlock Holmes was a ficticious character
. ...and two thirds of the world think that Jesus was a fictitious character.
Quote:
We know that the written used a real street address.
Ah! Just like the Bible writers used real places.
Quote:
You do not know of Caesar hearing of Jesus or not!
Scholars have scoured the official Roman archives for decades and have found nothing.
Quote:
Christian, or Rather Jews who became followers of Christ righting about their first hand accounts of the events of the life of Jesus Christ.
There are no 'first hand accounts'. The gospels were written by anonymous authors who never met your Jesus.
Quote:
Nazareth is not a city/town, it means branch and is a reference to the remenant of the Royal house. These are the decendants of King David. The area they lived was among this branch (Nazareth). Jesus was a decendant of King David.
Your Bible says that your Jesus came from the city of Nazareth. There was no such place when he is alleged to have lived.
Quote:
But there is tons of documentation of Crucifixtions at the time. Of which Jesus was one of them.
Whether the writting is on cave walls or sheeps skin it is archeological/historical evidence!
The fact that the place names match up with the text, supports plausibility.
There is no contemporaneous evidence
All writings about Jesus are apocryphal.
That in itself supports the lack of plausibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
