Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
It's the 'render unto Caesar' passage which enabled the governments of more than 1,500 years later to oppose those 'state approve[sic] religions. So what are you arguing against here?

That is complete bullshit as Christian nations have no repeat no record of keeping church and state apart more then any other nations base on other religion faiths.

You really don't understand the English language, do you? Your reading comprehension must be in the single digits.

I mean, you're absolutely right -- "Christian nations have no...record of keeping church and state apart more than any other nations." In fact, up until the US Constitution was written and the first 10 Amendments adopted, I don't know of any country where politics and religion were strictly separated. (Possibly China and Southeast Asia might be an exception; Budhism made easy inroads). The point is that once the US was ready to adopt this separation of church and state the 'render unto Caesar' concept made such a separation socially and culturally acceptable.

Why are you arguing something that isn't worth the effort?

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Perhaps it's because effort is always worth it.

For an example, not ignoring people just because they make more sense than you do.

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

It always annoy me growing up that Christians who have a history for two thousands years of not supporting individual freedoms of thought or religion was always so willing to try to take the credit for the freedoms the founding fathers created for the American Republic.

I always been thankful that my eyes was open by reading Paine "Age of Reason" and such founding fathers as Jefferson writing at a fairly young age.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

the US was ready to adopt this separation of church and state the 'render unto Caesar' concept made such a separation socially and culturally acceptable.

An that claim is bullshit and without any foundation of any kind but feel free to try to back that claim up by say for example any founding father writings pointing to that quote of "Jesus" as a reason for the separation of church and state in the new Republic.

It just another attempt by some Christians to try to take credit for the freedoms written into our Constitution.

That is funny given how anti-freedoms the Christian religion had been since it came to power in the Rome Empire.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Well said, Bill.

I'm right there with you.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

I'm right there with you.

Thank for the nice words.

By the way, I always had called what had been happening here as lying for Jesus.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

By that, you mean?

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

That some in fact too many Christians in my opinion are more the willing to lied and or misstate facts if it might promote the religion IE lying for Jesus.

When I was in school in the 50s and 60s I never even have it hinted that any of the founding fathers was anything other then good god fearing Christians.

1 Reply

Rhetorical word games are fine enough, but there has to ultimately be a shred of evidence to prevail.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Let's be honest.

People, in general, will lie to keep their composure.

You will have the people that agree with A, and the people that agree with B as well as the people that agree with every other group.

When one group is correct, every other wrong group create this defense where they lie and do everything to make their group look right.

It's disgusting, but it's also subatomically accurate.

People that are wrong, but can't accept it are deficient subatomic particles.

Example, there are people trying to make science look like devil's work. It's absolutely pitiful that these people go to the extreme just because they can't accept their shortcomings.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

People, in general, will lie to keep their composure.

Somehow lying to children to support religion beliefs in public schools for example is not a small "sin".

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Exactly.

These people care more about their ideals than they do for their own people.

If everyone spoke their mind, there wouldn't be such a thing as "popular".

People in general are just nasty creatures when they don't fix themselves. That is why the town's people didn't fight against the rulers when the first witch hadn't escaped the first stake.

The people kept burning people because of their hate and their fear spiraling into madness which could be seen in their actions and lack of actions.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have no idea if the Jesus of the New Testament actually existed as an individual person or not. Neither do you. I am totally willing to suppose such an individual existed...but I will not "admit" that he did, whatever that is supposed to mean

I guess that for you Moses didn't exist as well. What about Pythagoras? Or Socrates, or the Pilgrims?

What is your criteria to discriminate who existed and who didn't?

For your information, regardless of all the philosophy involving after the characters mentioned right above, those are historical figures, and are discussed in lots of forums of history, like the one here.

It doesn't bother me at all that besides history, other things are discussed, even jokes are made, or -like a dude in these forums who wants me 5 minutes inside a closet with him, whom probable will come out of that closet as gay if he tries something against me...(lol) - some lose their temper and start insulting and wishing to harm others.

Notice that what is surrounding the life of this man Yeshu (Jesus) is very important, because at one point even the calendar we use is based in his birth: Before Christ, and After Christ.

You can change the name in your calendar and say CE (Current Era) but your calendar still based on the birth of this man.

Does most of the entire world base their calendar in the birth of a person who never was born? Do you really think so?

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

Does most of the entire world base their calendar in the birth of a person who never was born? Do you really think so?

Sure I do as the fact that the cult did very well for itself and the calendar was set up with a zero point name for their god head does not mean that there was such a man or a man god or whatever.

The only thing that the calendar mean is the Christian cult did very well for itself and nothing more.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

There are so many influential "inexistent" things and people you have got to be kidding.

Father Christmas doesn't exist, he influences behaviour immeasurably.

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Quote:
I have no idea if the Jesus of the New Testament actually existed as an individual person or not. Neither do you. I am totally willing to suppose such an individual existed...but I will not "admit" that he did, whatever that is supposed to mean

I guess that for you Moses didn't exist as well.

Learn how to read, Carlos.

I did NOT say that Jesus did not exist...so I cannot be saying that Moses did NOT exist also.

Quote:

What about Pythagoras? Or Socrates, or the Pilgrims?

What is your criteria to discriminate who existed and who didn't?

I have none. I understand that I cannot know if some of the people who supposedly existed...did in fact exist.

I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know for sure. I also am willing to accept that they did exist for the purposes of discussion.

Quote:

For your information, regardless of all the philosophy involving after the characters mentioned right above, those are historical figures, and are discussed in lots of forums of history, like the one here.

Fine...and I am willing to accept that they exist for the purposes of discussion.

I have not said otherwise.

What is your problem?

Quote:

It doesn't bother me at all that besides history, other things are discussed, even jokes are made, or -like a dude in these forums who wants me 5 minutes inside a closet with him, whom probable will come out of that closet as gay if he tries something against me...(lol) - some lose their temper and start insulting and wishing to harm others.

I am not one of those people. I am treating you reasonably and courteously.

Quote:

Notice that what is surrounding the life of this man Yeshu (Jesus) is very important, because at one point even the calendar we use is based in his birth: Before Christ, and After Christ.

You can change the name in your calendar and say CE (Current Era) but your calendar still based on the birth of this man.

Does most of the entire world base their calendar in the birth of a person who never was born? Do you really think so?

I'll try to explain once again...see if you can understand:

I do not know if the Jesus described in the Bible actually existed...or if that is a composite of several people.

I simply do not know. There is absolutely no way for me to know.

I am willing to accept that the man did exist for purposes of conversation and discussion.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am willing to accept that the man did exist for purposes of conversation and discussion.

Why as the odds to me at the very best is only 50/50 that there is one real man behind all the the fantasies created around the name.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I am willing to accept that the man did exist for purposes of conversation and discussion.

Why as the odds to me at the very best is only 50/50 that there is one real man behind all the the fantasies created around the name.

Why not?

Why complicate a discussion by refusing to accept for the purposes of conversation that Jesus lived?

Seems to me it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just make the assumption that the man existed...discuss whatever has to be discussed...and then move on to the next thing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why complicate a discussion by refusing to accept for the purposes of conversation that Jesus lived?

Frank it is the subject of the thread for one thing IE was there a man name Jesus behind the Bible fantasies.

So there would be no discussion as far as the subject of this thread is concern if we all agree for argument that there was surely such a man.

As this thread title was not over the supernatural aspects of a man name Jesus only how likely was it that he existence or not as a living man.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Why complicate a discussion by refusing to accept for the purposes of conversation that Jesus lived?

Frank it is the subject of the thread for one thing IE was there a man name Jesus behind the Bible fantasies.

So there would be no discussion as far as the subject of this thread is concern if we all agree for argument that there was surely such a man.

As this thread title was not over the supernatural aspects of a man name Jesus only how likely was it that he existence or not as a living man.

Read my reply to Carlos, Bill, who erroneously thought I was saying that Jesus did not exist.

My reply is fine...and was directed toward fully answering the questions Carlos posed.

You are correct that the issue of the thread is "Did Jesus actually exist?"...but I can also explain that I am willing to accept his existence for the sake of a conversation...especially when it is in direct response to a question posed to me.

If you think the question and my response should be excluded from this thread...write to the administrators and ask that it be expunged.

0 Replies

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know