Christians - Aware you worship a virgin?

[Eilonnwy]

---

---

*in a Mr. Slave voice*....Jesus Christ!

[tackattack]

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.

I'm not an expert on the historicity of Jesus, but a new talk was posted recently that summarizes some of the concerns i have with the claim of his existence.

Neither am I. My point was I treats each of the gospels as a seperate account. I treat the torah and quran as a seperate account. I treat the the asian account (I haven't studied too much but I believe a lot was done by new zealanders (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapt...553&C=1360) as a seperate one too. If all of theese different interpretations differered totally on every fact. They would all still reference Jesus Christ, a man who claimed to be the son of God. If you're going to discount documents written about christianinty by christians based solely on your distrust of christians, why do you expect christians to believe counter God science written or calsulated by atheists?

[theVOID]

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.

I'm not an expert on the historicity of Jesus, but a new talk was posted recently that summarizes some of the concerns i have with the claim of his existence.

Neither am I. My point was I treats each of the gospels as a seperate account. I treat the torah and quran as a seperate account.
I treat the the asian account (I haven't studied too much but I believe a lot was done by new zealanders (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapt...553&C=1360) as a seperate one too. If all of theese different interpretations differered totally on every fact. They would all still reference Jesus Christ, a man who claimed to be the son of God. If you're going to discount documents written about christianinty by christians based solely on your distrust of christians, why do you expect christians to believe counter God science written or calsulated by atheists?

There are tons of different documents from independent authors outside the book of the dead that speak of Horus as a real man too, does that mean we he was also a real historical figure? It's the same standard of evidence as for Jesus, that being decades of hearsay written down by people who weren't eye witnesses. If you find that same standard of evidence convincing for Jesus the why not Horus?

[tackattack]

There could have been a time-travelling alien named horus that livedin egypt and swooned the population with his technology. I haven't done much study there. I don't refute that a man named horus could have existed in egypt.

[theVOID]

There could have been a time-travelling alien named horus that livedin egypt and swooned the population with his technology. I haven't done much study there. I don't refute that a man named horus could have existed in egypt.

No, it would be impossible to say for certain whether or not Horus really lived considering the evidence in question, but the standard of evidence is no different for Jesus, of who's existence you stated as fact.

[tackattack]

fact being the burden of evidence is an overwhelming majority that he did exist? Yes then. You're not really giving evidence that he doesn't exists, you're just discrediting entire doctrines and documentation accross multiple regions and faiths because some unrelated facts didn't add up elswhere in the documents? I'm trying to understand.

[theVOID]

fact being the burden of evidence is an overwhelming majority that he did exist? Yes then. You're not really giving evidence that he doesn't exists, you're just discrediting entire doctrines and documentation accross multiple regions and faiths because some unrelated facts didn't add up elswhere in the documents? I'm trying to understand.

No, i am saying that i am not sure whether or not Jesus did exist - what i am saying is testimony from non-contemporary authors is not sufficient for reaching any level of certainty, just like the non-contemporary sources for the existence of Horus do not allow you with any real certainty to state whether or not he existed.

As for why i find it unlikely that Jesus existed, it has to do with the massive events that are reported inconsistently amongst the testimony. How could 2 people believe that the world went dark for 3 hours when another mentions nothing at all of the blackout and instead claimed that at the tomb was an angel and an earthquake that shook the entire region?

Why do Mary and James suddenly disappear from the bible completely after acts when they were supposedly amongst the early Christian preachers?

Why, when peter was on trial under both Jewish and Roman courts was life of the man Jesus never bought into question? No mention of the empty tomb when stealing a body was a crime punishable by death? No mention of punishment for proclaiming a mortal man as king? If the court documents from the time make one thing clear it is that Peter was only ever bought to trial because of disagreement with mainstream jewish teachings and nothing to do with the man Jesus who supposedly did so much to anger the Jews and Pontious Pilot.

Every time peter was bought trial before the romans he was released because in their minds he did nothing other than offend a bunch of Jews who disagreed with him.

[chatpilot]

Sighs and shakes his head........... in disbelief.

Lets see what evidence there is for the existence of Jesus vs. what evidence there is to the contrary.

Pro:The gospels are supposed to be a biography of the life and times of Jesus Christ.
Con:None of the original copies of the gospels are in existence today, what we have are copies of copies of copies ad infinitum.

Pro:The Koran mentions Jesus Christ
Con:The Koran was written after the N.T. and both books are derived from the Old Testament. Therefore invalidating it as evidence.

Pro:There are claims to secular references to Jesus as a real person outside of the scriptures.
Con:Most of those have been considered later forgeries such as the paragraph in Josephus.

Pro:I'm all out
Con:The gospels were originally presented as anonymous works and the names that we attribute to them today were not added till about the middle of the second century.

Con:Christians don't even know where he was buried or crucified and there is no archeological evidence for his existence.

Con:There was no body because conveniently he ascended back to heaven like so many other god men predating the Christian myths.

Con:The earliest gospel of Mark was not written till about 35-40 years after the alleged death of Christ.

Con:His name could not have been Jesus Christ since neither is really a proper name although Jesus was a common name at the time. Christ means anointed one and Jesus is Jehova saves.

Con:No one even knows what he looked like as evidenced by this link
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm

I could do this all night but I'd rather be sleeping.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You're not really giving evidence that he doesn't exists

We have no obligation to provide anything. It's up to you 100% to prove your claims. That's what "the burden of proof means"

[Ace Otana]

You're not really giving evidence that he doesn't exists.

It's not down to the atheist to prove or disprove anything. It's a stance. Lack of belief.
You believe in the existence of a god and we do not. Simple and case closed.

Can you disprove the existence of the toothfairy? Or the god posidon? No, you lack belief in it but have no evidence against it. So what's the differance between you dis-believing in posidon and me dis-believing in your god?
The burden of proof is on you. 100% of it. Your claim, you prove it.
If you can't then that's your problem.