World is still here, and I am still a skeptic.

[playhavock]

So, the world did not end, and I think some are now saying it will New Years day, well of course, keep saying it, one day it will be true. But not any time soon and not within our life time. Now, that sillyness aside, I'm still a sketpic. And I've been reserching if Jesus Christ existed at all, my conclusion is that one can not say at all if he did as an actual person. That is to say, there is most likely no one person who lead a cult of early people to fourm christanity, but there were plenty of people named Jesus, as it was a common name. The facts just outweigh the auguments. Now, I can not say that there never was a person named Jesus Christ, that is just imposible, it is most possible given all I've studyed that what is known as a mystery relgion in the ancent world during the time of 0-20 became very envalistic so much so that they attraced new members and even one person who was littere enough to write down the storys they were telling.

One common augument regarding the late dating (20 years after Christ was said to die) is that this is still early enough to interview whoever might have actualy seen Christ. Okay, sure. Where are those interviews? They are not there. But, this is actualy made a moot point, we can see the writing that whoever wrote this failed utterly to do proper reserch to make a convincing story, there was no censous taken for example - well that is a blaring error - so here is one of several explations - whoever wrote this based it on a story someone told them, and thus, because they simply took there word for it, did not reserch to find out if it was true. Now, if that is true, then this whole augment for that people would have been around to interview no longer matters - because it is clear that if the person who wrote that this event happened could not be bothered to reserch THAT - why should it be any difernet in lack of reserch for interviewing people who actualy met Jesus?

So this augument fails in light of the facts at hand. Jesus is a myth, and this myth is busted.

Now the question at hand is - do the facts matter? Can Christanty still stand if they accepted that Jesus is nothing more then myth but it does not matter? Is the proper way to be Christan not to belive that Jesus existed, but rather that the idea of Jesus is to afferm that God is real?

However, I suspect most Christans will simply assert Christ was/is real and offer no proof on the matter.

[Tex]

So, the world did not end, and I think some are now saying it will New Years day, well of course, keep saying it, one day it will be true. But not any time soon and not within our life time. Now, that sillyness aside, I'm still a sketpic. And I've been reserching if Jesus Christ existed at all, my conclusion is that one can not say at all if he did as an actual person. That is to say, there is most likely no one person who lead a cult of early people to fourm christanity, but there were plenty of people named Jesus, as it was a common name. The facts just outweigh the auguments. Now, I can not say that there never was a person named Jesus Christ, that is just imposible, it is most possible given all I've studyed that what is known as a mystery relgion in the ancent world during the time of 0-20 became very envalistic so much so that they attraced new members and even one person who was littere enough to write down the storys they were telling.

One common augument regarding the late dating (20 years after Christ was said to die) is that this is still early enough to interview whoever might have actualy seen Christ. Okay, sure. Where are those interviews? They are not there. But, this is actualy made a moot point, we can see the writing that whoever wrote this failed utterly to do proper reserch to make a convincing story, there was no censous taken for example - well that is a blaring error - so here is one of several explations - whoever wrote this based it on a story someone told them, and thus, because they simply took there word for it, did not reserch to find out if it was true. Now, if that is true, then this whole augment for that people would have been around to interview no longer matters - because it is clear that if the person who wrote that this event happened could not be bothered to reserch THAT - why should it be any difernet in lack of reserch for interviewing people who actualy met Jesus?

So this augument fails in light of the facts at hand. Jesus is a myth, and this myth is busted.

Now the question at hand is - do the facts matter? Can Christanty still stand if they accepted that Jesus is nothing more then myth but it does not matter? Is the proper way to be Christan not to belive that Jesus existed, but rather that the idea of Jesus is to afferm that God is real?

However, I suspect most Christans will simply assert Christ was/is real and offer no proof on the matter.

First off....Why you mention the "end of the world" then start preaching about the Lord and how he didn't exist is weird to me.
Since again....If you had your facts right, you would know Lord Jesus never said when it would end. The year 2012, 2013 has nothing to do with Christianity.

So maybe you could read the NT, which you consider just another Harry Potter type book and get the fact straight about what you believe to be a so called Myth.

[TheTruth101]

So, the world did not end, and I think some are now saying it will New Years day, well of course, keep saying it, one day it will be true. But not any time soon and not within our life time. Now, that sillyness aside, I'm still a sketpic. And I've been reserching if Jesus Christ existed at all, my conclusion is that one can not say at all if he did as an actual person. That is to say, there is most likely no one person who lead a cult of early people to fourm christanity, but there were plenty of people named Jesus, as it was a common name. The facts just outweigh the auguments. Now, I can not say that there never was a person named Jesus Christ, that is just imposible, it is most possible given all I've studyed that what is known as a mystery relgion in the ancent world during the time of 0-20 became very envalistic so much so that they attraced new members and even one person who was littere enough to write down the storys they were telling.

One common augument regarding the late dating (20 years after Christ was said to die) is that this is still early enough to interview whoever might have actualy seen Christ. Okay, sure. Where are those interviews? They are not there. But, this is actualy made a moot point, we can see the writing that whoever wrote this failed utterly to do proper reserch to make a convincing story, there was no censous taken for example - well that is a blaring error - so here is one of several explations - whoever wrote this based it on a story someone told them, and thus, because they simply took there word for it, did not reserch to find out if it was true. Now, if that is true, then this whole augment for that people would have been around to interview no longer matters - because it is clear that if the person who wrote that this event happened could not be bothered to reserch THAT - why should it be any difernet in lack of reserch for interviewing people who actualy met Jesus?

So this augument fails in light of the facts at hand. Jesus is a myth, and this myth is busted.

Now the question at hand is - do the facts matter? Can Christanty still stand if they accepted that Jesus is nothing more then myth but it does not matter? Is the proper way to be Christan not to belive that Jesus existed, but rather that the idea of Jesus is to afferm that God is real?

However, I suspect most Christans will simply assert Christ was/is real and offer no proof on the matter.

Ofcourse one can still get to heaven EVEN if Jesus never existed. For all I know, even if someone believes in Zeus wholeheartedly and has found written manuscripts that explain any sort of eternity, then by all means, they will get to heavens. It's as simple as believing in a higher power or deity.
The question really lies, what teachings of historical phrophet figures suggests such dominant methods of spiritual condemnation in a well informed and divine ways. That's all that matters to me. It's a challenge indeed.

[TheTruth101]

So, the world did not end, and I think some are now saying it will New Years day, well of course, keep saying it, one day it will be true. But not any time soon and not within our life time. Now, that sillyness aside, I'm still a sketpic. And I've been reserching if Jesus Christ existed at all, my conclusion is that one can not say at all if he did as an actual person. That is to say, there is most likely no one person who lead a cult of early people to fourm christanity, but there were plenty of people named Jesus, as it was a common name. The facts just outweigh the auguments. Now, I can not say that there never was a person named Jesus Christ, that is just imposible, it is most possible given all I've studyed that what is known as a mystery relgion in the ancent world during the time of 0-20 became very envalistic so much so that they attraced new members and even one person who was littere enough to write down the storys they were telling.

One common augument regarding the late dating (20 years after Christ was said to die) is that this is still early enough to interview whoever might have actualy seen Christ. Okay, sure. Where are those interviews? They are not there. But, this is actualy made a moot point, we can see the writing that whoever wrote this failed utterly to do proper reserch to make a convincing story, there was no censous taken for example - well that is a blaring error - so here is one of several explations - whoever wrote this based it on a story someone told them, and thus, because they simply took there word for it, did not reserch to find out if it was true. Now, if that is true, then this whole augment for that people would have been around to interview no longer matters - because it is clear that if the person who wrote that this event happened could not be bothered to reserch THAT - why should it be any difernet in lack of reserch for interviewing people who actualy met Jesus?

So this augument fails in light of the facts at hand. Jesus is a myth, and this myth is busted.

Now the question at hand is - do the facts matter? Can Christanty still stand if they accepted that Jesus is nothing more then myth but it does not matter? Is the proper way to be Christan not to belive that Jesus existed, but rather that the idea of Jesus is to afferm that God is real?

However, I suspect most Christans will simply assert Christ was/is real and offer no proof on the matter.

Ofcourse one can still get to heaven EVEN if Jesus never existed. For all I know, even if someone believes in Zeus wholeheartedly and has written manuscripts that explain any sort of eternity, then by all means, they will get to heavens. It's as simple as believing in a higher power or deity.
The question really lies, what teachings of historical phrophet figures preaches methods of suffering for God in a well informed and divine ways. That's all that matters. If not Christ, wwhoever spoke of the teachings that Christ or Horus spoke of, within me, engages the most dominant spiritual condemnation. That's all that matters. Events took place and the teachings are the truth. Names are just names. Not important.

[Moses Yoder]

So, the world did not end, and I think some are now saying it will New Years day, well of course, keep saying it, one day it will be true. But not any time soon and not within our life time. Now, that sillyness aside, I'm still a sketpic. And I've been reserching if Jesus Christ existed at all, my conclusion is that one can not say at all if he did as an actual person. That is to say, there is most likely no one person who lead a cult of early people to fourm christanity, but there were plenty of people named Jesus, as it was a common name. The facts just outweigh the auguments. Now, I can not say that there never was a person named Jesus Christ, that is just imposible, it is most possible given all I've studyed that what is known as a mystery relgion in the ancent world during the time of 0-20 became very envalistic so much so that they attraced new members and even one person who was littere enough to write down the storys they were telling.

One common augument regarding the late dating (20 years after Christ was said to die) is that this is still early enough to interview whoever might have actualy seen Christ. Okay, sure. Where are those interviews? They are not there. But, this is actualy made a moot point, we can see the writing that whoever wrote this failed utterly to do proper reserch to make a convincing story, there was no censous taken for example - well that is a blaring error - so here is one of several explations - whoever wrote this based it on a story someone told them, and thus, because they simply took there word for it, did not reserch to find out if it was true. Now, if that is true, then this whole augment for that people would have been around to interview no longer matters - because it is clear that if the person who wrote that this event happened could not be bothered to reserch THAT - why should it be any difernet in lack of reserch for interviewing people who actualy met Jesus?

So this augument fails in light of the facts at hand. Jesus is a myth, and this myth is busted.

Now the question at hand is - do the facts matter? Can Christanty still stand if they accepted that Jesus is nothing more then myth but it does not matter? Is the proper way to be Christan not to belive that Jesus existed, but rather that the idea of Jesus is to afferm that God is real?

However, I suspect most Christans will simply assert Christ was/is real and offer no proof on the matter.

I present as evidence Wikipedia's Historicity of Jesus If Jesus didn't exist, most modern scholars of history are incorrect. I see you do not present any evidence, just conjecture, thus my argument is stronger than yours.

[playhavock]

First off....Why you mention the "end of the world" then start preaching about the Lord and how he didn't exist is weird to me.
Since again....If you had your facts right, you would know Lord Jesus never said when it would end. The year 2012, 2013 has nothing to do with Christianity.

So maybe you could read the NT, which you consider just another Harry Potter type book and get the fact straight about what you believe to be a so called Myth.

I mention end of the world because plenty of people were talking about it and I find it humorus that they were wrong. It has no connection to my research on Jesus.

Read the NT... why would I do that (again) when I think it is a myth? Can you provide me a reasion to think that it is true without referancing the NT or OT?

Facts strate, yep I did that. Can you show me any facts that would make me reconseder that Jesus ever existed?

Of course one can still get to heaven EVEN if Jesus never existed.

How do you know there is a heaven?

For all I know, even if someone believes in Zeus wholeheartedly and has found written manuscripts that explain any sort of eternity, then by all means, they will get to heavens.

Why would they have to find manuscripts? Is it belife or the manuscirpts and belife that alows them to get to hevens? How do you know this?

It's as simple as believing in a higher power or deity.

How do you know? Can the higher power be engery itself without being a deity?
Just how "high" does said power have to be? What sort of power? What type of deity?

The question really lies, what teachings of historical phrophet figures suggests such dominant methods of spiritual condemnation in a well informed and divine ways. That's all that matters to me. It's a challenge indeed.

How would you dertimin such a thing?

I present as evidence Wikipedia's Historicity of Jesus If Jesus didn't exist, most modern scholars of history are incorrect. I see you do not present any evidence, just conjecture, thus my argument is stronger than yours.

Most modern scholars... sight exmples. The page itself admits there is not a lot of data on the subject. However, I looked at wiki first, then read a huge amount on the matter here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... istory.htm this is a very detaled augment and has a number of referances and facts.

Even if you could (and I do not think you can) show that "most" modern scholars of histroy do belive and/or think that Jesus actualy was a figure in history, this is nothing more then an apeal to athority/popularty. But, I do not think you can show this.

[Moses Yoder]

I present as evidence Wikipedia's Historicity of Jesus If Jesus didn't exist, most modern scholars of history are incorrect. I see you do not present any evidence, just conjecture, thus my argument is stronger than yours.

Most modern scholars... sight exmples. The page itself admits there is not a lot of data on the subject. However, I looked at wiki first, then read a huge amount on the matter here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... istory.htm this is a very detaled augment and has a number of referances and facts.

Even if you could (and I do not think you can) show that "most" modern scholars of histroy do belive and/or think that Jesus actualy was a figure in history, this is nothing more then an apeal to athority/popularty. But, I do not think you can show this.

I present as evidence the first line of the first page you are using for your argument, linked here http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... istory.htm .

[Moses Yoder]

The Gospel of Mark is the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
The origin of the Gospels has always been unknown. At no point has anyone (that we know of) really known who wrote any of the Gospels, when they were written, or even where they were written. Each of the Gospels could have been written anywhere from Egypt to Rome, and the estimated dates for their writing range from around 50 CE at the earliest estimates to about 150 CE at the latest, with a minority of people proposing dates into the 4th century.

The traditional explanation for the origin of the Gospels has been that they were each written independently by people who were either disciples of Jesus or who received their information from disciples of Jesus. This is called the apostolistic tradition, and according to the apostolistic tradition a Gospel could only be considered "authentic" if it had a direct lineage to an apostle, thus the names assigned to each of the Gospels were given in order to help establish their authenticity.

It has not always been believed, however, that each of the Gospels is an eyewitness account. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke explicitly states that it is compiled from the research of the author.

The earliest account for the origin of some of the Gospels comes to us from the early church leader Papias, from about 130 CE:

Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as lie has recorded them; for lie was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts. ... Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able.
- Papias, 130 CE

Here Papias states that the Gospel called Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that Mark recorded his Gospel from the apostle Peter. He then goes on to state that the Gospel called Matthew was written by someone named Matthew who wrote his Gospel in "the Hebrew dialect", which would have been Aramaic. We'll go ahead and look at one more early explanation for the origin of the Gospels and then analyze these statements.

Around 175 CE the early church leader Irenaeus expounded upon the information of Papias when he gave an account of the origin of each of the four Gospels that later became canon.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
- Irenaeus; Against Heresies, 175 CE

Here the author of the page you are quoting makes claims with no evidence to back them up. For instance, he has not proven that Irenaeus was in fact a real person, or that Papias did in fact exist. I could use the exact same argument he is using, to discredit his sources.

[A Troubled Man]

I present as evidence Wikipedia's Historicity of Jesus If Jesus didn't exist, most modern scholars of history are incorrect. I see you do not present any evidence, just conjecture, thus my argument is stronger than yours.

Interesting that article relies heavily on the writings of Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger as it's key sources, even though they were all written decades after the alleged event of crucifixion.

[Tex]

First off....Why you mention the "end of the world" then start preaching about the Lord and how he didn't exist is weird to me.
Since again....If you had your facts right, you would know Lord Jesus never said when it would end. The year 2012, 2013 has nothing to do with Christianity.

So maybe you could read the NT, which you consider just another Harry Potter type book and get the fact straight about what you believe to be a so called Myth.

I mention end of the world because plenty of people were talking about it and I find it humorus that they were wrong. It has no connection to my research on Jesus.

Read the NT... why would I do that (again) when I think it is a myth? Can you provide me a reasion to think that it is true without referancing the NT or OT?

Facts strate, yep I did that. Can you show me any facts that would make me reconseder that Jesus ever existed?

Of course one can still get to heaven EVEN if Jesus never existed.

How do you know there is a heaven?

For all I know, even if someone believes in Zeus wholeheartedly and has found written manuscripts that explain any sort of eternity, then by all means, they will get to heavens.

Why would they have to find manuscripts? Is it believe or the manuscirpts and believe that alows them to get to hevens? How do you know this?

It's as simple as believing in a higher power or deity.

How do you know? Can the higher power be engery itself without being a deity?
Just how "high" does said power have to be? What sort of power? What type of deity?

[quote[
The question really lies, what teachings of historical phrophet figures suggests such dominant methods of spiritual condemnation in a well informed and divine ways. That's all that matters to me. It's a challenge indeed.

How would you dertimin such a thing?

I present as evidence Wikipedia's Historicity of Jesus If Jesus didn't exist, most modern scholars of history are incorrect. I see you do not present any evidence, just conjecture, thus my argument is stronger than yours.

Most modern scholars... sight exmples. The page itself admits there is not a lot of data on the subject. However, I looked at wiki first, then read a huge amount on the matter here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... istory.htm this is a very detaled augment and has a number of referances and facts.

Even if you could (and I do not think you can) show that "most" modern scholars of histroy do belive and/or think that Jesus actualy was a figure in history, this is nothing more then an apeal to athority/popularty. But, I do not think you can show this.

[/quote]

Do you believe Portugal exist because of the people or because of the land the Portuguese people are on? Maybe it because you have seen Portuguese people.

Do you believe because something happened in another country before you were born, it never happened? Or before the creation of TV?

Do you believe Rome to be thousands of years old? Maybe Rome is a myth and was only created after Lord Jesus?

You just want attention and are creating this subject to mock Christians.
Would you believe Joseph Smith existed? Do you believe Mohammed existed?

It's really is up to you to make these choices isn't it.
What about Saint Paul and the Apostles, do you believe they existed?

Are you saying: All you need is to have something written by Lord Jesus to believe he existed? Would that be enough?