First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Did Jesus Exist ?
308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / middle of july.....
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
no he does not he is fake peolpe are just to stupid to see it
4579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / hiding in your cl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
"DID" ha! He still does, ppl. God exists too, so does the Holy Ghost.....but they're all kinda like one person
144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.
63 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Upstate NY
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
I did read OP, thanks, but no where there did it not prove that he did not exist. Would you question the existence of someone like Shakesphere? Probably not, so why Jesus. There is just as much proof Jesus exists as there is for the life of Shakesphere. This topic is pointless. You can't debate a sure thing.....

And please refrain from calling me a "dumbass" it's not very nice, now is it?
4579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / hiding in your cl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
I would believe there are actually official records proving Shakespeare's existence, as well as him being mentioned in letters and other such evidence (like posters for his plays). So no, it's not the same. The point of the article is that nothing mentions Jesus at the same time as he lived, nor even from eye witnesses at the time. I think Shakespeare's plays has eye witnesses that can be named. Also the holy scriptures has obscure authorship. There is NOTHING particular about Jesus. The historians are in fact very interested in proving his existence, as it would better explain Christianity as a phenomena. But in any case, many historians are sceptical, it is in fact part of their job to be sceptics, as many references they encounter are truly dubious. They want to find the real truth. Therefore they examine, re-examine, carbon date, look for other evidence like something mentioned like a building or count travel time or whatever is likely to disprove or show basis for something referred to, and cross-references. They do this for anything anyone anytime, the historians are NOT making an example out of Jesus. Someone have looked for evidence of his existence, and found nothing. I would question Shakespeare if there was no evidence of him, as would historians. Some have in fact questioned his authorship (Francis Bacon has been said to written his works). Historians has had a lot of dubious sources, and is therefore no longer showing any lenience. Noones making an example. But when it comes to history: if there is no evidence, it is not proven. This is a good thing. Otherwise historical studies would again be filled with dubious "facts" like Herodot who claimed something like 300 killing 100 000 or something bizarre like that. What would you want? Historians that accept something on say-so? That wouldn't be a science.

Something will either be a theory or a fact, it can not be both. And academic circles are strict and full of debate. If you come up with a theory, you can be sure that other scientists are already trying to disprove it, and ask for proof and more proof. Scholars have little tolerance for unproven theories. Noone will accept an unproven theory.

Stop being so anti-science. And no, they can not say Jesus isn't real. But they are saying there is no evidence that he was real, and that it is odd that he isn't mentioned in records at the time. I am willing to accept a Jesus, though not a miracleman, but the article has valid points.
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.


And Christianity doesn't do that? Theories are based on facts. It's a person's decision whether to consider the theory fact, but scientists just show the evidence. There's plenty of actual evidence saying Jesus wasn't real (I don't know if you read the first post or not). Whether he was real or not, nobody truly knows. Christianity and is pretty much based on "theories" that have absolutely no proof. And don't even say that the Bible is proof. Go ahead, keep blinding yourself with your precious religion. Damn hypocritical Christians...

And I will now quote this lovely passage..


jestorebo wrote:

I would believe there are actually official records proving Shakespeare's existence, as well as him being mentioned in letters and other such evidence (like posters for his plays). So no, it's not the same. The point of the article is that nothing mentions Jesus at the same time as he lived, nor even from eye witnesses at the time. I think Shakespeare's plays has eye witnesses that can be named. Also the holy scriptures has obscure authorship. There is NOTHING particular about Jesus. The historians are in fact very interested in proving his existence, as it would better explain Christianity as a phenomena. But in any case, many historians are sceptical, it is in fact part of their job to be sceptics, as many references they encounter are truly dubious. They want to find the real truth. Therefore they examine, re-examine, carbon date, look for other evidence like something mentioned like a building or count travel time or whatever is likely to disprove or show basis for something referred to, and cross-references. They do this for anything anyone anytime, the historians are NOT making an example out of Jesus. Someone have looked for evidence of his existence, and found nothing. I would question Shakespeare if there was no evidence of him, as would historians. Some have in fact questioned his authorship (Francis Bacon has been said to written his works). Historians has had a lot of dubious sources, and is therefore no longer showing any lenience. Noones making an example. But when it comes to history: if there is no evidence, it is not proven. This is a good thing. Otherwise historical studies would again be filled with dubious "facts" like Herodot who claimed something like 300 killing 100 000 or something bizarre like that. What would you want? Historians that accept something on say-so? That wouldn't be a science.

Something will either be a theory or a fact, it can not be both. And academic circles are strict and full of debate. If you come up with a theory, you can be sure that other scientists are already trying to disprove it, and ask for proof and more proof. Scholars have little tolerance for unproven theories. Noone will accept an unproven theory.

Stop being so anti-science. And no, they can not say Jesus isn't real. But they are saying there is no evidence that he was real, and that it is odd that he isn't mentioned in records at the time. I am willing to accept a Jesus, though not a miracleman, but the article has valid points.




Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08



Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.



And Christianity doesn't do that? Theories are based on facts. It's a person's decision whether to consider the theory fact, but scientists just show the evidence. There's plenty of actual evidence saying Jesus wasn't real (I don't know if you read the first post or not). Whether he was real or not, nobody truly knows. Christianity and is pretty much based on "theories" that have absolutely no proof. And don't even say that the Bible is proof. Go ahead, keep blinding yourself with your precious religion. Damn hypocritical Christians...

And I will now quote this lovely passage..


jestorebo wrote:

I would believe there are actually official records proving Shakespeare's existence, as well as him being mentioned in letters and other such evidence (like posters for his plays). So no, it's not the same. The point of the article is that nothing mentions Jesus at the same time as he lived, nor even from eye witnesses at the time. I think Shakespeare's plays has eye witnesses that can be named. Also the holy scriptures has obscure authorship. There is NOTHING particular about Jesus. The historians are in fact very interested in proving his existence, as it would better explain Christianity as a phenomena. But in any case, many historians are sceptical, it is in fact part of their job to be sceptics, as many references they encounter are truly dubious. They want to find the real truth. Therefore they examine, re-examine, carbon date, look for other evidence like something mentioned like a building or count travel time or whatever is likely to disprove or show basis for something referred to, and cross-references. They do this for anything anyone anytime, the historians are NOT making an example out of Jesus. Someone have looked for evidence of his existence, and found nothing. I would question Shakespeare if there was no evidence of him, as would historians. Some have in fact questioned his authorship (Francis Bacon has been said to written his works). Historians has had a lot of dubious sources, and is therefore no longer showing any lenience. Noones making an example. But when it comes to history: if there is no evidence, it is not proven. This is a good thing. Otherwise historical studies would again be filled with dubious "facts" like Herodot who claimed something like 300 killing 100 000 or something bizarre like that. What would you want? Historians that accept something on say-so? That wouldn't be a science.

Something will either be a theory or a fact, it can not be both. And academic circles are strict and full of debate. If you come up with a theory, you can be sure that other scientists are already trying to disprove it, and ask for proof and more proof. Scholars have little tolerance for unproven theories. Noone will accept an unproven theory.

Stop being so anti-science. And no, they can not say Jesus isn't real. But they are saying there is no evidence that he was real, and that it is odd that he isn't mentioned in records at the time. I am willing to accept a Jesus, though not a miracleman, but the article has valid points.




Although I would see Jesus as a philosopher.

4579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / hiding in your cl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

nene817 wrote:


Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.


And Christianity doesn't do that? Theories are based on facts. It's a person's decision whether to consider the theory fact, but scientists just show the evidence. There's plenty of actual evidence saying Jesus wasn't real (I don't know if you read the first post or not). Whether he was real or not, nobody truly knows. Christianity and is pretty much based on "theories" that have absolutely no proof. And don't even say that the Bible is proof. Go ahead, keep blinding yourself with your precious religion. Damn hypocritical Christians...

And I will now quote this lovely passage..


jestorebo wrote:

I would believe there are actually official records proving Shakespeare's existence, as well as him being mentioned in letters and other such evidence (like posters for his plays). So no, it's not the same. The point of the article is that nothing mentions Jesus at the same time as he lived, nor even from eye witnesses at the time. I think Shakespeare's plays has eye witnesses that can be named. Also the holy scriptures has obscure authorship. There is NOTHING particular about Jesus. The historians are in fact very interested in proving his existence, as it would better explain Christianity as a phenomena. But in any case, many historians are sceptical, it is in fact part of their job to be sceptics, as many references they encounter are truly dubious. They want to find the real truth. Therefore they examine, re-examine, carbon date, look for other evidence like something mentioned like a building or count travel time or whatever is likely to disprove or show basis for something referred to, and cross-references. They do this for anything anyone anytime, the historians are NOT making an example out of Jesus. Someone have looked for evidence of his existence, and found nothing. I would question Shakespeare if there was no evidence of him, as would historians. Some have in fact questioned his authorship (Francis Bacon has been said to written his works). Historians has had a lot of dubious sources, and is therefore no longer showing any lenience. Noones making an example. But when it comes to history: if there is no evidence, it is not proven. This is a good thing. Otherwise historical studies would again be filled with dubious "facts" like Herodot who claimed something like 300 killing 100 000 or something bizarre like that. What would you want? Historians that accept something on say-so? That wouldn't be a science.

Something will either be a theory or a fact, it can not be both. And academic circles are strict and full of debate. If you come up with a theory, you can be sure that other scientists are already trying to disprove it, and ask for proof and more proof. Scholars have little tolerance for unproven theories. Noone will accept an unproven theory.

Stop being so anti-science. And no, they can not say Jesus isn't real. But they are saying there is no evidence that he was real, and that it is odd that he isn't mentioned in records at the time. I am willing to accept a Jesus, though not a miracleman, but the article has valid points.






lol!!! srry, i don't mean any disrespect to u. all my friends are actually NOT Christians. and I don't wanna try to force Christianity on you guys, but this is for OPINIONS. i'm giving my opinion, and if you don't like that then u can shut up and stop reading my posts, pig
4579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / hiding in your cl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.


Even if that were true (its not) it would do nothing ti validate Jesus


if Scientists say that God or Jesus does not exist, then how can we be sure we can trust what the scientists say? but really it's your choice, i'll pray for you guys, but you have to make the overall decision. Have a nice life
10588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / ninja mode
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.


Even if that were true (its not) it would do nothing ti validate Jesus


what's up buddy...it seems like your thread is doing well! so keep making good topics my friend!
33884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
Yeah, I dunno.
That is something I've sorta wondered...and even if he existed, was he really the son of God?

Theres no way in proving he existed, nor that he didn't.
I guess its just on of those mysteries in life.
4579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / hiding in your cl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

sillysia63377 wrote:

Yeah, I dunno.
That is something I've sorta wondered...and even if he existed, was he really the son of God?

Theres no way in proving he existed, not that he didn't.
I guess its just on of those mysteries in life.


:D mysteries u may or may not believe
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08
Doesn't really matter if he existed or not to me, what matters is if he was the son of god or whatever. The interesting thing is that around the time that Jesus was supposed to be around there ARE historical records of about 20 other people all of whom claimed to be the messiah. Jesus might have simply been one of these pretenders, but people believed him. He might well have simply been a conman if he existed.
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

Punchu wrote:


Lurik wrote:

There is currently zero scientific evidence to prove the existences of jesus. He does not exist, merely a philosophical construct derived from ignorance.



"Science"?? ever think that scientists aren't telling the truth? most of them force theories into facts, without proving them. they have no way to say He ISN'T real.


Well while we have no way to prove for sure that he wasn't real it does not mean you should believe it. Let me give you an example. Nobody can prove that Barney the dinosaur cannot control time. After all if he could, we would never see him do it would we? However I do not believe in Barney the Dinosaurs ability to control time, even though I cannot prove he can't. I think you feel the same way about Barney's time lord skills right? Therefore trying to use the 'you can't prove he wasn't there' argument is completely pointless because just because it can't be proven to be untrue does not automatically make it true. Its up to you who do believe in his existence to prove it to be true before you can expect us to feel the same way as you about Jesus.


EDIT: Oh, and the scientists are highly unlikely to be lying because so many of there theories are proven by the existence of things like planes and computers. Their theories are put into practice every day time and time again. And just so you know before a scientific theory is taken as 'fact' it has to be proven by independent teams of scientists. Once again I cannot prove they are telling lies but I feel it is highly unlikely. Also, why does every scientist automatically have to be evil and be lying to us?
7937 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / 日本
Offline
Posted 2/26/08 , edited 4/18/08

torchman123 wrote:

well since i am kinda catholic i say jesus did exist. and he was from Bethlehem so he aint european and black no one knows if he really had powers but he must be a man that did great things if many ppl worshiped him


I TOTALLY agree wit him. I'm catholic so my answer is Yes. Jesus Rox! (lmao, just kiddin, BUT I DO BELIEVE in him)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.