Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

Don't forget Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

Ironic on your link his date of birth is 567 BC. Would that mean Buddhists believe in Jesus since they date one of their most important figures date of birth as 567 years Before Christ

Calendars are funny. Jesus was born 6-4 BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are documented accounts of Jesus as early as the first century. Scholars at the time did not debate his existence. But I suppose if you’re an atheist on here no answer is good enough so it’s an easy way to pile it on.

I have no issue with research that Jesus was a historical person. That does appear to be fairly well accepted by scholars. But obviously, that he likely existed says nothing at all about anything else.

I do. There are no first-hand reports and many sources are sketchy.

Do you believe Socrates was a real person?

Yes, there were several first-hand accounts.

So if instead Plato taught his class about Socrates and a student wrote it down, not Plato, then you wouldn't believe Socrates existed?

And what about Paul's letters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

Don't forget Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

Ironic on your link his date of birth is 567 BC. Would that mean Buddhists believe in Jesus since they date one of their most important figures date of birth as 567 years Before Christ

Calendars are funny. Jesus was born 6-4 BC.

... that website was written for a Western audience. It doesn't mean Buddhists believe in Jesus. We don't. Here's more information about the Buddhist calendar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_calendar

It's like how you can find Jewish holidays written in Western calendar form, rather than according to the Hebrew calendar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar). It doesn't mean Jews believe in Jesus.

[Anonymous]

When you say: Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person, you sound like you have some definite and final proof that Jesus was actually a real person. It is interesting. It is either you do not realize that there is to the date zero actual historical or archeological / anthropological facts or findings to poove the existence off Jesus as a person.

So basically Idians , Hindus that you have m et are actually right in the regard that we don't know.

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was a real person but the belief and faith is a very different thing then actual historical facts and proofs.

Faith is not a proof but to a real believers those things make a very little difference. It is probably the same as with God in any religion. No religion has a proof that God exist per se, however they strongly believe that he does exist and nobody really needs much proof, aside from those who don't' believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except on most Lists Jesus is listed as the most important Person in History. On some lists of a more Middle East Nature Muhammad is always the most important. Either way they are always listed as People.


wonder if Hindus realize Muhammad is also a person.

Wonder if you realize Shri Ram was a person. And Sri Krishna.

Guess your important person didn't make our "List" and ours didn't make yours.

Don't forget Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

Ironic on your link his date of birth is 567 BC. Would that mean Buddhists believe in Jesus since they date one of their most important figures date of birth as 567 years Before Christ

It’s 7 billion people on the planet not everyone is obsessed with Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you say: Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person, you sound like you have some definite and final proof that Jesus was actually a real person. It is interesting. It is either you do not realize that there is to the date zero actual historical or archeological / anthropological facts or findings to poove the existence off Jesus as a person.

So basically Idians , Hindus that you have m et are actually right in the regard that we don't know.

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was a real person but the belief and faith is a very different thing then actual historical facts and proofs.

Faith is not a proof but to a real believers those things make a very little difference. It is probably the same as with God in any religion. No religion has a proof that God exist per se, however they strongly believe that he does exist and nobody really needs much proof, aside from those who don't' believe in God.

All religions have some element of faith, but you should qualify your above statement because it doesn't apply to "any religion." Buddhists, for example, do not have a concept of God that is anything like monotheistic Western religions. The primary element of faith in Buddhism is the concept of reincarnation. Other than that, the religion is all about your own personal experience and discovering truths about suffering and the human experience on your own. Western religions require a great deal more faith in abstract concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are documented accounts of Jesus as early as the first century. Scholars at the time did not debate his existence. But I suppose if you’re an atheist on here no answer is good enough so it’s an easy way to pile it on.

I have no issue with research that Jesus was a historical person. That does appear to be fairly well accepted by scholars. But obviously, that he likely existed says nothing at all about anything else.

I do. There are no first-hand reports and many sources are sketchy.

Do you believe Socrates was a real person?

Yes, there were several first-hand accounts.

So if instead Plato taught his class about Socrates and a student wrote it down, not Plato, then you wouldn't believe Socrates existed?

And what about Paul's letters?

If that was the only source I'd question it more than a first-hand account.

Who wrote the letters? When?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are documented accounts of Jesus as early as the first century. Scholars at the time did not debate his existence. But I suppose if you’re an atheist on here no answer is good enough so it’s an easy way to pile it on.

I have no issue with research that Jesus was a historical person. That does appear to be fairly well accepted by scholars. But obviously, that he likely existed says nothing at all about anything else.

I do. There are no first-hand reports and many sources are sketchy.

Do you believe Socrates was a real person?

Yes, there were several first-hand accounts.

So if instead Plato taught his class about Socrates and a student wrote it down, not Plato, then you wouldn't believe Socrates existed?

And what about Paul's letters?

If that was the only source I'd question it more than a first-hand account.

Who wrote the letters? When?

Exactly. People who lived at the same time as Socrates created documents that mention him and corroborate details about his life. Nothing like that exists when it comes to Jesus.

[Anonymous]

if we are thinking historically, can we go by probabilities?

There is the evidence in Paul's letters and in the gospels. both several years after the crucifixion, but the crucifixion would have been a public event.

Can I say I think there is a 75% chance that a figure name Yehoshua was crucified by Pilate in roughly the year implied by the gospels?

but only a 20% chance that he was a scholar of Jewish law?

a 40% chance he said at least some of the aphorisms attributed to him?

[Anonymous]

827 million of East Indians are Hindus and don't give a crap about Jesus.
138 million of East Indians are Muslims and don't give a crap about Jesus.
19 million of East Indians are Sikhs and don't give a crap about Jesus.
8 million of East Indians are Buddhists and don't give a crap about Jesus.
That leaves somewhere around 24 million East Indians who would actually pay attention when the OP is rambling about Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/

If you look at list of most Important figures of all time. Many are back in history and most are pre-photography, formal birth certificates or DNA etc. So should we say all of them dont exist as people.

Did Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Julius Ceasar even exist. IF we are saying people of a certain period back in history did not exist it is a bit of a wild statement.

Joan of Arc, King Arthur, Genghis Khan why not wipe them out. Heck why not go more modern was there a Vincent van Gogh. Pretty much we only heard of him after he was dead, while he was alive he was not famous. Maybe that was a scam.

Literally no one is saying that, and you are an idiot. Seriously. Are you the OP? Because you should be fired from your job for being a moron.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. None. Every documentary mention of him is from after he is supposed to have died. There is no non-documentary evidence of Jesus. Most scholars think that Jesus was a real person, but almost NOTHING is known about his actual life. We know that Vincent Van Gogh existed--he might not have been famous during his lifetime, but there is a lot of evidence of his life. He wrote hundreds of letters, there are public records of his birth and death and family, there are photos of him, there are records of his education and employment, etc. We know that Julius Caesar existed--he was very well-known when he was alive, he wrote his own memoirs, and he was mentioned and written about by his contemporaries, including Sallust and Cicero.

Ironically, King Arthur is more debatable. Scholars *don't* agree on whether he really existed. If he did, very little is known about him, and the King Arthur of Camelot legend is almost certainly an invention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/

If you look at list of most Important figures of all time. Many are back in history and most are pre-photography, formal birth certificates or DNA etc. So should we say all of them dont exist as people.

Did Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Julius Ceasar even exist. IF we are saying people of a certain period back in history did not exist it is a bit of a wild statement.

Joan of Arc, King Arthur, Genghis Khan why not wipe them out. Heck why not go more modern was there a Vincent van Gogh. Pretty much we only heard of him after he was dead, while he was alive he was not famous. Maybe that was a scam.

Literally no one is saying that, and you are an idiot. Seriously. Are you the OP? Because you should be fired from your job for being a moron.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. None. Every documentary mention of him is from after he is supposed to have died. There is no non-documentary evidence of Jesus. Most scholars think that Jesus was a real person, but almost NOTHING is known about his actual life. We know that Vincent Van Gogh existed--he might not have been famous during his lifetime, but there is a lot of evidence of his life. He wrote hundreds of letters, there are public records of his birth and death and family, there are photos of him, there are records of his education and employment, etc. We know that Julius Caesar existed--he was very well-known when he was alive, he wrote his own memoirs, and he was mentioned and written about by his contemporaries, including Sallust and Cicero.

Ironically, King Arthur is more debatable. Scholars *don't* agree on whether he really existed. If he did, very little is known about him, and the King Arthur of Camelot legend is almost certainly an invention.

When I was in Glastonbury, England, they made it pretty clear that King Arthur was a legend and that his supposed grave there that had been dug up was a hoax. Still, there is a marker where his grave supposedly was. It's a tourist attraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you say: Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person, you sound like you have some definite and final proof that Jesus was actually a real person. It is interesting. It is either you do not realize that there is to the date zero actual historical or archeological / anthropological facts or findings to poove the existence off Jesus as a person.

So basically Idians , Hindus that you have m et are actually right in the regard that we don't know.

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was a real person but the belief and faith is a very different thing then actual historical facts and proofs.

Faith is not a proof but to a real believers those things make a very little difference. It is probably the same as with God in any religion. No religion has a proof that God exist per se, however they strongly believe that he does exist and nobody really needs much proof, aside from those who don't' believe in God.

Scholars at the time dismissed the idea that Jesus was not an actual person mainly because they believed it was held by people that were beyond reason. It’s still true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say: Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person, you sound like you have some definite and final proof that Jesus was actually a real person. It is interesting. It is either you do not realize that there is to the date zero actual historical or archeological / anthropological facts or findings to poove the existence off Jesus as a person.

So basically Idians , Hindus that you have m et are actually right in the regard that we don't know.

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was a real person but the belief and faith is a very different thing then actual historical facts and proofs.

Faith is not a proof but to a real believers those things make a very little difference. It is probably the same as with God in any religion. No religion has a proof that God exist per se, however they strongly believe that he does exist and nobody really needs much proof, aside from those who don't' believe in God.

Scholars at the time dismissed the idea that Jesus was not an actual person mainly because they believed it was held by people that were beyond reason. It’s still true!

Scholars do not dismiss ideas -- they study them - and they have studied Jesus a lot. Although some scholars think there is enough evidence to point to a 1st century Jewish teacher, no scholar would ever state that Jesus actually is the son of god or that there is proof of the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed - because that is beyond the scope of scholars.

They deal strictly with facts and evidence - not miracles or anything outside of the natural world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say: Most Indians Hindus I Meet Don't Realize Jesus was an Actual Person, you sound like you have some definite and final proof that Jesus was actually a real person. It is interesting. It is either you do not realize that there is to the date zero actual historical or archeological / anthropological facts or findings to poove the existence off Jesus as a person.

So basically Idians , Hindus that you have m et are actually right in the regard that we don't know.

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was a real person but the belief and faith is a very different thing then actual historical facts and proofs.

Faith is not a proof but to a real believers those things make a very little difference. It is probably the same as with God in any religion. No religion has a proof that God exist per se, however they strongly believe that he does exist and nobody really needs much proof, aside from those who don't' believe in God.

Scholars at the time dismissed the idea that Jesus was not an actual person mainly because they believed it was held by people that were beyond reason. It’s still true!

Scholars do not dismiss ideas -- they study them - and they have studied Jesus a lot. Although some scholars think there is enough evidence to point to a 1st century Jewish teacher, no scholar would ever state that Jesus actually is the son of god or that there is proof of the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed - because that is beyond the scope of scholars.

They deal strictly with facts and evidence - not miracles or anything outside of the natural world.

They dismiss people that support Jesus myths like yourself.