Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.
Well... yes... usually, people who are Biblical scholars attended Christian seminary. Most people who are Judges went to Law School. Most doctors attended medical school. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of Biblical scholars who are Atheists. Not a lot of firemen who are pyromaniacs.
The professions you cite are not based on a mythology of "faith".
Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?OP>>>>No historical JesusOne or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.
I'll tell you what
You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.
That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".
Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.
Anyway, I'm past bored.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:
So Paul of Tarsus was a real person who wrote extensively about Jesus and his message.
- Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
- Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
- Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
- The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Now... I have no idea how to maneuver through your minefield of rejection when it comes to evidence... you seem to want some kind of a historical quote from a non-Christian, talking about Jesus in his writings or something? Of course, Paul of Tarsus is about as close as you'll get to that... but you don't accept him because... why again? Oh... he wrote part of the Bible!
The New Testament of the Bible is a comprehensive set of books from people writing about Jesus. It's like the Jesus Documentary box set. But that's not "evidence" for you.
In short, what you have spent days here demanding is that someone change your stubborn mind that refuses to accept evidence of any kind if it contradicts your preconceived belief. Maybe you're retarded and don't comprehend this but no one can ever make you change your mind.
Apparently, you never read The Book of James; Paul never met Jesus. James says Paul was an asshole.
I am already familiar with your long winded style which is why I never respond to your postings.
Uhm... yeah, I'm pretty sure Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus.
Yes, he was a total asshole and not a Jesus freak. He was on his way to kill Christians.
You guys would have LOVED Paul in his younger days. He was just like you!
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
His dislike of Christianity is politically based. That was my point.I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.
His dislike of Christianity is politically based. That was my point.I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.
Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.
QUOTE to Boss
You just proved you didn't read The Book of James.
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.
Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.
May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?
Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.
Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.
May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?
Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.
My intention was to question the validity of some scholarly work, not the existence or non existence of Jesus.
I am neutral on the subject.
That the Dead Sea Scrolls don't specifically speak of Jesus is not proof that He did not walk the earth. Don't the scrolls speak of a Messiah? The Scrolls back up much of the Old Testament which also prophesied the coming of Jesus, do they not?
Just curious. Are you really looking to discuss this or is this just another of your Christians are crummy people posts?
No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.
Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.
May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?
Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.
The same applies here in reverse. You are unwilling to accept evidence from scholars because you believe their information is biased based on their religious faith. You cannot find the evidence valid. That doesn't meant the evidence isn't valid.
I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.
Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.
I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.
What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.
I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.
Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.
No, I'd guess most are just to flame and annoy, not unlike what might happen on a grade school playground, and this would be another example.Are the threads on this board intended to change minds?Well, this thread will no doubt change many Christian minds...
Why that is, who knows. There are clearly many here who are just hateful and angry and bitter and use this board to express that at every opportunity. The OP is a prime example, daily. We all do it now and then, but he is over the top.
The psychology of partisan ideology is fascinating.
.
As a matter of fact, there were several guys named Jesus preaching around the same time. Maybe the bible is talking about the wrong one?
