Did a historical Jesus exist?

[pacer]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

 

[Samson]

You guys realize you're dealing from a position of fantasy and ignorance, right? There is documentation of the existence of Christ, we do know that he existed...we have lots and lots of documentation about the events that surrounded his life. Whereas you have..imagination.

I'm not sure what you mean by "documentation?"

Its not like they had scholars that published peer-reviewed papers about the subject 2000 years ago, and then after conveining in a completely objective forum, other scholars debated the thesis.

Nor are there any birth certificates, mortgage documents, legal documents, death certificates, and a host of other modern examples of "documentation" that serve as examples of a person's identity.

 

[koshergrl]

Documentation, in this case, means written reference.

 

[pacer]

You guys realize you're dealing from a position of fantasy and ignorance, right? There is documentation of the existence of Christ, we do know that he existed...we have lots and lots of documentation about the events that surrounded his life. Whereas you have..imagination.

I'm not sure what you mean by "documentation?"

Its not like they had scholars that published peer-reviewed papers about the subject 2000 years ago, and then after conveining in a completely objective forum, other scholars debated the thesis.

Nor are there any birth certificates, mortgage documents, legal documents, death certificates, and a host of other modern examples of "documentation" that serve as examples of a person's identity.

It's a research paper...a document.

 

[hobelim]

Studied Buddhism? Who is the hopeful historian on that one? Jesus is God, He has a mission. Advancing Buddhism is not part of it.

It is impossible that Jesus or any human being ever was God or ever became God either before, during or after their human existence.

No. But it is impossible for me to take your words as the definitive word on the subject, superseding those of great saints like Catherine of Siena, St. John Vianney, Padre Pio and the like. You really are over your head when you make such declarations, IMO.

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

 

[koshergrl]

It is impossible that Jesus or any human being ever was God or ever became God either before, during or after their human existence.

No. But it is impossible for me to take your words as the definitive word on the subject, superseding those of great saints like Catherine of Siena, St. John Vianney, Padre Pio and the like. You really are over your head when you make such declarations, IMO.

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

I think it's pretty obvious that you are. Is that the answer you were hoping for?

 

[Chuckt]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

I have a whole library of apologetics, Pacer.

 

[Chuckt]

It is impossible that Jesus or any human being ever was God or ever became God either before, during or after their human existence.

No. But it is impossible for me to take your words as the definitive word on the subject, superseding those of great saints like Catherine of Siena, St. John Vianney, Padre Pio and the like. You really are over your head when you make such declarations, IMO.

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

God took on a body and that body had its own living soul so He was still God but took on humanity and therefore can say, "my father and their Father", etc.

You misunderstand the Trinity. I'm still studying it.

 

[Gracie]

This is not about proving anything. This is about exchanging opinions and sharing different viewpoints. To demand someone 'Prove it' sounds so infantile.

Ding ding ding ding! And we have a winner!!

 

[koshergrl]

Oh I see. So we are to accept the *opinion* that Jesus wasn't real, while at the same time "accept" that his missing years were spent playing the slots at Reno, because it's not about proving anything, it's just about unfounded opinion. Got it.

 

[Chuckt]

You guys realize you're dealing from a position of fantasy and ignorance, right? There is documentation of the existence of Christ, we do know that he existed...we have lots and lots of documentation about the events that surrounded his life. Whereas you have..imagination.

I'm not sure what you mean by "documentation?"

Its not like they had scholars that published peer-reviewed papers about the subject 2000 years ago, and then after conveining in a completely objective forum, other scholars debated the thesis.

Nor are there any birth certificates, mortgage documents, legal documents, death certificates, and a host of other modern examples of "documentation" that serve as examples of a person's identity.

There is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than there is for Plato but no one questions Plato's existence. We know what Jesus and the disciples ate but do you even know what Plato ate, who he hung out with, traveled to, etc?

Jesus debated the other religious leaders of his day and Paul did the same. The debates are right there recorded in the Bible.

James called a council over the debate in his day (Acts 15).

Nicodemus was the teacher (definite article) in Israel and he came to Jesus by night and said "we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

 

[hobelim]

No. But it is impossible for me to take your words as the definitive word on the subject, superseding those of great saints like Catherine of Siena, St. John Vianney, Padre Pio and the like. You really are over your head when you make such declarations, IMO.

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

God took on a body and that body had its own living soul so He was still God but took on humanity and therefore can say, "my father and their Father", etc.

You misunderstand the Trinity. I'm still studying it.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds and is? I do not misunderstand the trinity, I reject it as complete bullshit. One unequalled God cannot be three coequal beings ....For obvious reasons.

There never was and never will be a person who was or became God either before, during, or after their human existence.

God speaking through any of the prophets including Moses and Jesus does not make any of them God.

When scripture says that 'the word became flesh' it is not about God becoming human but the words of God becoming teaching through the person of Jesus, flesh a metaphor for teaching, hence, "eat my flesh" which sheds light on the true subject of kosher law. Son of God is simply a relational metaphor showing closeness to God greater than that of a servant.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the Word was Christ, and he became flesh when he was born. I love it when people think that God can't do something because they don't fully understand it.

 

[Samson]

You guys realize you're dealing from a position of fantasy and ignorance, right? There is documentation of the existence of Christ, we do know that he existed...we have lots and lots of documentation about the events that surrounded his life. Whereas you have..imagination.

I'm not sure what you mean by "documentation?"

Its not like they had scholars that published peer-reviewed papers about the subject 2000 years ago, and then after conveining in a completely objective forum, other scholars debated the thesis.

Nor are there any birth certificates, mortgage documents, legal documents, death certificates, and a host of other modern examples of "documentation" that serve as examples of a person's identity.

There is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than there is for Plato but no one questions Plato's existence. We know what Jesus and the disciples ate but do you even know what Plato ate, who he hung out with, traveled to, etc?

Jesus debated the other religious leaders of his day and Paul did the same. The debates are right there recorded in the Bible.

James called a council over the debate in his day (Acts 15).

Nicodemus was the teacher (definite article) in Israel and he came to Jesus by night and said "we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

There is "manuscript evidence" that Ra exists as a god.

 

[Chuckt]

I'm not sure what you mean by "documentation?"

Its not like they had scholars that published peer-reviewed papers about the subject 2000 years ago, and then after conveining in a completely objective forum, other scholars debated the thesis.

Nor are there any birth certificates, mortgage documents, legal documents, death certificates, and a host of other modern examples of "documentation" that serve as examples of a person's identity.

There is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than there is for Plato but no one questions Plato's existence. We know what Jesus and the disciples ate but do you even know what Plato ate, who he hung out with, traveled to, etc?

Jesus debated the other religious leaders of his day and Paul did the same. The debates are right there recorded in the Bible.

James called a council over the debate in his day (Acts 15).

Nicodemus was the teacher (definite article) in Israel and he came to Jesus by night and said "we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

There is "manuscript evidence" that Ra exists as a god.

And who follows Ra today? Oh I know. Basically nobody.

 

[Chuckt]

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

God took on a body and that body had its own living soul so He was still God but took on humanity and therefore can say, "my father and their Father", etc.

You misunderstand the Trinity. I'm still studying it.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds and is? I do not misunderstand the trinity, I reject it as complete bullshit. One unequalled God cannot be three coequal beings ....For obvious reasons.

There never was and never will be a person who was or became God either before, during, or after their human existence.

God speaking through any of the prophets including Moses and Jesus does not make any of them God.

When scripture says that 'the word became flesh' it is not about God becoming human but the words of God becoming teaching through the person of Jesus, flesh a metaphor for teaching, hence, "eat my flesh" which sheds light on the true subject of kosher law. Son of God is simply a relational metaphor showing closeness to God greater than that of a servant.

The Amiga computer had three co-processors too but because you don't believe in it doesn't mean Amiga didn't exist either.

 

[Chuckt]

I would suggest that you consider that the words of your so called great saints who worshipped a trinity in the form of lifeless man made material object and ate it for spiritual life may not be very rational.

Is it possible for you to take the words of Jesus as the definitive word on the subject superseding even such impressive thinkers and heroes of the church?



"but go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father; my God and their God." John 17:20


By saying that his God is our God Jesus effectively eliminated any possibility that he either thought of himself as or claimed to be God or a part of any trinity.


Who is in over their head?



.

God took on a body and that body had its own living soul so He was still God but took on humanity and therefore can say, "my father and their Father", etc.

You misunderstand the Trinity. I'm still studying it.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds and is? I do not misunderstand the trinity, I reject it as complete bullshit. One unequalled God cannot be three coequal beings ....For obvious reasons.

There never was and never will be a person who was or became God either before, during, or after their human existence.

God speaking through any of the prophets including Moses and Jesus does not make any of them God.

When scripture says that 'the word became flesh' it is not about God becoming human but the words of God becoming teaching through the person of Jesus, flesh a metaphor for teaching, hence, "eat my flesh" which sheds light on the true subject of kosher law. Son of God is simply a relational metaphor showing closeness to God greater than that of a servant.

Do you understand the trinity better than Dr. Robert Bowman who wrote a book on it and also put out a paper to the public that has 800+ scripture references? I don't think many people can top that.

Text Commentaries: Robert Bowman, Jr. (Blue Letter Bible: The Trinity)

I met a Christian friend who took two years of Greek and he knows the Trinity better than most Christians and he also taught me a few pointers which means that I may know more now than some people.

I also have a page by Watchman Fellowship which takes their name from Ezekiel (they aren't Jehovah Witnesses and I'm more than sure but people who don't know ask that).

If anyone also know of more books on the Trinity, I wouldn't mind collecting more and more titles.

 

[Samson]

There is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than there is for Plato but no one questions Plato's existence. We know what Jesus and the disciples ate but do you even know what Plato ate, who he hung out with, traveled to, etc?

Jesus debated the other religious leaders of his day and Paul did the same. The debates are right there recorded in the Bible.

James called a council over the debate in his day (Acts 15).

Nicodemus was the teacher (definite article) in Israel and he came to Jesus by night and said "we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

There is "manuscript evidence" that Ra exists as a god.

And who follows Ra today? Oh I know. Basically nobody.

There's a point?

Only religions today matter? OK: Buddism, "documented" in the past and practiced today.

My point is that the arguement that Christianity is a more "real" religion because it is more "documented" is absurd. If this was true, then any religion that is simply "documented" is validated.

 

[pacer]

When scripture says that 'the word became flesh' it is not about God becoming human but the words of God becoming teaching through the person of Jesus, flesh a metaphor for teaching, hence, "eat my flesh" which sheds light on the true subject of kosher law. Son of God is simply a relational metaphor showing closeness to God greater than that of a servant.

The ‘word became flesh’ simply means the word was spoken (not written). There is a whole creative process that goes into speaking which requires the use of the mental faculties, thought (subject matter), reason, speech (mouth), etc. , which is part of our being. We are the words we speak.

 

[Chuckt]

When scripture says that 'the word became flesh' it is not about God becoming human but the words of God becoming teaching through the person of Jesus, flesh a metaphor for teaching, hence, "eat my flesh" which sheds light on the true subject of kosher law. Son of God is simply a relational metaphor showing closeness to God greater than that of a servant.

The ‘word became flesh’ simply means the word was spoken (not written). There is a whole creative process that goes into speaking which requires the use of the mental faculties, thought (subject matter), reason, speech (mouth), etc. , which is part of our being. We are the words we speak.

No it doesn't mean that.

John 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

g1096

γίνομαι ginomai

1.to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2.to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen1.of events
3.to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage1.of men appearing in public
4.to be made, finished1.of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5.to become, be made

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 678

AV — be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52, become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3, be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

The second lesson is John 1:1

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He existed from the beginning.