6
   

Did Jesus Really exist?

 
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 08:23 am
Leadfoot wrote:
They were eye witnesses who lived with him.

It's not nice for a religious person to be lying through your teeth..
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 08:36 am
@timur,
Quote:
It's not nice for a religious person to be lying through your teeth..

Then it's a Good thing I'm neither of those things.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 08:49 am
Denying it doesn't make it true..
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 09:08 am
@timur,
Neither does your making assertions automatically make yours true.
Got any supporting arguments to go with them?
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 09:12 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Neither does your making assertions automatically make yours true.
Got any supporting arguments to go with them?
Well, you lied when you asserted that people who lived with Jesus wrote about him..
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 09:13 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What I wrote is the truth. Not one person wrote about a Jesus in the supposed person's lifetime. Not one eyewitness, not one book known to exist. Is that plain enough?

Just because the people who were with him wrote the documents 10 - 30 years after the events does not invalidate them. They were eye witnesses who lived with him. They were people who took the 'rules' about not bearing false witness and lying seriously. They did not have any mandate to 'write the bible' or document the events at the time. This was after all a very informal and small group. It is common for people write accounts of events long after they happen. Biographies and autobiographies are typically written at the end of a persons life for logical reasons. Another factor is that the witnesses were under threat of death for their beliefs.


If you wish to impugn their integrity or say they made the whole thing up you can but then you would have to apply that same doubt to every thing ever written if you are to take that approach.

Just because their writings were included in 'the bible' is not a reason to invalidate them.

I think you really believe this, but you are not checking your sources well enough to know what you are talking about.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 09:20 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I think you really believe this, but you are not checking your sources well enough to know what you are talking about.
There are multiple copies of the documents from that time period so from your statements I assume you are among those who think it was a conspiracy to make the whole thing up.

You are of course entitled to that opinion but you have presented no rationale or evidence to support that conclusion.
timur
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 09:23 am
@Leadfoot,
You are the one who claims, so give the evidence and, don't forget :

-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 10:03 am
@Leadfoot,
I don't intend to do your research for you. If you truly care to know, the information is easily searchable.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 10:11 am
@edgarblythe,
I'm asking you whether you believe those documents from that time exist or not and if so, do you think they were written as a conspiracy or as a record of what they experienced.

A simple yes or no would be sufficient. It's not a trick question and I'm not asking you for proof.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 11:29 am
@Leadfoot,
There are no documents from the lifetime of Jesus that were written by eyewitnesses.

Do you know when the gospels were written?
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 03:50 pm
@High Strangeness,
High Strangeness wrote:

said- "The Jesus as we know him - the Jesus of Christianity - definitely did not exist.."



But you left out edgars followup statement that it's "possible" Jesus didn't exist at all, which means it's also possible he did.

That doesn't refute at all what Dawkins says in the video,

Seriously, talk about cherry picking.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 04:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
There are no documents from the lifetime of Jesus that were written by eyewitnesses.

Do you know when the gospels were written?

I don't think the exact dates are known. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written between 10 to 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. I guess that's the technicality that you are fixated on. I just don't think that 'delay' makes much difference as I explained before. They were still written by the men who personally knew him.

Are you saying that isn't true or that they fabricated their stories?

Some bible scholars say that portions of Matthew were written by others which may be true but again, not a deal breaker for me.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 04:52 pm
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html
Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.

The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.

In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. Peter and Paul likely perished during the persecution of the church in Rome by Nero. The deaths of these important church leaders likely encouraged the writing down of narratives about Jesus.

In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.

Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.

This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most researchers hold that both Evangelists also had a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works. This saying source is known as “Q” and was likely assembled in the 40s or 50s. This understanding of the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke explains why they are similar yet different from one another. The arrangement is called “The Two-Source Hypothesis” because Matthew and Luke are seen to have two written sources, Mark and Q.

The Gospel of John emerges from an independent literary tradition that is not directly connected to the Synoptic tradition.


>There is no way eyewitnesses wrote any of the New Testament.< eb
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 04:53 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
There are no documents from the lifetime of Jesus that were written by eyewitnesses.

Do you know when the gospels were written?

I don't think the exact dates are known. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written between 10 to 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. I guess that's the technicality that you are fixated on. I just don't think that 'delay' makes much difference as I explained before. They were still written by the men who personally knew him.

Are you saying that isn't true or that they fabricated their stories?

Some bible scholars say that portions of Matthew were written by others which may be true but again, not a deal breaker for me.


Here is the thing I find suspect. If there was a guy going around healing the diseased, curing blindness and walking on water. Surely the Romans abd Greeks would have taken notice and atleast documented this person. However; oddly none did. Even though the greeks hated the Jews, they still recorded events even when they were the victims of these events. The greeks recorded everything, like modern day bloggers.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 05:21 pm
@edgarblythe,
Various scholars have different conclusions about the exact dates although the dates from the source you cited are not much different than what I stated. What's + or - 20 years 2000 years later? Also, the order in which the gospels were written is of not much importance either.

But thank you for making it clear. You apparently think the gospels were fabricated and forged.

I should clarify that the conclusions of scholars is questionable in many areas. For example, their analysis of the scriptures came up with the conclusion that Jesus was God. That was obviously based on something other than the available texts of any period.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 05:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
You don't want to look at the topic head on. 20 years for the first gospel is naive, but even that is pretty far removed from the time he supposedly lived. I never called the New Testament lies, exactly. Only that what they believed and wrote about Jesus is not from a close perspective, making legend and the fog of time distort what is fact and what is illusion.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 07:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
We all have our perspectives.
Peace Edgar.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2017 at 09:23:32