35
   

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Forums: Religion, History, Theology, Jesus, Religious
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 06:46 am
@Olivier5,
You're the one running around like a headless chicken accusing people of all sorts just because they don't agree with you. Hysteria and hyperbole are quite apt descriptions, as is big girl's blouse.
Olivier5
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 06:54 am
@izzythepush,
Such bombastic statements on your side only show you're losing the argument... Tsk tsk tsk.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 06:56 am
@Olivier5,
Sez you.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:01 am
@izzythepush,
Please calm down. Upper lip stiff, and all that sort of things...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:28 am
@Olivier5,
You're projecting again, probably because you've still not got over the knob gag.
timur
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:34 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

timur wrote:

Weasel away, Olivier, turning the problem around will not change the fact that you have no proof that Jesus existed.

What proof would you be willing to accept?

As a proprietor of a scientific and logic mind, despite all that can be said by deniers, I would accept any archaeological, written by chronologically compatible witnesses, or any other science backed proof that would make a consensus in the scientific field and peer reviewed by independent researchers.

By independent researchers, I mean all those within the scientific field that are not funded by religious institutions.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:35 am
@izzythepush,
I can't stand such shrillness. Get over yourself...
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:45 am
@Olivier5,
You have a shrill knob? Can't say I'm surprised.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 08:27 am
@timur,
timur wrote:
I would accept any archaeological, written by chronologically compatible witnesses, or any other science backed proof that would make a consensus in the scientific field and peer reviewed by independent researchers.

I've never heard of the term "chronologically compatible witnesses," so you'll have to explain that. Are you saying that you'll only accept written testimony by eyewitnesses? And I'm not sure what you mean by "science backed proof. Can you give examples of what would be acceptable evidence under that standard?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 08:39 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Jesus and Christianity are the most believable of all the world's religions and the ones which ring truest within the hearts of men.


Really?

And that is based on what?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 10:03 am
@izzythepush,
You never say much anyway... Content as you are to pronounce irrelevant comments from the sideline.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 10:05 am
@Olivier5,
Better than talking a load of **** all the time.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 10:27 am
@izzythepush,
Insults are cheap, Izzy. Some people try to say things as they see them. Others always stick to the conventional wisdom of their little parish... You're in the latter category, while I'm in the former.
timur
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 01:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

timur wrote:
I would accept any archaeological, written by chronologically compatible witnesses, or any other science backed proof that would make a consensus in the scientific field and peer reviewed by independent researchers.

I've never heard of the term "chronologically compatible witnesses," so you'll have to explain that. Are you saying that you'll only accept written testimony by eyewitnesses? And I'm not sure what you mean by "science backed proof. Can you give examples of what would be acceptable evidence under that standard?


Well, Joe,

I would accept:

Archaeological evidence - Some artifact that is indubitably dated of the period and not only conducive but indubitably connected with Jesus existence.

Written evidence by witnesses contemporary of Jesus or contemporary of Jesus contemporaries.

Artifacts or materials that science can attest that they are Jesus related, under the conditions I described.






izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Some people take themselves way too seriously, others like taking the piss out of said people.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:08 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

Written evidence by witnesses contemporary of Jesus or contemporary of Jesus contemporaries.

Paul the Evangelist was a contemporary of contemporaries of Jesus. Why don't you accept his accounts?
carloslebaron
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:14 pm
@timur,
Quote:
Archaeological evidence - Some artifact that is indubitably dated of the period and not only conducive but indubitably connected with Jesus existence.

Written evidence by witnesses contemporary of Jesus or contemporary of Jesus contemporaries.

Artifacts or materials that science can attest that they are Jesus related, under the conditions I described.


I compared in a former message that the writings about Jesus are similar to the writings about Pythagoras. In both cases, there is no other evidence but the historical records narrated by witness and followers.

Both of these men, weren't great authorities and neither famous people to be recorded in official records and less to have their faces carved in coins, stones, painted in walls and similar.

At least, Jesus is mentioned in the official court records of the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a.

It should be infantile to ask more than the narrations found about these two historical figures. We understand that they became famous for the rest of the world only after their death. The same happened with Homer and lots of other historical figures of the past.

This is to say, with your obstinate attitude,. you are also denying the existence of Pythagoras and of other great men of the past.

We are so lucky that History is not under your personal decision, otherwise we shouldn't have valid historical records at all... Lol.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
Because there is no consensus among the scientific scholars on either the existence of Paul or the authenticity of his epistles.

Quite the contrary, in fact..
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:49 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

Because there is no consensus among the scientific scholars on either the existence of Paul or the authenticity of his epistles.

Quite the contrary, in fact..

I'm aware of the controversy about the authenticity of certain Pauline epistles, but the existence of Paul himself is, I would think, a settled question. But again, if the writings of Paul are not evidence of Paul's existence, then what would you accept to establish his existence?
timur
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 02:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
Something similar to this, Joe:

Quote:
The sources for Pilate's life are an inscription known as the Pilate Stone, which confirms his historicity and establishes his title as prefect;
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Jesus Actually Exist?
  3. » Page 100
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:24:48
▲ ▼