did jesus exist?

[MW0082]

Have you done any research? The vast majority of all scholars agree with my dating.

no they don't, and yes I have done my research, hence why I can rebute what you claim.... Your dating is wrong.....

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.

No your missing the mark because your information is wrong.... and beyond that what else is wrong in the bible then?

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.

Why would I take a myth as acurate? It is a myth correct, and exaggerated story with no actual evidence?

 

[waitasec]

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.

read #70 and tell me what you think, if you want to of course...

 

[fallingblood]

no they don't, and yes I have done my research, hence why I can rebute what you claim.... Your dating is wrong.....

Prove it. Prove my dating is wrong. Prove that the majority of all scholars and experts are wrong. I will be waiting.

No your missing the mark because your information is wrong.... and beyond that what else is wrong in the bible then?

Again, prove it. Just saying I'm wrong isn't rebutting what I said. It is simply dismissing it. As for what else in the Bible is wrong, there is a lot. Such as the Creation story and Noah's flood. We shouldn't have to go there.

Why would I take a myth as acurate? It is a myth correct, and exaggerated story with no actual evidence?

Prove it. You keep claiming such, but you have nothing backing you up except ignorance. Please, be my guest and show me to be wrong.

 

[fallingblood]

read #70 and tell me what you think, if you want to of course...

I agree with a lot of what it says. However, we see what is expected. The Bible was copied over and over again. It is only logical that problems would happen. However, luckily, we have experts who specialize in Bible criticism. Metzgers book, which was mentioned in the article, and work by Bart D. Erhman are excellent sources to see what we can know from the Bible though.

Erhman, and expert in the field, and an agnostic (so he has no reason to prove the Bible or Jesus) has a great book out for the general public called Misquoting Jesus which tells us why we can know some thing about the Bible.

So even though the article makes a good point, they over stepped it. We can know that certain things did in fact happen during that time.

 

[waitasec]

jesus, interrupted by ehrman...good book
what do you think of fredriksen, from jesus to christ?
misquoting jesus, i'll look into that

"So even though the article makes a good point, they over stepped it. We can know that certain things did in fact happen during that time."

what certain things do you think happened?

 

[MW0082]

Prove it. Prove my dating is wrong. Prove that the majority of all scholars and experts are wrong. I will be waiting.
Again, prove it. Just saying I'm wrong isn't rebutting what I said. It is simply dismissing it. As for what else in the Bible is wrong, there is a lot. Such as the Creation story and Noah's flood. We shouldn't have to go there.

Prove it. You keep claiming such, but you have nothing backing you up except ignorance. Please, be my guest and show me to be wrong.

Krishna
Buddha
Horus
Zoroaster
Mithras
Attis
All prophets with eeirly similar qualities, including birth dates, and dying and resurecction for 3 days.

The gospels say that Jesus was crucified during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, which places it within the range 26 to 36 CE. Based on the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), which suggest that the entire mission of Jesus lasted no more than one year, a popular estimate is that he was probably crucified in 30 CE. However, John's Gospel clearly says that the mission of Jesus lasted three years, leading to another popular estimate that places the crucifixion in 33 CE. Other less well-known estimates include 28 CE.


a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4

happy?

 

[fallingblood]

Krishna
Buddha
Horus
Zoroaster
Mithras
Attis
All prophets with eeirly similar qualities, including birth dates, and dying and resurecction for 3 days.

The gospels say that Jesus was crucified during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, which places it within the range 26 to 36 CE. Based on the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), which suggest that the entire mission of Jesus lasted no more than one year, a popular estimate is that he was probably crucified in 30 CE. However, John's Gospel clearly says that the mission of Jesus lasted three years, leading to another popular estimate that places the crucifixion in 33 CE. Other less well-known estimates include 28 CE.


a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4

happy?

Yes, because you prove what I've been saying. Where is the 70 years here? Oh, there isn't any except for John, possibly at most.

Want to try again? Because you just showed that it was about 40 years from the crucifixion of Jesus to Mark. Or for your numbers, a little over 30 years. And I was wrong how?

As for the names you mentioned, prove that they are similar. Maybe some credible sources.

 

[Eliot Wild]

It is, indeed.

Ahh, shucks, you're just too loveable to say 'no' to. So, if you want to join my 'Religion of Me', you're invited. We can call it the 'Religion of Us', if I might be so bold.

 

[MW0082]

Yes, because you prove what I've been saying. Where is the 70 years here? Oh, there isn't any except for John, possibly at most.

Want to try again? Because you just showed that it was about 40 years from the crucifixion of Jesus to Mark. Or for your numbers, a little over 30 years. And I was wrong how?

As for the names you mentioned, prove that they are similar. Maybe some credible sources.

LOL obviously your math is wrong, if you minus 30 from 90 its 60!!! Not 40, it is really is simple..... and also thats giving you the benefit of the doubt seeing as it also says he could have died as early as 26 ce lol

Why don't YOU do the research, I already have. If you don't want to see the similarities that show Jesus to be plagiarized, then thats YOUR choice.

And further more there is talk that it all could be wrong and Jesus could have been born a century before. YOU don't even know the exact times of anything. yet you want me to prove you wrong? I don't need to, you have no proof to begin with... lol

 

[dogsgod]

When did gentiles begin to accept a gospel about the Son of God as an account of actual historical events?

Mark1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

What non Christian writings of Jesus exist from the first century?

 

[fallingblood]

LOL obviously your math is wrong, if you minus 30 from 90 its 60!!! Not 40, it is really is simple..... and also thats giving you the benefit of the doubt seeing as it also says he could have died as early as 26 ce lol

Why don't YOU do the research, I already have. If you don't want to see the similarities that show Jesus to be plagiarized, then thats YOUR choice.

And further more there is talk that it all could be wrong and Jesus could have been born a century before. YOU don't even know the exact times of anything. yet you want me to prove you wrong? I don't need to, you have no proof to begin with... lol

Mark is the first Gospel written. You put it at around 65 C.E. It's not that difficult. Did you read what you wrote? Seriously?

If you can be so wrong on something like this, why should anyone even consider you of any reliable information? You can't even get the information you post straight.

 

[Willamena]

Why would I take a myth as acurate?

Don't worry! You're not even taking it as a myth.

 

[MW0082]

Mark is the first Gospel written. You put it at around 65 C.E. It's not that difficult. Did you read what you wrote? Seriously?

If you can be so wrong on something like this, why should anyone even consider you of any reliable information? You can't even get the information you post straight.

whoops I actually don't beleive that to be the date of Mark and here is why:


Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make room between Mark and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.
Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.


No possible way you can tell me when Mark was written or even when Jesus died, your debating semantics with no real proof either way....

 

[MW0082]

Don't worry! You're not even taking it as a myth.

your speaking tongues.......:yes:

 

[Willamena]

your speaking tongues.......:yes:

[youtube]QnPl6DZ7Ksc[/youtube]
Your lying eyes...

 

[MW0082]

[youtube]QnPl6DZ7Ksc[/youtube]
Your lying eyes...

my work blocked it....

 

[Willamena]

my work blocked it....

Woops. Mine does, too, but I can at least post the link.

Maybe this will help.

Joseph Campbell - Mythic Reflections

 

[MW0082]

Woops. Mine does, too, but I can at least post the link.

Maybe this will help.

Joseph Campbell - Mythic Reflections

thanks reading it now, and I can check the other out later when I am home....

 

[fallingblood]

whoops I actually don't beleive that to be the date of Mark and here is why:


Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make room between Mark and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.
Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.


No possible way you can tell me when Mark was written or even when Jesus died, your debating semantics with no real proof either way....

So basically you are telling me that I'm right, and that the scholars agree with me, and then you dismiss it out of ignorance. Great. Thanks for telling me that I'm right though. Maybe before you want to get into a debate with me, you will actually check your facts.

So, just to sum it up though, we have a time span of about 40 years from the death of Jesus to the writing of Mark, which you've supported as well. Want to try again or just call it quits before more of your beliefs crumble away?

 

[MW0082]

So basically you are telling me that I'm right, and that the scholars agree with me, and then you dismiss it out of ignorance. Great. Thanks for telling me that I'm right though. Maybe before you want to get into a debate with me, you will actually check your facts.

So, just to sum it up though, we have a time span of about 40 years from the death of Jesus to the writing of Mark, which you've supported as well. Want to try again or just call it quits before more of your beliefs crumble away?

Thats not what it says lol. It basically says and I agree NO ONE TRULY knows, it could be as early as 60ce or as late as 85ce or more.... What are you trying to do? Confuse yourself.........

The bottom line is you cannot prove anything, at all!!! No one can, and all your proving is what an inconsiderate self-righteous person you think you are, must be a Christian. So good luck with that....