Wolfie

Observing this debate, it seems to me that there is about the same evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Robin Hood.

The parallel can be strengthened. There is no documented evidence of the existence of a 'Robin Hood' or 'Robin of Locksley'... Life for the average serf in 12th century England was sufficiently miserable that any story concerning someone who supposedly 'robbed the rich and gave to the poor' would rapidly be promulgated. The truth of the matter was perhaps more along the lines of a gang of thieves who robbed the rich - there's not much point in robbing the poor, is there? - the 'giving to the poor' bit was tacked on as some sort of romantic embellishment.

So the character of Robin Hood probably grew out of such rumours.

The same sort of arguments can be made about 'King Arthur' - how an ~8th century 'monarch' got to ride around in 14th century armour confounds me, though.

So here we have 'mythical' characters coming to the fore at a time when people are in need of a popular hero. The same argument can be made about Jesus.

I have no problem with existence of a historical character called Jesus - or several characters, a combination of which gives rise to the Jesus legend at a time when a popular hero was just the thing.

OK - there's no historical evidence outside the bible for the existence of such a person. The real name might not have been Jesus. It might have been Judas...

Queen of Swords

Go here for the answer.

ziffel

You are claiming I made a statement that I never made.

You said: "There is no body"

I said: "which could be evidence that he never existed"

That there isn't a body is NOT proof that he did exist. That is all I was saying.


Jesus' body is missing = proof of his miracles? WTF ...


Jesus is the most important person today? man, you just come right out there with the wild assertions. Jesus wasn't even the most important person of his time, in fact, he wasn't important at all. He was the leader of a small, insignificant cult, that aroused so little interest that Jesus is mentioned briefly, only a handful of times in secular (non-biblical) literature. Roman and Jewish historians barely noticed him, if at all, meanwhile documenting many other events of the day. Jesus became "important" hundreds of years later when Rome declared him so.

I recommend you stop reading pitiful Josh McDowell apologetics and start learning some real history. Or perhaps you can cite some non-biblical evidences of the historical Jesus.

You are simply taking what is written at face value, without realizing the history of what they wrote. Meanwhile you readily dismiss other religions' "historical" writings on the same ground I dismiss yours.

Wolfie

Aww - QoS, I was saddened to read that...

Despite being an ungodly Infidel - I am a firm believer in the power of prayer. I don't delude myself that 'prayer' is a method by which wants/desires/wishes are communicated to the Almighty via some sort of spiritual email. If God is all knowing - he knows what said wants/desires/wishes are anyway. I do believe that 'prayer' can act in the same way as some meditative states - the powers of self healing of the body can be marshalled and focused. I'm doubtful as to whether such 'mind over matter' type concentration could cure a major cancer - but there again, in certain individuals, it just might.

Growing a replacement limb lost to amputation is another matter! If that really happens - then that is a miracle! (Well, unless someone has actually created a functional cell regeneration chamber which can grow specific functional cells....)

Tears In The Rain

In my experience, prayer works 100%. Every day I pray for my head to not explode, so far so good.

Wolfie

Yeah - and I'm the guy who prays for the sun to rise every morning - so you'd better sure as hell hope nothing happens to me!

gracebkr

Only a moron would dispute Jesus' existence and anyone who tries is clearly so foggy in the brain with their hate they can no longer make sense.

Do your own research. Not to be mean, but I did mine and now if you want to argue about my research, you must first be the one to find where the argument must go. Asking me to research for you is lazy on your part.

OldYgg

1) The vast majority of people on this site dispute the existence of Jesus in some form or another - they come in a few varieties:
a) Historical Jesus does not exist
b) Jesus did exist, but probably did not perform many of the actions attributed to him
c) Jesus did exist, but there is little proof of any divine origin
d) and probably many others.
In light of this, and many other ideas on this site, you are the one that needs to present proof, not us. This is the case with anyone that wants to make an assertion. You need to prove your facts. In my opinion, Jesus did not exist, his very name is symbolism, not something that people would actually name thier child.

2) As I mention above - the person making an assertion needs to be the one that proves their point. If a product claims to clean your teeth, do you just believe the claim or do you experiment to figure it out? Do you ask others for their opinion? Do you believe the claim even if it doesn't work for you?

If, as you claim, you've done your research before, and your goal is simply to enlighten us heretics, then you should be all too willing to provide us with your historical sources. This way you can win more hit-points and souls for your god and gain easier entrance to heaven.

But a word of caution, all historical sources have been gone over on the threads in this forum - and all have been found lacking in many ways. In addition, there are only like 5 or 6 sources, and if Jesus really did exist, and really did have this significant an impact on the world - then there would easily be hundreds of first-person accounts of those actions.

Old Ygg

NeverByte

Oh, for crying in a bucket. You've not shown any evidence for the existence of Jesus. I'm assuming the reason you so vehemently assert his existence is simply 'Bible sez'.

Do you believe Hercules existed? Perseus? Icarus? No? Taking the case of Hercules, we have statues, paintings and writings which predate the New Testament by 450 years (according to wikipedia). This places Hercules ahead of Jesus in terms of historicity, as Hercules has more than one minging book going for him.

Only a moron would dispute Hercules' existence and anyone who tries is clearly so foggy in the brain with their hate they can no longer make sense.

Avatar

A True Believer on our hands again. Will this guy claim to be the messiah as Larsguy did?
The first symptom of a closed mind.
This will astonish you: The vast majority of us have. Unlike you, we went outside the Bible and looked at real world evidence to corroborate the Biblical tales. Said evidence was conspicuous in its absence.
You are the one making the claim (several actually). That Jesus existed, that he was somehow "magical" in some way, and that his followers wrote down his story accurately. You have presented no evidence that such claims are true other than simply saying that "it is because it is."
No. It is proof that the body is missing...along with the bodies of millions of other people who were alive over the centuries. Will you argue that they were all divine as well?
Well, the fact is that there are no records of his existence by any of the historians of the period when Jesus was supposedly walking around doing miracles and gathering a following. You'd think that some historian somewhere would have mentioned him. Alas, the only records we have that even hint of his existence have turned out to be outright forgeries...over and over again.
Actually no. You just compounded bad reasoning and zero logic with more bad reasoning and zero logic.