Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Jesus was not a real person
Posted 7/16/09
hell i don't believe in most of the bible but i do believe there was a man named Jesus and he did try to change or help the world
114094 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 7/16/09

Tenoko wrote:

I could point out that your disbelief is going to earn you a one way ticket to hell, but there's really no need.

Jesus existed and still lives in Heaven today at the right hand of God, who also exist. You can throw around your fancy speeches and your well sought out facts and information, but how do you explain away the miracles, the sightings, the people and believers who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both real even if they can't see them. Even if you can't see the wind, you can see the effects of the wind. Faith is much the same way.

Jesus was real. He still is.



real-
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8. Philosophy. a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.

9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms, though nominal income appears to be higher.
10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as the image produced in a camera (opposed to virtual ).
11. Mathematics. a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
-dictionary.com

hmmm nope nope and nope jesus and god dont fit into any of these.... sooooo i guess he's not real him or god
3922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Planet E-Arth
Offline
Posted 7/16/09

uhohimdead wrote:


Tenoko wrote:

I could point out that your disbelief is going to earn you a one way ticket to hell, but there's really no need.

Jesus existed and still lives in Heaven today at the right hand of God, who also exist. You can throw around your fancy speeches and your well sought out facts and information, but how do you explain away the miracles, the sightings, the people and believers who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both real even if they can't see them. Even if you can't see the wind, you can see the effects of the wind. Faith is much the same way.

Jesus was real. He still is.



real-
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8. Philosophy. a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.

9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms, though nominal income appears to be higher.
10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as the image produced in a camera (opposed to virtual ).
11. Mathematics. a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
-dictionary.com

hmmm nope nope and nope jesus and god dont fit into any of these.... sooooo i guess he's not real him or god


And you must be cracked in the head. He is real, did live, and does exist.
34529 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Undisclosed Location
Offline
Posted 7/16/09 , edited 7/17/09
Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Does this apply to God or Jesus? Many believe it applies to both God and Jesus as they are one in the same in that theory. Does it matter if Jesus was a real person? Does it matter if God is a real person? I think people miss the whole point of religion. It is the foundation of a belief or faith that there is more to life then just living and dying. Why is it the oldest creation of learned people religion? People have always wanted to believe in that something more since thought has existed.

"The difference between what the most and the least learned people know is inexpressibly trivial in relation to that which is unknown."
- Albert Einstein

No matter how smart you are, one thing is for certain, there is a much greater unknown out there, we might never know all the answers. Jesus may never have walked among the flock, does that mean he does not now exist in the hearts of minds of millions of people in the world now?


Now that I had my say, religious debates all lead down the same road, people attacking each others beliefs which I think goes against the idea of what religion was based on. As such it also goes against the rules of this site.

Locked.

Edit: Going to give this thread one more chance since the OP asked nicely enough. But if it turns back into a religious debate, which is going to be hard to avoid since deals with a main figure of a certain religion. But lets see if people can manage to explain their opinions on the topic without bringing religion into it, and I admit I don't think it is going to be easy.

Unlocked.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/17/09
People again this is a thread About if Jesus was a real person or not. Not a debate on religion.

A character can be a simble for a religion and still not have to be real so I am not attacking the religion.

I am only debating if Jesus was a real person from History.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


mistresscrow wrote:

You should discuss this somewhere else.
Believe what you want... whatever happens to you isn't my fault...
There is scientific evidence that things said to happen in the bible are true, and the bible is God's word, and God never lies, so don't you think God is real?
The fact that you were willing to research and type that whole speech shows that you are afraid to be wrong (which you are about this).


Actually I think he just copied an article from another website and posted it here, but whatever the case I enjoy these types of conversations and am in fact a Christian. I also go through great in depth research and type up speeches on it. Am I also afraid to be wrong? Hardly, I just want to understand my views. Threads like these are incredibly helpful because they allow us to employ the Socratic method and learn. There’s nothing wrong with that. Dark is not being aggressive, is not attacking anything. He’s simply laying down an academic theory. Just let it be so that the rest of us can enjoy it, please.


The Article was a copy from one of my old debate in Gaia befor I left. So its a copy of a old thread I made.

I am happy to see others that enjoy the same learning and debating methods as me.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/09
I’m glad this has been unlocked. People, if you don’t like the thread you don’t have to be here. I for one am a Christian, you –know- I’m a Christian, and I’m enjoying this thread. So, if you find it offensive that somebody’s debating the existence of your savior, please pray for us and let God show us the light. Otherwise, do unto others, and that means not getting my favorite thread locked.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/17/09 , edited 7/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery.


Controversy surrounds the Testimonium, with some scholars claiming it was a forgery. However, other scholars have also argued that it is not likely to be an interpolation by later Christian scribes after all in light of more recent studies. The cornerstone of this suspicion is that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described James by saying: “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.” This offhand reference to Jesus suggests that either Josephus expected his audience members all already knew who Jesus was, or Josephus had already or introduced Jesus to the readers. This passage is not under debate for reliability, even though the earlier passage was; since this passage is reliable the other likely is. Most historians now think that while the previous passage was altered to include a more confessional note, the references I included in my citation are still reliable.


Edit:

Read your own post. Jesus was mentioned twice, once in the Testimonium Flavianum and the other is what I’m mentioning. This one, you’ll notice, has not fallen under question. So that’s still, even if we don’t accept my argument that it verifies the Testimonium Flavianum to some degree, a source verifying that Jesus Christ was a living person.


Roman historian Tacitus? evidence about Jesus was also found to be a Fifteenth Century Forgery


as for the previous Passage the only evidence of a Jesus was not the Jesus known in as Christ but another person name Jesus and it was talking more about this guys brother made no clames about him being christ, or even anyone importint at all. but just incase I will go look the infermation up again been some time so I am a little rusty.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery.


Controversy surrounds the Testimonium, with some scholars claiming it was a forgery. However, other scholars have also argued that it is not likely to be an interpolation by later Christian scribes after all in light of more recent studies. The cornerstone of this suspicion is that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described James by saying: “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.” This offhand reference to Jesus suggests that either Josephus expected his audience members all already knew who Jesus was, or Josephus had already or introduced Jesus to the readers. This passage is not under debate for reliability, even though the earlier passage was; since this passage is reliable the other likely is. Most historians now think that while the previous passage was altered to include a more confessional note, the references I included in my citation are still reliable.


Edit:

Read your own post. Jesus was mentioned twice, once in the Testimonium Flavianum and the other is what I’m mentioning. This one, you’ll notice, has not fallen under question. So that’s still, even if we don’t accept my argument that it verifies the Testimonium Flavianum to some degree, a source verifying that Jesus Christ was a living person.


Roman historian Tacitus? evidence about Jesus was also found to be a Fifteenth Century Forgery


as for the previous Passage the only evidence of a Jesus was not the Jesus known in as Christ but another person name Jesus and it was talking more about this guys brother made no clames about him being christ, or even anyone importint at all. but just incase I will go look the infermation up again been some time so I am a little rusty.



I told you exactly what it said. While talking about a separate martyr it described him as the “brother of Jesus, called Christ.” And again, it was augmented but not forged, so the evidence still remains.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/17/09 , edited 7/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery.


Controversy surrounds the Testimonium, with some scholars claiming it was a forgery. However, other scholars have also argued that it is not likely to be an interpolation by later Christian scribes after all in light of more recent studies. The cornerstone of this suspicion is that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described James by saying: “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.” This offhand reference to Jesus suggests that either Josephus expected his audience members all already knew who Jesus was, or Josephus had already or introduced Jesus to the readers. This passage is not under debate for reliability, even though the earlier passage was; since this passage is reliable the other likely is. Most historians now think that while the previous passage was altered to include a more confessional note, the references I included in my citation are still reliable.


Edit:

Read your own post. Jesus was mentioned twice, once in the Testimonium Flavianum and the other is what I’m mentioning. This one, you’ll notice, has not fallen under question. So that’s still, even if we don’t accept my argument that it verifies the Testimonium Flavianum to some degree, a source verifying that Jesus Christ was a living person.


Roman historian Tacitus? evidence about Jesus was also found to be a Fifteenth Century Forgery


as for the previous Passage the only evidence of a Jesus was not the Jesus known in as Christ but another person name Jesus and it was talking more about this guys brother made no clames about him being christ, or even anyone importint at all. but just incase I will go look the infermation up again been some time so I am a little rusty.



I told you exactly what it said. While talking about a separate martyr it described him as the “brother of Jesus, called Christ.” And again, it was augmented but not forged, so the evidence still remains.


Even so Is it enough to give evidence for him being that people do not even know what can be used from it. In end the source might not be reliable enough to be used as evidence. There are some even in the religous sects that believe the hole thing was plagerised not just the two parts.

'Is there any other evidence to this day found for Jesus the historical Jesus? I am doing a search as we speack to find if there is any infermation as well. Tell me if you find anything new as well. Even If I don't think he was a real person in history I still try to find something on him. For best way to debate is to know all sides right.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/09 , edited 7/17/09

Darkphoenix3450 Even so Is it enough to give evidence for him being that people do not even know what can be used from it. In end the source might not be reliable enough to be used as evidence. There are some even in the religous sects that believe the hole thing was plagerised not just the two parts.

'Is there any other evidence to this day found for Jesus the historical Jesus? I am doing a search as we speack to find if there is any infermation as well. Tell me if you find anything new as well. Even If I don't think he was a real person in history I still try to find something on him. For best way to debate is to know all sides right.


Well then you’ll have to call most ‘historical facts,’ into question since most of what we know about every ancient culture to have ever existed is based off a finite series of sources. Many ‘facts,’ are derived from a singular source. There is, again, more evidence of Christ’s existence than there is of Caesar’s invasion of Gaul. Even if we ignore this one source, you have all the others I cited and the NT itself. Though, I don't think this source should be ignored.

Take Sparta. Most of the men and women there could not read or write. Almost all of the information we’ve gathered on Sparta comes from the writings of Lycurgus. What about Troy? Most of the information we have about that comes from a mythological story that was not written until generations after the author allegedly existed. The Persian War-where the battle of Thermopylae and Marathon took place? Pretty much all of that information comes from a source that also says: giants ants mined gold in Asia minor, a king was miraculously rescued and taken home by dolphins after being kidnapped from his palace by pirates and thrown into the water, and many more silly stories.

But the truth is, one source is usually enough. There's no logical reason to doubt that where Christ is concerned.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 Even so Is it enough to give evidence for him being that people do not even know what can be used from it. In end the source might not be reliable enough to be used as evidence. There are some even in the religous sects that believe the hole thing was plagerised not just the two parts.

'Is there any other evidence to this day found for Jesus the historical Jesus? I am doing a search as we speack to find if there is any infermation as well. Tell me if you find anything new as well. Even If I don't think he was a real person in history I still try to find something on him. For best way to debate is to know all sides right.


Well then you’ll have to call most ‘historical facts,’ into question since most of what we know about every ancient culture to have ever existed is based off a finite series of sources. Many ‘facts,’ are derived from a singular source. There is, again, more evidence of Christ’s existence than there is of Caesar’s invasion of Gaul. Even if we ignore this one source, you have all the others I cited and the NT itself. Though, I don't think this source should be ignored.

Take Sparta. Most of the men and women there could not read or write. Almost all of the information we’ve gathered on Sparta comes from the writings of Lycurgus. What about Troy? Most of the information we have about that comes from a mythological story that was not written until generations after the author allegedly existed. The Persian War-where the battle of Thermopylae and Marathon took place? Pretty much all of that information comes from a source that also says: giants ants mined gold in Asia minor, a king was miraculously rescued and taken home by dolphins after being kidnapped from his palace by pirates and thrown into the water, and many more silly stories.

But the truth is, one source is usually enough. There's no logical reason to doubt that where Christ is concerned.


But that is not the case In rome, its a fact that most Romans and those who lived along side the romans happen to be able to right. They had schools. And they had many historions of that time. we have 100 of sources for most of the officers in rome. We even have a few for some of the sneaky girls of that time if you know what I am getting at. If there is only one source it can not be compared with others to get a true picture of how acurit it is, or even if it is not just a fabercation.

I be back in 4 hours I keep dozing off. Like I pointed out to you, I got back from a all nighter at work and now I been up for many more hours, I really need to close my eyes for a little bit at least.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/09 , edited 7/17/09

Darkphoenix3450

But that is not the case In rome, its a fact that most Romans and those who lived along side the romans happen to be able to right. They had schools. And they had many historions of that time. we have 100 of sources for most of the officers in rome. We even have a few for some of the sneaky girls of that time if you know what I am getting at. If there is only one source it can not be compared with others to get a true picture of how acurit it is, or even if it is not just a fabercation.

I be back in 4 hours I keep dozing off. Like I pointed out to you, I got back from a all nighter at work and now I been up for many more hours, I really need to close my eyes for a little bit at least.


I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Rome did not have public, state funded education. Most Romans could neither read nor write, these were arts reserved for the wealthy. You see, Roman youths were typically educated by educated slaves. Educated slaves, of course, cost a lot of money. So, only those who could afford a good slave could afford any form of education; and there were other expenses which the dominantly poor people Rome simply couldn’t afford.

Amongst the wealthy women were actually better educated than men. That’s because boys were taught more to be warriors than poets. They learned to fight, lead men, ride, hunt, ext.

Roman historians were also more interested in social movements influencing the state and the national events--like the conflict with Gaul. It only makes sense that they’d write more about the Christians than Christ himself. They also neglected to discuss Hillel the Elder, another major aspect in the development of human philosophy. Origen, another Roman historian, also discussed Christ when he described the Ebionites as, “Jews who follow Christ.” But again, there's plenty of sources for Christ, so this is all a moot point.
1096 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99 / F
Offline
Posted 7/18/09
yes, maybe.
I've heard a lot of testimonies proving that there is JESUS.
That he lives in their lives..
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/18/09

emld571995 wrote:

yes, maybe.
I've heard a lot of testimonies proving that there is JESUS.
That he lives in their lives..


'Do you have anything to show those Testimonies, I having trouble finding any new infermation of histical Jesus, It be nice to see some Canon facts on him.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.