Did Jesus Exist?

historians who lived during that time wrote about john, and yet not about jesus that should tell you something, it eather means jesus never existed or didn't matter as a personthe signature shows that the authors wouldn't think wise people would believe in something like that i guess, so they don't convert people who question - or it just shows more of the bibles anti-intellecualismThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-08-2006 02:50 AM

The fact that so many believed and followed him and were willing to go to the lions for him means nothing I guess. Just a bunch of crazy people.Oh well. I do keep being amazed at the dogged persistence of this determination to wipe him out.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 03:22 AM

---

Psalm 2:1-2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

If it's absolutely all you've got, absolutely no other evidence one way or the other, and it clearly presents itself as a historical document, you'd be really nuts to declare it a fiction. I don't recall ever making an issue out of this. It's many authors who support one another's reports. That's normally considered evidence. They don't contradict one another. They support one another. James IS in the Bible, and the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic heresy that has nothing in common with the Bible and obviously does not belong there.There is no evidence outside the Bible. Haven't we made that clear yet?

I should imagine that many of the participants in this thread don't take issue with Jesus, but rather with the attempts to essentially dumb down the methodology of history and science to accommodate certain interpretations of the Bible.

Many Muslims were/are willing to go to the 'lions' for Allah, therefore, by your logic, Allah is the one true God.What people believe, and are prepared to die for, does not mean that the belief itself is true.Brian.

True, but the more corroborating evidence there is along with that, the more sound the argument becomes.AbE: I'm not seeing responses to that corroborating evidence I've cited in support of what Faith has given, or have I missed something? For example what are you skeptics doing with the 1st century Josephus quote since I set the record straight as to which of the two Jesus quotes have been contested? One weak argument was submitted and refuted regarding Roman Emperor Constantine's acknowledgement of Jesus. Then there's the prophecies, et al.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-08-2006 08:30 AM

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

That's true regardless of how many people are convinced of what and how strong those convictions are. It should be clear that beliefs are irrelevant here.

The effect is that it lends credibility to Christianity, just as Christianity would become uncredibe if it could be positively proven that he did not exist.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

That makes good sense, but where the stakes are high, as with the possibility of after death accountability, one should diligently search for truth, examining carefully as to which ideologies are soundly supported and which are not. Often beliefs are skewed by the reluctance of folks to have their lifestyle adjusted so as to become accountable. That may have something to do with the reason so many are reluctant to acknowledge the existing evidence of miracle such as fulfilled prophecy. The greater impact a given belief adjustment may pose, the greater the reluctance to objectively investigate into it.The fundamental NT responsibilities, as set forth by Jesus and the apostles are great, but imo, if one is willing to assume those responsibilities the blessings become far greater, including the after death blessings, eternal and the present peace that substantiated hope brings. Jesus, for example, said some place, something like, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me."

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

While the recent discovery of this site, relative to the existence of Jesus is not, in itself empirical, it nevertheless is one more piece of evidence supportive to the historical credibility of the NT .Archeological discoveries overall, tend to support and corroborate rather than refute the historical credibility of the Bible. http://www.bib-arch.org/siloam.pdf

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Odd you'd think people who doubt Jesus' existence don't take issue with him. However, the dumbing down is coming from their camp, a dumbing down of the work of previous scholars (and current scholars outside their camp), and it seems reasonable to suppose that this is because they disdain those "certain interpretations of the Bible" and prefer their own.Where is the actual evidence for any assertion anyone has made here? Just to take one that came up in passing, where is the evidence that the gospels weren't written down until well into the 2nd century? Traditional scholars have perfectly justifiable reasons for dating them in the first century. I guess we could take any one of these assertions and bat around the speculations involved.

I think a discussion about the evidence for various Gospel datings would be fascinating. Perhaps someone could propose a topic? This thread is nearing the magic 300 mark.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't see how finding out that there really was a person named Jesus who lived at the time, even if you found records of someone named Jesus who lived at the time and was crucified, would add much if any credibility to Christianity. By your reasoning Buddhism is more credible than Christianity because we can document when the Buddha lived. But I can see where it might bolster the faith of some people.As for the other possibility, it's impossible to prove that Jesus did not live. There is absolutely no threat from the search for a historical Jesus, and possibly even an upside for some people.So why not embrace the effort and celebrate the results?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, Muslims are willing to die for Allah (although I haven't heard that they were ever willing to do so at the hands of their enemies), which proves they believe Allah is God. I don't have to believe Allah is God to acknowledge that they do.Likewise, the willingness of Christians to die for the promises of Jesus Christ should be evidence that they believe that Jesus Christ is God, of course, but furthter, since their belief is in a human being, they believe that human being did actually exist and continues to exist. You don't have to believe that Jesus Christ is God to acknowledge that those willing to die for him do, but it ought to count for some evidence of his historical reality that they are willing to, as people aren't commonly known to die for someone whose existence is in serious doubt.

How so? Are there external evidences of this person, outside the writings of his own followers?This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 11:52 AM