• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

did jesus exist?

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
but you yourself said
"this is why we use multiple sources to get more accurate pictures of ideas."

the bible is the only source, it's just interesting to me that there are no other eye witness accounts if jesus was as famous as the bible claims him to have been...
The Bible, to put it simply, is a library of books. In it, we have multiple sources. These sources were never intended to be put together.

More so, we have additional Gospels outside of the Bible, such as Q and Thomas which scholars agree are close to the events.

And again, maybe the stories were exaggerated. We see this in many ancient histories. Why make the exception now?
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
It's an issue to me for I feel he never truly existed and feel deceived. Why would that not be an issue, a powerful organization lying to you....?
The powerful organization believes its own propaganda, it's not really lying to you because it sincerely believes in what it can't deliver.

Jesus may very well be historical, but I for one will not assume the truth of that for which we have no evidence.
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
Do you know how many Jewish peasants were around during that time that performed miracles? I'm assuming not. It wasn't worth mentioning.

Also, the dying and resurrection were most likely created after the fact. Again, do some actual research. The problem you have is that you assume that if Jesus existed then everything written about him must be factual. Yet, I doubt you would do that with a figure such as Augustus. Meaning you have a double standard.


I know there were many peasants claiming much the same thing, there have been many many who have had very similiar characteristics...... hmmm again fishy. You really should stop assuming, I mean you only get one *** out of it.

So your saying they made that part up? I am confused did he or did he not ascend to heaven for all to see as the bible claims??? I am sorry but you seem to be the one missing the mark repeatedly.....
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
When was the Gospel of Mark written? About 70 C.E. Jesus died around 30 C.E. 70 minus 30 equals 40. Meaning 40 years. Yes, you need to do some research.

As for no evidence, we have the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and Josephus. More than enough evidence.
Your information is completely inaccurate.....
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Example? and by miracles do you mean such as parting seas, healing the sick with your hands not meds, walking on water, turning water into wine and of course dying and coming back to life....
Yes; although in this thread it's more like turning water into whine. :D

Other daily miracles include falling in love without breaking our necks, breaking our hearts without bypass surgery, racking our brains while climbing the ladder of success and juggling numbers, texting our chiropractor for an appointment while it's raining cats and dogs... well, the list goes on.
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
The Bible, to put it simply, is a library of books. In it, we have multiple sources. These sources were never intended to be put together.

More so, we have additional Gospels outside of the Bible, such as Q and Thomas which scholars agree are close to the events.

And again, maybe the stories were exaggerated. We see this in many ancient histories. Why make the exception now?
OMG you got something right but you left out, it is not only a alibrary of books or scriptures, but also contrived and edited and plagarized from previous believes.....
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
The Bible, to put it simply, is a library of books. In it, we have multiple sources. These sources were never intended to be put together.

More so, we have additional Gospels outside of the Bible, such as Q and Thomas which scholars agree are close to the events.

And again, maybe the stories were exaggerated. We see this in many ancient histories. Why make the exception now?

are these sources eye witness accounts?
and consider this...

from the same link as the OP...


"LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it"

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?"
 
Last edited:

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
Yes; although in this thread it's more like turning water into whine. :D

Other daily miracles include falling in love without breaking our necks, breaking our hearts without bypass surgery, racking our brains while climbing the ladder of success and juggling numbers, texting our chiropractor for an appointment while it's raining cats and dogs... well, the list goes on.

Hey if thats the type you prefer, by all means.

And nothing you just mentioned is an actual miracle, so.....
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I know there were many peasants claiming much the same thing, there have been many many who have had very similiar characteristics...... hmmm again fishy. You really should stop assuming, I mean you only get one *** out of it.

So your saying they made that part up? I am confused did he or did he not ascend to heaven for all to see as the bible claims??? I am sorry but you seem to be the one missing the mark repeatedly.....
I'm missing the mark because I actually did some research? It doesn't take much research at all to find that in ancient histories they exaggerated and made up myths. So yes, Jesus did not ascent to heaven for all to see as the Bible claims.

You are aware that many ancient histories contain myths right? Do you take those to be accurate or do you just throw those accounts out as well? Not very logical at all.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
I've never met a Baptist Preacher who was willing to accept such a non-literal interpretation. Everyone of 'em I've met demanded it was mandatory for salvation that a person accept Jesus's existence and His divinity on faith. I'm not saying such preachers don't exist; I've just never met one.

As an ex baptist preacher I can tell you the Southern Baptist Church purged all the liberal and No-Orthodox Theologians out of there seminaries by the early 1980's

I use to like the 4 Bs of Neo-Orthodox Christian Theology; Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Dietrich Bonhoeffe. Rudolf Bultmann and Demythologization of the New Testament is something that is right in line with what we are talking about. This was the start of my drift away from Christianity.

A non B theologian that I really liked was Reinhold Niebuhr a theologian who was widely seen as an American intellectual. In fact he had a group of followers who called themselves Atheists for Niebuhr. Martin Luther King was a fan until he came on the works of a better thinker Gandhi (Hindu of coarse.;) )
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
OMG you got something right but you left out, it is not only a alibrary of books or scriptures, but also contrived and edited and plagarized from previous believes.....
Why not prove it? Because you can't, because I doubt you've done any study. Maybe you would want to do a little research at all. And if you want to claim something as you did, maybe you want to back it up.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
I'm missing the mark because I actually did some research? It doesn't take much research at all to find that in ancient histories they exaggerated and made up myths. So yes, Jesus did not ascent to heaven for all to see as the Bible claims.

You are aware that many ancient histories contain myths right? Do you take those to be accurate or do you just throw those accounts out as well? Not very logical at all.

but it makes me sad to think so many people hold onto exaggerations which have been used to justify intolerance, know what i mean?
 
Top