Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

Well, the lack of primary evidence certainly supports the belief that he may not have existed. Furthermore, the Nicaean Council certainly had a say in what was "real" and what wasn't when it sorted through biblical books.

No. The lack of contemporary evidence means that he was unremarkable like 99.9% of people who existed back then ( including many Jews who also called themselves messiah and had followers and that were also executed, many of them cruficied) -- and that his original followers, like Jesus himself and like pesanants and fishermen of their time, were illiterate and relied on oral tradition, not written one. Of course, Greek-speaking educated early followers, like Paul, wrote many letters a decade or two after his death.

But here we are talking about non-Christian writers. As I said earlier, Josephus and Titus wrote about him around 70 CE. Josephus mentioned about James, brother of Jesus; Titus about the followers of "Chrestos".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

Really? I would think that the biggest question would be "Did he rise from the dead?"

No, a non religious person would not ask that question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

Well, the lack of primary evidence certainly supports the belief that he may not have existed. Furthermore, the Nicaean Council certainly had a say in what was "real" and what wasn't when it sorted through biblical books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Really Good Christians don't care about facts or lies. Their faith is beyond things like "primary documents" and they shouldn't be bothered by people who rely so much evidence. It's certainly not Christ-like to argue about facts. Jesus never did. Why should his followers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Really Good Christians don't care about facts or lies. Their faith is beyond things like "primary documents" and they shouldn't be bothered by people who rely so much evidence. It's certainly not Christ-like to argue about facts. Jesus never did. Why should his followers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew was an eyewitness
They are not exactly sure who mark or John were
Luke was a Doctor/scientist who double and triple checked the details.

The gospels were stories told orally from one generation to the next. They were not written down for another 200 years after the death of Jesus. Do you think the accounts were still completely accurate by then?

Not sure the basic story is probably accurate . Whether it was embellished or watered down is possible . Scientifically , the shroud of Turin has a huge effect on me. The shroud is the most confounding and inexplicable artifact in the world and it just so happens to have the image of a man with crucifiction / scourging wounds and crown of thorns head damage.

have scientists formed any opinions about the shroud - does it date to the correct time period, etc.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Wikipedia states "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of AD 1260–1390, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus Christ.[1]"

But so what if the shroud dated back to the first century? It still would not prove that it came from Jesus' tomb or that Jesus was the son of god. And why would god only send us this one dubious shroud to prove the existence of his son? Nope - sounds much more like a trick of an shyster than an act of god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.