All the known evidence contradicts in my view the existence of a god or gods. As stated by Ace though tackattack the burden of proof is on you since you are the one stating the claim as fact.

OK so the burden was on me if I wanted to prove Jesus existed. I'll presume you see little tangible truth in scripture. Let's see if it's worth the effort and let me ask this. How many different blurry photos of "Bigfoot" would it take for you to accept the possibility that he's real? From what I gather it would never be enough unless you could put him on a slab and cut him open yourself. True statement?

Yes it is.

Equating the existence Jesus with big foot does not even make sense. If bigfoot did exist at least we could continue to search for physical evidence of his existence. Unlike Jesus, outside of the scriptures he is virtually non-existent. Not only that, we can't search for any traces of him ever having been on this earth since conveniently he rose from the dead and ascended back to heaven. No body, no bones, no dna, nada, zip, zilcho. The only proof we have that he did exist is the N.T. and we all know that that does not count as evidence.

(December 11, 2009 at 9:11 am)tackattack Wrote: As far as Jesus' divinity, Mark was based off of the eye witness accounts of peter and is the oldest of the Gospels I believe. Jesus refers to himself there as the "Son of Man". The son of man in my opinion is a title he uses to convey to the people of the time his intent. They had the old testament so in Daniel chapter 7 as a refrence with it's 4 beasts "premonition" from daniel followed by their destruction byth "son of man".

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

All of the books of the gospel reference Jesus from their perspective from my recollection. He refers to himself as I am, the old testament name for God, many times throughout the new testament. The Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, but not Jesus himself. The Antiquities of the Jews written some time before the year 100 references Jesus' career from the Jewish community. He is reffered to by tertullian in adversus marcionem as the bringer of light. I mean we might debate on who or what Jesus was but are we really going to argue his existance entirely?


"absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence" That would be determinant on what you qualify as evidence. If I ever invent a time macine, I'll make sure to go back, get his picture and have him autograph it for you.

Son of man, son of man... hmmm. I had that somewhere. I knew I wrote about it a decade ago...or yes here it is from "Bible Bloopers..."

The Son of Man

“The term ‘Son of Man’ was the way He usually referred to Himself. Son of Man occurs 81 times in the Gospel accounts. Notice also Jesus clearly identified Himself as the one about whom Daniel prophesied…” –Josh McDowell

What exactly is the “Son of Man” and is it more than just a term of endearment? The Son of Man is first mentioned in the book of Ezekial. The Lord calls Ezekial the Son of Man. Ezekial got this title after seeing strange creatures, weird de¬vices, the firmament, and of course creatures with the color of “the terrible crystal” Although the Bible gives this title to Ezekial, it does not have the same meaning as when Jesus refers to him¬self as the Son of Man.
 The Son of Man, simply stated, was an individual who would rule over the New Jerusalem for a millennium. After the Savior inspires the Hellenized Jews to convert to the orthodox ways, the Messiah would lead the battle to defeat the enemies of Israel, and this New Kingdom would then be ruled for a thousand years by the Son of Man. (Some sects expected a war, others believed in a peaceful takeover of Rome.)
 Ezekial prophesied (incorrectly) that the Northern and Southern kingdoms would once again be united. The Southern kingdom carried off by Babylon did return to Israel under Cyrus the Great; however the Northern kingdom was destroyed by Assyria. The Hebrews that were captured became part of Assyrian culture. They are not returning anywhere anytime. After God was to pull off this miracle he would defeat Israel’s enemies (chapter 38). The person who would rule “forever” over this reunited New Jerusalem will be David (Ezk. 37:24-25). In other words David is to be the traditional “Son of Man”: “…my servant David shall be their prince forever.”
 When Daniel started writing during the Greek occupation, the prophecy of the divine kingdom took on new meaning. Instead of seeing one beast with four faces, we now have four beasts. The Son of Man in Daniel (7:13-14) will rule all nations forever, after defeating the Greeks. In Jesus’ time the enemy was the Romans. In our time it is the Russians, the Chinese, a united Europe, or the Islamic Nation depending on who is in power at the time. I have found out the best way to determine who is our current enemy, is to see what nationality the “bad guy” represents on professional wrestling.
 Daniel, like Ezekial, names the prince who will save mankind in 12:1. It is Michael. The prophecy game becomes real tough when one has to name names.
 The idea of the “Son of Man” can not be accredited to the Hebrews. It existed in ancient Egypt. Under King Seneferu, who reigned before 3000 B.C.E., a priest prophesied that a king named Ameni would come out of the south, born of a woman of Nubia in Nechen. He would unite Upper and Lower Egypt and bring together Horus (= Jesus) and Set (= Satan) in love. Egypt’s enemies would be defeated, the poor made whole, and his name shall endure for all eternity. His title? “The people will rejoice in the time of the son of man.”

chatpilot let me ask you this. Do you believe the author of the book of matthew existed?
Ledo I don't deny that they're could have been many who had the title "son of man". History has a tendency to repeat itself and I fully accept your definition. How many of those with the title Claim to be God incarnate on earth or part of the holy trinity?

Quote:Do you believe the author of the book of matthew existed?

No, it wrote it's self

so we're talking historical reliability not textural reliability then? I mean, do you doubt that the documents are from that time, that they're acurate, that they have any factual information in them or all of the above?

(December 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: OK so the burden was on me if I wanted to prove Jesus existed. I'll presume you see little tangible truth in scripture. Let's see if it's worth the effort and let me ask this. How many different blurry photos of "Bigfoot" would it take for you to accept the possibility that he's real? From what I gather it would never be enough unless you could put him on a slab and cut him open yourself. True statement?

For some people? Perhaps.

Lets go with several clear pictures/videos of "Bigfoot" from multiple sources, a detailed scientific observation of "Bigfoot" (supported by multiple forms of evidence), and perhaps an explanation of just what "Bigfoot" is?

I'd be quite inclined to give "Bigfoot" some serious thought if those criteria were met. I don't need to cut "Bigfoot" open to believe it exists... i simply need some reasons to believe it exists. As is: I have none. Hence: I do not believe it exists.

Am I open to considering its existence? Only if I see enough reason to (see 'evidence'). While a few blurry pictures may be enough for some people to accept as proof... my requirements are considerably more difficult to meet.

---

(December 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Equating the existence Jesus with big foot does not even make sense. If bigfoot did exist at least we could continue to search for physical evidence of his existence. Unlike Jesus, outside of the scriptures he is virtually non-existent. Not only that, we can't search for any traces of him ever having been on this earth since conveniently he rose from the dead and ascended back to heaven. No body, no bones, no dna, nada, zip, zilcho. The only proof we have that he did exist is the N.T. and we all know that that does not count as evidence.

Sure it does... poor quality evidence... but evidence nonetheless A bit like the 'evidence' that a murderer did not commit the crime because he was at a nearby Starbucks without the murder weapon 10 minutes after the murder was performed.

If she (Jesus) did exist... then she simply wasn't influential or important enough to matter to historians of the day.

---

(December 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm)tackattack Wrote: That would not be our (mine and my congregations) Christian version.

Actually, Matthew 19:10-12 (New International Version)

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs sometimes historically included men who were impotent with women, as well as those who were celibate. Or he could have been born without member due to a gene abnormailty from having the incorrect pairing of XY chromosones.

The Bible doesn't really talk about his years from 12 to 30. Mybe the Church had an agenda for censoring that? He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he's celibate after his "missing years".

It doesn't really matter if he was a cross-dresser, or celibabte or impotent to me.
Your claim that sex is the "best" part of life is debateable, but I understand your perspective since you don't believe in a spiritual side to humanity. I personally feel my kids are the best part of my life. But good sex is definately in my top 5.

As far as emaculate conception, I have my doubts about that as well. It wouldn't really matter if he was male or female to me and the "church" rewrote Jesus to a man like they did God to a he. I believe that a part of God is in everyone of us. Something that cohesively turns a mass of electrons andatoms into a reasoning, feeling and self-aware individual. What if Mary lied and she did it with the postman? Wel Jesus would still be a son of God he just had enough cahones to state it out loud. I'm pretty tired so I'm going to finish my documentary and hit the hay and ponder on this some more. I've tried not to dance around the points as much as possible.

Anyone can interpret Jesus in any way they want... and still be no more right or wrong

Why can she be interpreted in contradictory ways without someone being wrong? Because Jesus is a fictional character in a fictional universe created within a work of fiction by anonymous authors who lived about 1500 years before modern science.

I also think that Jesus was on drugs. Hence all of those 'divine' experiences

(December 13, 2009 at 5:45 am)Saerules Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm)tackattack Wrote: OK so the burden was on me if I wanted to prove Jesus existed. I'll presume you see little tangible truth in scripture. Let's see if it's worth the effort and let me ask this. How many different blurry photos of "Bigfoot" would it take for you to accept the possibility that he's real? From what I gather it would never be enough unless you could put him on a slab and cut him open yourself. True statement?

For some people? Perhaps.

Lets go with several clear pictures/videos of "Bigfoot" from multiple sources, a detailed scientific observation of "Bigfoot" (supported by multiple forms of evidence), and perhaps an explanation of just what "Bigfoot" is?

I'd be quite inclined to give "Bigfoot" some serious thought if those criteria were met. I don't need to cut "Bigfoot" open to believe it exists... i simply need some reasons to believe it exists. As is: I have none. Hence: I do not believe it exists.

Am I open to considering its existence? Only if I see enough reason to (see 'evidence'). While a few blurry pictures may be enough for some people to accept as proof... my requirements are considerably more difficult to meet.

---

So tackattack, since there's relatively ample evidence of Bigfoot (some blurry pictures) why don't you accept Bigfoot as your Jesus? Have you any evidence that suggests the two are not the same?