Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is this what you view these debates as? A fight? Live or death?

It is a fight, and whether you accept Jesus is a matter of life or death.

When it comes to contemplation, to things of the mind, it is best to take it slow, to think things over calmly and rationally.

And what makes you think a real-time conversation would be otherwise?

There are people who are quick-witted and have no problem debating live, but nothing beats a spaced out argument. Why penalise the thinker who is able to deliver cogent points but simply is unable to do it live? His points aren't worth 'less' or are of a lesser quality simply because he needs time to type it out.

It isn't like that, sir. I am not looking to debate, per se...rather...discuss.

Anyway, I'm game for a real live chat. I've got a week off work starting next week (technically Sunday 2nd October), with no real plans for activities.

Everyone interested should get their Yahoo IM's ready.

If you agree to do it with me, I have one stipulation - we have a discussion about how exactly we're going to do this in regular posts on this forum, as in, one of us creates a topic like we usually do and hash things out there. This is so that there is a clear record of what it is the two of us agree to (whatever our agreement turns out to be).

Please clarify that for me.

[Blastcat]

Is this what you view these debates as? A fight? Live or death?

It is a fight, and whether you accept Jesus is a matter of life or death.

When it comes to contemplation, to things of the mind, it is best to take it slow, to think things over calmly and rationally.

And what makes you think a real-time conversation would be otherwise?

There are people who are quick-witted and have no problem debating live, but nothing beats a spaced out argument. Why penalise the thinker who is able to deliver cogent points but simply is unable to do it live? His points aren't worth 'less' or are of a lesser quality simply because he needs time to type it out.

It isn't like that, sir. I am not looking to debate, per se...rather...discuss.

Anyway, I'm game for a real live chat. I've got a week off work starting next week (technically Sunday 2nd October), with no real plans for activities.

Everyone interested should get their Yahoo IM's ready.

If you agree to do it with me, I have one stipulation - we have a discussion about how exactly we're going to do this in regular posts on this forum, as in, one of us creates a topic like we usually do and hash things out there. This is so that there is a clear record of what it is the two of us agree to (whatever our agreement turns out to be).

Please clarify that for me.

It might be fun to record the event and then post it to something like Youtube. If God's willing and the creek don't rise.

[benchwarmer]

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts.

It is called something different. Of the hundreds of posts that some of us make on here, you mean to tell me we can't have one good real time dialogue?

Fair enough, but you seemed to imply, or more accurately you stated, that you would 'drop some gems' in a live conversation. Do these gems not stand up in a forum post?

Anyway, I wish you the best in finding someone to dialogue with. I understand some (most?) people prefer actual live conversation. I'm likely in the minority, but I prefer written exchange.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Every piece of evidence we have tells us Jesus existed. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence, from any reasonable time frame after his existence, that tells us he never existed. All the evidence points one way. Arguing Jesus never existed is only a recent criticism, only after enough time has passed, which isn't back up by ANY evidence but only trying to discredit all the evidence we have. If any one thinks he never existed, why have they not provided any evidence of this?

[Talishi]

If any one thinks he never existed, why have they not provided any evidence of this?

For the same reason we think there is no aquatic monkepotamus on Arcturus IV, despite our failure to provide evidence of this. You have to provide evidence there is a thing, not evidence there is not.

[MadeNew]

If any one thinks he never existed, why have they not provided any evidence of this?

For the same reason we think there is no aquatic monkepotamus on Arcturus IV, despite our failure to provide evidence of this. You have to provide evidence there is a thing, not evidence there is not.

How about every piece of evidence we have on the subject? If all the evidence points one way, and you admit to having no counter evidence, why do we even debate this subject? And how do you feel about a flat earth?

[Talishi]

How about every piece of evidence we have on the subject? If all the evidence points one way, and you admit to having no counter evidence, why do we even debate this subject? And how do you feel about a flat earth?

What evidence do we have that Jesus existed?

1) Four unauthorized biographies written by unknown authors from a range of 35-75 years after Jesus was said to have been crucified, none of whom personally met the fellow.

2) A claim by a fellow that he met the ghost of Jesus three years after Jesus was said to have been crucified.

3) A small number of third-party historians commenting on the existence of a Jesus movement.

????

[Willum]

[Replying to post 152 by MadeNew]

Hi madenew, we did prove this to you before.
Every other kook and quack in Jesus day has some documentation, but this most important one, who isn't a quack - isn't recorded. Amazing!
Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire


Then there is that Jesus left us a present:
Lazarus.

Lazaru was left alive to go talk to kings, Emperors, all the little children.

What would Lazarus have to tell these important people that they were interested in?
What it was like to be dead.
Are you kidding me! I would have liked to know!

He would have been on world tour. Quoted, debated, declared the truth, declared a fraud - spoken about as far away as China.

And yet he is not.

That is proof, my friend.
That is proof.

You can also read my previous posts in this thread for why Jesus couldn't exist because he supported the blasphemous Roman Empire. Asking people of Jerusalem to pay tithes to the divine emperor, and obey his blasphemous empire. (That's from the NT.)

As an added wrinkle, the first insurrection in 70AD was religious in nature. You and many others claimed that there were no pagan temple in Jerusalem, there were. So Jesus gave his famous "Render" speech near a temple to the divine Caesars.

Let me remind you:
Jesus is asked if it is OK to pay a blasphemous tax with coins that would make Jews unclean to touch them.
In response he points at the temple where you pay your tithes to the divine Augustus, and says "Render to the god Caesar, what is Caesars, but don't fail to pay to God what he owns."

By rend to Caesar what is Caesar, if you were a Greek, Roman or Jew at the time, would mean: Tithe to him for the water he brings, protection he provides and food in winter. I assume you would rend to god, for those same things he brings today: Nothing.

[MadeNew]

How about every piece of evidence we have on the subject? If all the evidence points one way, and you admit to having no counter evidence, why do we even debate this subject? And how do you feel about a flat earth?

What evidence do we have that Jesus existed?

1) Four unauthorized biographies written by unknown authors from a range of 35-75 years after Jesus was said to have been crucified, none of whom personally met the fellow.

2) A claim by a fellow that he met the ghost of Jesus three years after Jesus was said to have been crucified.

3) A small number of third-party historians commenting on the existence of a Jesus movement.

????

So you are admitting to about 8 sources that claim Jesus was a real person (estimating "a small number" to be 3, (and there is a lot more then that you haven't listed), and all of these early sources are pointing to the same thing, Jesus existed...

Ok, so what was your argument again?

[Talishi]

So you are admitting to about 8 sources that claim Jesus was a real person (estimating "a small number" to be 3, (and there is a lot more then that you haven't listed), and all of these early sources are pointing to the same thing, Jesus existed...

If, two thousand years from now, historians still have a few fragments of contemporary reports about the existence of the Church of Scientology, Scientologists of that time will say, "See, third party confirmation that Xenu existed!" They will say that, but it won't be proof that Xenu existed.