[Tom]

Originally Posted by Patrick

How the **** is there ANY Proof at all of Jesus being real?

Apparently there is more proof to suggest Jesus existed than Julius Caesar. That might just be a myth though I dunno

How is there any proof he had a Beard or Long Hair?

Drawings/descriptions etc

How is there any proof he was nailed to a cross?

Same as above

How do we know he wasnt a Girl?

You don't get female sons

I think he probably did exist, but probably not who he said he was. Some people think he was an illusionist or a doctor or something

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Drawings/descriptions etc

How is that proof that he had long hair and a beard? If that was the case you would believe him to be the messiah. After all, it is written down...

The western image of Christ is completely false and that is a fact. Not even just the fact that he is white, but how white he is. And everything about his facial features. He looks like a ****ing stoner from Oakland.

[Stu]

Of course there is the possibility of something mystical and/or spiritual to the universe outside Jesus.

How do we know he wasnt a Girl?

You think the Christian church would worship a woman as there messiah? Especially back in those times? They would rather a goat!

How is there any proof he was nailed to a cross?

Well, crucifixion was common in that time, and was the likely punishment for him presenting himself as a son of God to the pharisees and other Jewish elite. It's what happened AFTER the crucifixion, now that's the real fun...

Also, for the record, I think religion has no place in a school.

[andyman]

The Jews and the Romans did have a thing for writing things down..

[Crimson Dynamo]

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability is below


http://www.carm.org/questions/about-...nt-reliability

[Stu]

That website poses a terrible argument, with abstract comparisons to Plato & Homer, and merely refutes what we already know. Nobody is denying the New Testament actually exists, and was actually written within 70 years of Jesus' death. Of course it was written. A ghost writer hardly wrote it in the last few hundred years. What we are doubting is the content and the men that wrote it. And the fact that it was a rather strange way for the savior of the cosmos to spread the message.

Failed argument. Fortunately for me, while there is NOT proof that the contents of the New Testament are little more than over embellished fable, there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the world is more than 4,000 years old, seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself.

Shucks.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by ProbeEight

That website poses a terrible argument, with abstract comparisons to Plato & Homer, and merely refutes what we already know. Nobody is denying the New Testament actually exists, and was actually written within 70 years of Jesus' death. Of course it was written. A ghost writer hardly wrote it in the last few hundred years. What we are doubting is the content and the men that wrote it. And the fact that it was a rather strange way for the savior of the cosmos to spread the message.

Failed argument. Fortunately for me, while there is NOT proof that the contents of the New Testament are little more than over embellished fable, there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the world is more than 4,000 years old, seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself.

Shucks.

Can you provide the evidence that "... seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself. "

just the quotes from the NT would be great:

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Can you provide the evidence that "... seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself. "

just the quotes from the NT would be great:

Why do you always reply to half of every post somebody makes and ignore the other half? It's like trying to beat arguments out of you with ... a cross.

You ARE aware Jesus was a Jew? The son of the abrahamic God? He believed in the Torah?

But if you insist...

In Christ's day, the prevailing philosophy on origins included evolution and long ages of earth history. Their view, of course, was not Darwinian evolution, but it held that the earth and the universe, acting on itself by the forces of nature (which were given names by some) had organized itself into its present state, and was responsible for all of life. The same was true for the philosophy of Moses' day, as he prepared the book of Genesis.

Genesis stands in opposition to such a view, insisting that a transcendent God, external to the universe had called the universe and all it contains into existence from nothing. Genesis further reveals the steps God took during a six-day period to bring this about, and reveals that those days were only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.

When God stepped into the space/time universe which He had created He stepped into a world dominated by those who denied His creative acts, and whose intellectual descendants still refuse to honor Him as Creator. And so, as we try to form our own beliefs about creation, it would behoove us to discern His views on creation and to believe likewise. When we examine His teachings, we will find that Jesus was not only the Creator, He was also a "creationist." Let us briefly look at some of the passages which reveal this: No natural process was responsible for creation—rather, God, Himself, created: ". . .from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19).

The cosmos had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal: "...such as was not since the beginning of the world (Greek kosmos) to this time" (Matthew 24:21).

The world had been "founded." Not just coalesced from interstellar dust. ". . .for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).

Even the sun was of God's doing: ". ..He maketh His sun to rise" (Matthew 5:45).

As to plants and animals, each created "kind" was of a different sort: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" (Matthew 7:16)? Furthermore, God had made provision for even the birds (see Genesis 1:30): "Behold the fowls of the air: . . .your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).

The Sabbath was a day of rest in commemoration of the completed creation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

Men and women were created at the start, not 4,000,000,000 years after the start: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), and the union of Adam and Eve forms the basis of our doctrine of marriage: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6).

The two supposedly contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are fully compatible: "Have ye not read that He. . .made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh?" [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5).

These and other teachings of Christ, when coupled with the total lack of any reference to evolution or long ages, give us complete confidence that our Lord, the Creator, accepted the Genesis account of creation in its most literal sense. Dare we believe otherwise?

1. The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages. To Jesus, every "jot or one tittle" of Scripture was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18) and He warned us severely against adding any other words to it (Revelation 22:18). The Bible, therefore, would certainly not leave the vital doctrine of creation open to human speculation.

2. The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
Although many evangelicals have long equivocated as to the meaning of the "days" of creation, this type of ad hoc handling of Scripture is never justified in the context, and Christ Himself would never have interpreted them as indefinite ages of some kind. Not only is "day" (Hebrew, yom) defined in this context the first time it is used (Genesis 1:5), but the writer conclusively restricted its interpretation to the literal meaning by numbering the days ("first day," "second day," etc.) and by indicating their boundaries ("evening and morning"), both of which restrictions elsewhere in the Old Testament limit the meaning to literal days. The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week. Jesus referred to this divine example when He said that "The sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) to meet our weekly need of rest from work.

3. The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).This makes it clear that Jesus taught the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed ‘from the beginning ’–not billions of years after the universe and Earth came into existence.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh (Matthew 19:6)

Have ye not read that He…made them male and female [quoting Genesis 1 :27], and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh? [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew 19:5)

Heck, even if you disagree with these biblical quotes and make the excuse that Jesus was NOT a creationist, which is odd considering HE IS GOD AND THE OLD TESTAMENT IS MEANT TO BE GOD'S DIRECT WORD STATING CREATION it proves my other point that the Bible is open to SO MANY interpretations that it is fallacy.

You believe in the Trinity, right? One of the central doctrines of Christianity that states Jesus is the son of God and in a sense, God himself, right? AND he was a Jew who believed in the Torah, right? So why would he not believe what is essential HIS OWN STORY/HIS FATHERS OWN STORY about HIS/HIS FATHERS creation?

It's like an extra two hours being added onto the Titanic movie, stating the ship did not in fact sink, there never was a ship, and Leonardo DiCaprio does not in fact exist, nor did he ever.

The point is beyond ridiculous. Once again, the Bible is completely incompatible with the proof that the world is more than 4,000 years old.

Thank you and goodnight.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by ProbeEight

Why do you always reply to half of every post somebody makes and ignore the other half? It's like trying to beat arguments out of you with ... a cross.

You ARE aware Jesus was a Jew? The son of the abrahamic God? He believed in the Torah?

But if you insist...<snip>

and my question was where did you get the 4000 years from in the Bible, or from what Jesus said "there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the world is more than 4,000 years old, seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself.

and your un-sourced cut and paste "article" did not say.

nice

by the way did you say anything about the jesusneverexisted site, ie who wrote it and what are its credentials?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and my question was where did you get the 4000 years from in the Bible, or from what Jesus said "there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest the world is more than 4,000 years old, seemingly against the beliefs of all the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself.

and your un-sourced cut and paste "article" did not say.

nice

by the way did you say anything about the jesusneverexisted site, ie who wrote it and what are its credentials?

The articles I pasted were from a Christian Apologists site. Yes, Christians who believe the world is only 4,000 years old. And they are full of quotes directly from the Bible about Jesus speaking of such creationist topics as Adam & Eve. Now it might not exactly be 4,000 years, that's obviously just a creationist estimate thrown out there, but whatever. Jesus believed in Adam & Eve. He believed God created two humans at the very start. Actually, he believed HE created two humans from the very start I suppose, considering Jesus is God. You cant refute it. Jesus believed in Genesis. He was a Jew. It was his fathers, and in a sense, his word. His story of creation. But you choose to ignore all of that in my previous post. How mature of you.

As for the Jesus Never Existed website, who knows. Look it up yourself if you are so interested, like you always tell me. I am not banging the mother of it's creator. I have no idea who is behind it. You really should not be asking questions about source and truth, especially when you are a believer in the Bible. Well, at least most of it. You don't seem to want to believe in the Genesis creation story, even though that's what your messiah believed.

A pity. This is getting more hilarious by the minuet.

[Beastie]

I am Jesus

[Stu]

Originally Posted by thebeast

I am Jesus

Praise the loah-dah!

[teabag.]

i think all the stories about jesus and that is just a load of stories made up and then called the bible
i dont beliee in jesus

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by teabag.

i think all the stories about jesus and that is just a load of stories made up and then called the bible
i dont beliee in jesus

Did you come to that conclusion before or after you read the New testament?

[Dr.Gonzo]

I'm pretty sure Jesus to some extent existed. However, I am also sure he didn't have super powers.

[Stu]

So your argument for defending Christianity is the following :

F
A
I
L

???

Right. Just wanted to get that cleared up.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by ProbeEight

So your argument for defending Christianity is the following :

F
A
I
L

???

Right. Just wanted to get that cleared up.

rubbish come back

you still lose

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

rubbish come back

you still lose

Come back to what exactly? All you did was post 'FAIL'. What the **** else was I supposed to say? Is this a game of scrabble now?

Christ your dumb. At this point you just deserve insults. If your not offering up arguments, theres little else I can do honny.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He who can burn with enmity
can also burn with the love of God,
but he who is coldly hostile
will always find the way closed

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

He who can burn with enmity
can also burn with the love of God,
but he who is coldly hostile
will always find the way closed

You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink it.

Your go.

[Vicky.]

LT, you are either on a windup mission or have total blind faith.

Surely if you believe in these fairy stories the least you can do it try to think up a mature, adult reply, instead of writing FAIL to a well thought out post.

And I believe there was a man named Jesus...but he was just a good man, nothing more.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

Surely if you believe in these fairy stories the least you can do it try to think up a mature, adult reply, instead of writing FAIL to a well thought out post.

To be fair it was ProbeEight who said FAIL, LeatherTrumpet merely quoted it.

I have other thoughts on this matter which I am to put elsewhere.

[Dr.Gonzo]

He who has no fish, will always chew yond sausage.

[Sticks]

LeatherTrumpet as someone from the same side of the tracks as you, so to speak I was wondering what you are trying to achieve in starting this thread. The outcome was prefictable. It is one thing responding to attacks from that earlier thread that was started with that diagram, but you courted the response you got.

all that happened is a slanging match and some of the things you said did not help matters or the cause.

There is a way of conducting apologetics which takes time to learn. Remember we are told to give a defence for the hope that lies with in us, it does not say go on the attack. If someone challenges us, then we answer them. Pushing it down thir throats does not work. Winning arguments does not equate to winning souls. Remember it's not hard sell but soft sell that achieves most. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar.

As for the question, yes some people do deny that Jesus exist. Even if you take Josephus out of the equation that still leaves us with the writings of Tacitus, Pliny and Polycarp to name a few. You also forgot to mention the Talmud which registered Jesus existance and mentioned miracles, but attributed them to demonic powers.

Historical evidence does point to the historicity of Jesus of Nazereth, what people make of him, then becomes another issue.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Sticks

LeatherTrumpet as someone from the same side of the tracks as you, so to speak I was wondering what you are trying to achieve in starting this thread. The outcome was prefictable. It is one thing responding to attacks from that earlier thread that was started with that diagram, but you courted the response you got.

all that happened is a slanging match and some of the things you said did not help matters or the cause.

There is a way of conducting apologetics which takes time to learn. Remember we are told to give a defence for the hope that lies with in us, it does not say go on the attack. If someone challenges us, then we answer them. Pushing it down thir throats does not work. Winning arguments does not equate to winning souls. Remember it's not hard sell but soft sell that achieves most. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar.

As for the question, yes some people do deny that Jesus exist. Even if you take Josephus out of the equation that still leaves us with the writings of Tacitus, Pliny and Polycarp to name a few. You also forgot to mention the Talmud which registered Jesus existance and mentioned miracles, but attributed them to demonic powers.

Historical evidence does point to the historicity of Jesus of Nazereth, what people make of him, then becomes another issue.

and of course you are correct but there really can be no debate here due to the age and lack of religious knowledge of the posters. It is akin to debating football tactics at the Women's Guild.

Sometimes it is good to remind people that an alternative view to their own is around. But yes you are right.