I like female races. Boobs jiggling, buns swishing back and forth, and leg muscles flexing and extending...... it's mesmerizing.
Jesus never existed.
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
Indeed, VanIsle. That is why I said that I find the Devil to be a much more colorful, more interesting character than God.
I could easily chew the fat with the Devil over a pint of beer (well, over a glass of white wine if she is a woman). But God? According to some, God will frown on alcohol, whether a pint or a glass of wine.
Yeah, real women don't drink beer. Huh, Joey. lmao What a maroon, Bugs Bunny, Looney Tunes, Sound Bite
If we are talking about the existance of Jesus, there seems to be ample proof of his life.
Outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Consider the chronicle of Cornelius Tacitus (55 to 117 A.D.). Tacitus was a Roman statesman and historian. He held several positions in the Roman government, including that of proconsul, or governor of the Roman provinces in Asia. Tacitus is also regarded as the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome.
One of the crowning achievements of Tacitus’ work is Annals, a 16 volume history of the Julian emperors from Tiberius to Nero, written between 115 and 117 A.D. In this work, Tacitus wrote about persistent reports of Jesus’ resurrection.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular (15.44). When using the words "a most mischievous superstition," Tacitus was referring to the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. This belief spread throughout the empire. When Roman officials heard of it, they considered it a superstition. However, those who were eyewitnesses called it a miracle.
Tacitus was not the only Roman historian who makes mention of the biblical Jesus. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69 to 140 A.D.) was a contemporary of Tacitus. Suetonius was a Roman biographer and historian whose writings are one of the primary sources of information about the lives of the first twelve Caesars.
Suetonius once wrote of a wave of riots which broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome in 49 A.D. In his chronicle called Claudius, Suetonius explains that the Jews were banished from the city.
He (Claudius) banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus (Claudius, XXV).
The name "Chrestus" used by Suetonius is a variant spelling of Christ. It is virtually the same as that used by Tacitus. The point Suetonius was making is that riots broke out because of opposing views about Christ. I hope what I posted here helps you in some small way.
Jesus also mentioned in the Quran at least twenty five times.
If He never existed, why would all these people write about Him?
lmao Why would people write about Santa?
There is no firsthand evidence whatsoever that any such person existed, holy or not.
In the 1st century CE, only one non-Christian source mentions Jesus; a citation from the Jewish historian, Josephus. It's not a direct proof as it refers to him as brother of James. (A second citation of Josephus, is a Christian corruption of Josephus' done three centuries later and has to be totally discounted). No one can be sure that the first citation even refers to the same person that is in the gospels; there were very many Jesus’ in that period and a couple of those were revolutionaries.
There is no firsthand evidence whatsoever that any such person existed, holy or not.
In the 1st century CE, only one non-Christian source mentions Jesus; a citation from the Jewish historian, Josephus. It's not a direct proof as it refers to him as brother of James. (A second citation of Josephus, is a Christian corruption of Josephus' done three centuries later and has to be totally discounted). No one can be sure that the first citation even refers to the same person that is in the gospels; there were very many Jesus’ in that period and a couple of those were revolutionaries.
If we are talking about the existence of Jesus, there seems to be ample proof of his life.
Juan, in my opinion, that argument is really pointless, I couldn’t care less if Jesus the man lived or not. The issue is did Jesus the God live? And here the answer in my opinion is no (since I am an Atheist). Existence of Jesus the man in no way proves existence of Jesus the God.
Juan, in my opinion, that argument is really pointless, I couldn’t care less if Jesus the man lived or not. The issue is did Jesus the God live? And here the answer in my opinion is no (since I am an Atheist). Existence of Jesus the man in no way proves existence of Jesus the God.
I used to think so too, then I went looking for it.
The contemporaneous accounts of a person going around turning over tables and curing demons are missing. Surely someone would have written about such a trouble maker. Even the records of the crucifiction are missing. The Jewish writings can even be taken as evidence that Christianity began based on already present mythology. Many writings mention Christians and their beliefs in passing, merely as a group that they took notice of, which makes sense, nobody doubts that Christianity never existed.
Sure the lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack of existence, but if he were genuinely divine, someone would have wrote about him resurrecting a child, at the very least. It is simply true that the evidence which exists is non-compelling and the lack of existence is the null hypothesis.
Exactly, N.
I got out a list of reasons to disbelieve the existence of the guy:
(1) There is no mention of the guy during the time he was supposed to have lived..
(2) The gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses.
(3) The gospels are myths.
(4) Christianity is derived from myths much older than Jesus supposed existence.
(5) Paul wrote of a “spiritual” Christ, not a real, live, human Jesus.
(6) There is nothing at all written about the guy's mannerisms, looks, character, lineage, etc.
and one last one where I include a little info from some dood named Frank Zindler:
(7) "Frank Zindler notes that many liberal Christian apologists will readily agree that, “While the gospels cannot be taken literally, they are at least evidence of "somebody" extraordinary. But these same apologists miss the irony of Jesus being so obscure that no secular record of him survives. (It is ironic also that despite being a well-known public figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to bribe Judas to point him out!)” (The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 5) This last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the reader might think that at least some part of the gospel fables might be true. I believe, as does Zindler, that this is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point of a vanishing possibility." - Don Havis
I got out a list of reasons to disbelieve the existence of the guy:
(1) There is no mention of the guy during the time he was supposed to have lived..
(2) The gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses.
(3) The gospels are myths.
(4) Christianity is derived from myths much older than Jesus supposed existence.
(5) Paul wrote of a “spiritual” Christ, not a real, live, human Jesus.
(6) There is nothing at all written about the guy's mannerisms, looks, character, lineage, etc.
and one last one where I include a little info from some dood named Frank Zindler:
(7) "Frank Zindler notes that many liberal Christian apologists will readily agree that, “While the gospels cannot be taken literally, they are at least evidence of "somebody" extraordinary. But these same apologists miss the irony of Jesus being so obscure that no secular record of him survives. (It is ironic also that despite being a well-known public figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to bribe Judas to point him out!)” (The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 5) This last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the reader might think that at least some part of the gospel fables might be true. I believe, as does Zindler, that this is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point of a vanishing possibility." - Don Havis
Sure the lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack of existence, but if he were genuinely divine, someone would have wrote about him resurrecting a child, at the very least.
Niflmir, even if someone wrote about him resurrecting a child, that would not mean that it happened. For such a thing as resurrection, anecdotal evidence is not enough.
To me, whether Jesus the man lived is irrelevant. No amount of proof can prove that Jesus the God lived. So historical evidence is largely meaningless when its comes to proving divinity of Jesus. Historical evidence may be of interest to historians, but nothing more.
Niflmir, even if someone wrote about him resurrecting a child, that would not mean that it happened. For such a thing as resurrection, anecdotal evidence is not enough.
To me, whether Jesus the man lived is irrelevant. No amount of proof can prove that Jesus the God lived. So historical evidence is largely meaningless when its comes to proving divinity of Jesus. Historical evidence may be of interest to historians, but nothing more.
Agnostic works too ... but what's the question? Are there people in this world that believe a person named Jesus was the messiah and others that believe there has not been a messiah; that the Jesus of the bible is a myth?
Gee whiz ... where I come from that's the big question between Judaism and Christianity. Who cares. So Jesus did exist, so he didn't ... pick your religion and run with it.
It literally took me 60 seconds to find a scripture where Paul refers to Jesus as real man that existed.
In fact, Paul was PERSECUTING the early Christians, when JESUS himself appeared before Paul on the road to Damascus, and entered Paul's life in a very profound way. So profound that his name was changed from Saul to Paul. Being a self-righteous and influential religious zealot, Paul had no reason whatsoever to pull a complete 180 degrees and become the greatest missionary in history, to which he suffered many hardships. This is his testimony to the crowd:
Acts 22:1-21
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. I PERSECUTED the followers of this way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' "
" 'Who are you, Lord?' " I asked.
" 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
" 'What shall I do, Lord?' "I asked.
"'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.' My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
"A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. He stood beside me and said, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him.
"Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking.'Quick!' he said to me. 'Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.'
" 'Lord,' I replied, 'these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.' "
"Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' "
There is so much evidence that he really existed, thousands of reasons compared to your silly list. Not to mention the reasons behind the psychology of denouncing something's existence when you supposedly don't believe in a spiritual realm anyway. If you don't believe in God, and therefore you don't believe that Jesus is the life, the truth, and the way to the father just like how he said, then what do you care if really existed?
Last edited:
Thousands of reasons? All from the Bible I suppose. Isn't that the book that insists there is a god and we should accept its word without ANY evidence whatsoever?
Take a look at Ramses 2. There is direct evidence that he existed. We know what he looked like from descriptions of him given by people from his day. Same with loads of other leaders. Where's a description of this Jesus? Not a word about his mannerisms. Was he left- or right-handed. Was his nose ever broken?
Where are the eyewitnesses that wrote the gospels? There were NONE. They are hearsay.
The majority of Christianity was borrowed from much older myths.
People have found bones, hair, etc. of people from 10s of thousands of years ago, NOTHING from this Jesus. Not a hair. Not a comb. NOTHING.
Any family tree of sorts? Nope.
Why not simply accept the fact that there is no direct evidence of the guy's existence and anything else is simply hearsay?
I have nothing against people if they want to believe in Jesus, gods, Santa Claus, goblins, or whatever. But don't claim they are real if there is no evidence other than hearsay for them.
Take a look at Ramses 2. There is direct evidence that he existed. We know what he looked like from descriptions of him given by people from his day. Same with loads of other leaders. Where's a description of this Jesus? Not a word about his mannerisms. Was he left- or right-handed. Was his nose ever broken?
Where are the eyewitnesses that wrote the gospels? There were NONE. They are hearsay.
The majority of Christianity was borrowed from much older myths.
People have found bones, hair, etc. of people from 10s of thousands of years ago, NOTHING from this Jesus. Not a hair. Not a comb. NOTHING.
Any family tree of sorts? Nope.
Why not simply accept the fact that there is no direct evidence of the guy's existence and anything else is simply hearsay?
I have nothing against people if they want to believe in Jesus, gods, Santa Claus, goblins, or whatever. But don't claim they are real if there is no evidence other than hearsay for them.
Last edited:
Evidence: existence, the starry skies, the moral standard within
his unique birth, his family, his genelogy, his unique and perfect nature, his baptism, his ministry, his miracles, his claims, his teachings, his death and his resurrection. Not to mention that Jesus was God breaking into the world. That's pretty profound. Minor details about which was his dominant hand are irrelevant. And since the bible is the workings of, and the inerrant word of God, the father probably wanted frivolous details like that a mystery. Otherwise faliable man would have most certainly launched a crusade against left-handed people.
Yes we do have eyewitness testimony!
Eyewitness Evidence: Luke
Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town’s politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town’s roads and geography, its unusual topography, local houses of worship, area hotels, town statutes and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year.
Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that year—or said he had gotten good information from people who had been there—would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That’s the type of testimony we have throughout much of the New Testament.
Luke includes the most eyewitness details. (While Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events.) In the second half of Acts, for example, Luke displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.
Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the book of Acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.1 As you read the following list, keep in mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts13:4-5)
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
6. two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes (14:12)
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1)
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
17. the proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates there (17:6)
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summersailing (17:14-15)
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos,17:18) as well as for the court (Areios pagos,17:19)
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
24. an altar to an “unknown god” (17:23)
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth’s forum(18:16ff.)
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis (19:24)
32. the well-attested “great goddess Artemis” (19:27)
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
38. use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time (19:38)
39. the “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas (20:7ff.)
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13)
44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-15)
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara) (21:1)
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of
Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds (21:3)
47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One inscription reads: “Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsiblefor his consequent death.”
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times (21:31)
51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)
61. the correct legal formula (25:18)
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time(25:26)
63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale(27:13)
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)
72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
74. the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta (27:28)
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind (27:39)
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
80. the proper title protos tΣs nΣsou (28:7)
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait (28:13)
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense”
(28:30-31)
Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable eyewitness testimony? What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?
Evidence?
Evidence of his resurrection.
Not only do I claim he is real, but I claim he is alive, that he is the truth, the way and the the life.
Last edited:
Paul's great insight at Damascus was that the more he persecuted the Christians, the more there were. For every martyr there were 10 new converts. It was a losing battle so he decided that if you can't beat them, lead them. Paul blew the whole gig. He took the story of Jesus and made it into a religion instead of a spiritual movement based on his teachings. He molded his religion to be acceptable to Rome. The religion he created should be called Paulianity.
The teachings attributed to Jesus were borrowed from the Hindus, Zoroastrians and the ancient mystery schools of Egypt. He may or may not have been a real man but the myth that surrounds him is borrowed from others. It has been proven but his existence has not. Believers, by their very nature, will believe anything to justify their beliefs, like the snake eating its tail. As a friend says, "there is a seeker (sucker)born every day!"
The lord is your shepherd and sheep get fleeced.
The teachings attributed to Jesus were borrowed from the Hindus, Zoroastrians and the ancient mystery schools of Egypt. He may or may not have been a real man but the myth that surrounds him is borrowed from others. It has been proven but his existence has not. Believers, by their very nature, will believe anything to justify their beliefs, like the snake eating its tail. As a friend says, "there is a seeker (sucker)born every day!"
The lord is your shepherd and sheep get fleeced.
I looked up lots of times. Never saw a author's signature in the starry skies. People that don't have a Jesus in their religion still have moral standardds. Atheists still have moral standards. Any evidence that starry skies and morals came from Jesus? I suppose all the people that were alive before the Bible claims this Jesus was, had no morals?
All of it is hearsay from the Bible.
More hearsay from the Bible?
Hearsay from the Bible.
If he's alive, show me a picture. And I know what the baseball player looks like, so don't show me his picture and tell me its Jesus. lol
Alley,
Frodo took the lord of the rings to the lake of fire and destroyed it. It is written, therefore it must be true! Long live Frodo for he saved all sentient two leggeds by his sacrifice. And he lived a long and prosperous life and wrote about his adventures. Now that you can believe in because it is a first hand account, not third and forth hand, written hundreds of years after the fact like the bible. Man you are one gullable dude.
Frodo took the lord of the rings to the lake of fire and destroyed it. It is written, therefore it must be true! Long live Frodo for he saved all sentient two leggeds by his sacrifice. And he lived a long and prosperous life and wrote about his adventures. Now that you can believe in because it is a first hand account, not third and forth hand, written hundreds of years after the fact like the bible. Man you are one gullable dude.