Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ask to an AI Persona
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
41Opinion
"Why would Paul's epistles be so void of the tale of Jesus' earthly life? Why didn't he mention Jesus' disciples? Why didn't he mention Pilate, the Sanhedrin, Jesus' travels, Pilate executing Jesus etc?"
Because that wasn't his purpose. The disciples already wrote their gospels; Paul had another purpose. Jesus didn't choose Paul just so Paul could repeat the same things in the other gospels
That's an incorrect version of events. The Paulean epistles were written first. Even then it'd be nearly impossible to write over 20,000 words about Jesus without referencing anything about his earthly ministry. Could you imagine if I wrote 20,000 words to you describing my friend John, but at the end of the book you didn't know anything about what John did?
I didn't read all of this and I'm not going to but honestly I just thought about Christianity a lot and eventually switched over to Hinduism and Buddhism, they both make the same amount of sense and we know that they (Jesus and Buddha) both existed once no matter how people talk about it, I could care less if someone was an atheist or a Hellenic polytheist, but honestly I'm just going to believe in one God no matter who he turns out to be.
That's awfully narrow-minded no? "I'm right and no one is going to tell me otherwise!"
I didn't say that, its more open than you think. Over the last few years I've been thinking about Christianity because it's something i have been raised with, but it always felt sketchy like some things were tweaked to fit the bible belt community. I learned to just embrace my questions that I had and realized that I shouldn't believe what I don't think is true. So then I started getting into other religions and I felt that Hinduism, Buddhism, and parts of Christianity made sense to me so now I just worship what the basic God of both religions is. If someone can convince me that Jesus and only Jesus came to Earth and "died for our sins" They would need to have some fine evidence. Personally I think Jesus was told differently by not only the Jews and Christians but also by other cultures, so there's no way of knowing all about Jesus, just that there's a god who had existed for eternity and might have sent someone to earth to preach about him.
You said that you didn't read and you wouldn't, but you're assured that Jesus and the Buddha existed. We don't know that, that was the entire point of this. You can't say you're being open-minded while you're refusing to hear other people out.
This Take isn't about religious belief. It's about whether or not we have sufficient evidence to believe that the Jesus fellow existed. The evidence posited doesn't convince me for the reasons listed.
You are under no obligation to agree with me, or even read what I wrote, but stating that you are open-minded when you won't even do a quick read of the subject that you claim to "know" seems perverse to me.
Of course Jesus existed, there are historical records. Also I did read some of it to get some of your veiws, I just didn't read it all.
What historical records?
i'm an atheist but i believe that jesus existed xD don't mix up god and jesus. it's not the same.
I'm not, you should read it. I think it's quite enlightening, and if you're aware of evidence I missed I'm more than happy to here it. I don't care whether or not the fellow existed, I'm just not convinced he did (as stated in the Take).
i agree mostly with what you said to me it doesn't even make a big difference if jesus existed or not. i just assume there was a bloke named jesus, that was quite a popular philosopher at his time and that had a following of sorts. i mean same goes for moses and other biblical figures however they didn't have any of the superpowers written about in the bible. it's just exaggeration, which is what happens to words of mouth after so many years. i just think it's reasonable to believe those were actual people that existed but they might not. i wouldn't bet on either possibility.
i only mentioned what i said before, cause so many christians use "jesus" synonymous with "god" xD which is just bullshit.
it's not like i have any evidence. i just think it's a reasonable thing to asssume.
Oh... Well... Historians already are quite certain that Moses, Adam, Abraham etc never existed. They seem like amalgams of multiple characters. This is the norm within biblical studies and has been for about 30 or so years.
i read some scientific stuff about moses many years ago. it said that it's very likely that the dude actually existed. he was most likely not like the person the bible talks about. he was more of a warlord that knew about the tides and his enemies didn't, which later evolved into the story of splitting the water. i think there was even a documentary on this theory on n24
but anyway i don't think it's worth arguing about, since i don't think those people have enough significance to necessitate a discussion or scientific research even xD
You'd have to share that, but it doesn't appear to be that way.
My first thought would be to just share with you their ages, we obviously wouldn't agree that they lived for 600 years right?
no they obviously didn't live for 600 years xD they lived for considerably less years than we live today. maybe 30-40 years.
sorry i can't find the thing i saw :/
As always, I'm right XD
dude that wasn't a very elaborate prediction to make xD
wow after reading this, i don't think i can even say "jesus was gay" any more. All i can say now is that had he been real he would have been gay
Right?
You working for Satan, I see, in trying to overthrow the confidence weak Christians have in the
lord. https://en. m. wikipedia. org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
If the lord Jesus was just a regular 'human being" that came and went then He is no different than anyone else that lived and died.
As always, not talking to you until you admit you're wrong about Dawkins
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Well, the thing is, it's Ok if it doesn't grab your heart! Those who REALLY believe it in their hearts without doubt follow him, but people who don't grab it don't have to have it... Christians live through faith, and that's hard!
Hmm, did you read it?
I'm surprised at how frequently this has turned to a discussion about faith, but I suppose I'll go along with it.
Can faith lead to contradictory claims? Can I, for example, believe that Mohammed is the last prophet, the Buddha is the true god, and that if I throw a ball in the air it won't come back down on faith?
You are entitled to your own beliefs. I would recommend watching the movie A Case for Christ and also consider the arguments there.
Oh yeah, that's quite the terrible movie. It's very gullible.
Whatever the movie is like, that also comes down to what you believe. I was saying rocky look at the arguments not exactly the theatricality of it. In the end the character chooses what to believe and that has been his choice. Same with you
Oh no, he accepts the claims of the gospels with complete credulity. We'd never accept claims that hundreds of people rose from their graves with simply a person telling us so.
The focus is on the arguments not on what the character had or does believe. You draw your own conclusions from there. And if you don't believe, eh then don't.
Oh I agree, that's why I titled it the way I did XP
If someone has some good evidence that I'm unaware of I'd love to hear it. Thus far I just haven't. Life goes on.
The movie is actually very interesting and states good facts.
@GigiCat no... The “author” blindly accepts everything he hears uncritically.
@ladsin I don’t exactly understand what ur saying.
@GigiCat the author of the book A Case For Christ merely accepts all of the claims of apologists uncritically. The movie is worse. He doesn’t examine the arguments with any skepticism.
I think this has something to do with the fact that his wife was convinced of Christianity and was talking about leaving him, but I wouldn’t claim to know the inner workings of his mind.
There is plenty of evidence that there was a philosopher named Jesus who had a huge influence.
There is zero evidence he was supernatural.
What evidence? Did you bother to read or no?
By this argument, Socrates and a host of other ancients did not exist either...
Yup in order to reject the evidence for a historic Jesus and be consistent, you would have to reject the existence of most ancient figures.
That’s not accurate at all. @Scarecrow13 same to you.
We have multiple accounts of the existence of Socrates from both positive and negative sources and from incredibly more reliable sources (ie historians as opposed to faithful adherents). It’s certainly true that we don’t know much of Socrates’ life and some of Plato’s work is apparently fabricated, but we’ve got Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes’ contemporary works attesting to the existence of a historical Socrates. We do not have any contemporary writings attesting to Jesus. The first writings, as pointed out above, were the Paulean Epistles generally dated to 20-30 years at least after Jesus’ purported death.
The only primary sources of Socrates' life were the three you mentioned. And their works were written guite a bit after Socrates died. I will give a more comprehensive answer on the historicity of Jesus. There is are some sources that people never seem to mention.
@Scarecrow13 I don't know what you're thinking of, but The Clouds, one of Arisophanes' plays talking about Socrates during the life of Socrates. In fact Socrates is said to have attended the play. Xenophon's Memorabilia were written before Socrates' death... Etc
And the play is said to have stoked ire against Socrates leading to his eventual death.
I guess we all get to find out what's true when we die.
I'll just through this out though, If I believe in Jesus as saviour of mankind and live by that, then die and i'm correct, it's Heaven for me.
If I choose to follow your belief and I die and he's actually real then I lose out on Heaven.
And if your correct and we die it's irrelevant.
Just something to ponder...
Pascal's Wager. The problem is that it's not a true dichotomy, and belief isn't a simple choice.
I guess we'll see, why argue when neither will come to an agreement.
We all have choices to make, I've made mine. GL with yours.
Belief isn't a choice, I have to change my mind when confronted with sufficient evidence to change it.
An interesting read, maybe it will help?
www.tomorrowsworld.org/.../seven-proofs-of-gods-existence
I've been writing on all of these.
First four are tautologies.
The fifth is poor proof, all of the prophecies are fulfilled within the same book.
The sixth is just incorrect. I wrote on this one the other day. Research on intercessory prayer has been shown to not work.
The seventh is silly. We're far better off on every societal factor today than we were 2000 years ago, far more than old testament times before that.
Well gl with your search, the carnal mind will never figure out God or prove His existence.
But neither will it disprove His existence.
We will all know the truth when the last breath is taken.
Allah, Buddha, Vishna, Thor, Ymir, etc can all be believed on the same basis.
Sounds like you use a whole lot of supposition to make your point.
What?
There's your answer.
Jesus doesn't listen to the prayers of non-believers. Evidence concerning Gods spirit aren't tangible , faith required instead.
Hmm, did you read it?
I'm surprised at how frequently this has turned to a discussion about faith, but I suppose I'll go along with it.
Can faith lead to contradictory claims? Can I, for example, believe that Mohammed is the last prophet, the Buddha is the true god, and that if I throw a ball in the air it won't come back down on faith?
Asker... Believing and denying are two different choices.
Asker... I've seen many people jump from one religion to another , but a true believer of Christ , I've never heard or seen one of them ask for a refund.
I don't know that you adressed the question... Is there anything you can't believe on faith?
I'm not denying, in fact if you look at the title you'd see that I'm saying "Why I'm Not Convinced, Yet".
I used to believe. I actually used to preach at Sunday school and was preparing to go to seminary, but I don't want to get too far off topic.
Asker... obiuosly you haven't surrendered genuinely to Jesus , God and the Holy spirit , or displayed strong faith. I can't tell you what you're doing about it , but I can incure the thought of what you're not doing about it.
Is there anything you can't believe on faith?
?
NO...
So faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, correct?
NOPE...
Oy Vey
The real question is why are you bothering yourself with this stuff? If he is real and the stories are true, when he comes back everybody will know it. Obviously he is not here currently. So we can go on with our lives
"This is about the various historical Jesus' posited. Also, whether or not some historical Jesus exists doesn't bother me either way, I just found this topic interesting."
-Above
So in short, your position on Jesus not being real is lack of physical evidence on him as well as lack of clarity/description about his life while he was alive?
Depends on what you mean by "physical evidence" I suppose. I'm not expecting coins minted with Jesus' face or the shroud of Turin or any other such silly things.
I'm just saying that the evidence in support isn't enough for me. The proposed evidence is all problematic and I pointed out why. If Paul had even so much as said, "The disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Judas, etc sat at the feet of Jesus as he committed many great works" I'd probably think the fellow existed. If Josephus talked about Jesus in the manner that he talked about any number of other rebels, then I'd probably believe. Etc.
If you're aware of something I've missed I'm more than happy to hear it, as I said above it doesn't really matter to me either way. I just find it interesting.
I know it's not enough for you. I'm trying to understand why in a nutshell. By the way you further explained in your replay it's the lack of description and/or clarity on his life that does it. Right?
Eh. I explained it all above.
All that really doesn't matter. If you're having a conversation with someone and he asked you "do you think Jesus is real?", you're not going to lecture him a page and a half long take. You're going to answer "no I don't, because of x, y, and z." and then if he wanted to go into details, then you'd start explain further as you did here. That's a straight, summarized answer.
Give me a straight answer. You do not think Jesus is real because of the lack of description and/or clarity on his life. Right?
I'm not convinced of Jesus' existence because all of the evidence posited for his existence is poor, fabricated, or doesn't say what it's proponents state it says. Above I went into all the evidences given and pointed out in each case why.
A doubting Thomas lol
Maybe one day XD
Broseph, you are never going to get the point of the gospel!
Uhh.
Half the words in bold would make great band names
Totes
To me, all of them would. Can you imagine: Argument from Embarrassment?
@LegateLanius sure, but I couldn't imagine, "Tacitus".
I could
Tacticus yes, argument from embarrassment maybe
Ignoring the Bible can't you just look at a public Roman Census to solve this problem?
What?
That was my point. He was registered as Jesus Barjoseph of gamala (listed father Joseph Barjudas of gamala). We learnt that at Sunday school from a fire-and-brimstone priest, who would quote this fact at anyone who dared ask if he was a real person.
He didn't mention that the same census lists Mary Magdalen as Jesus's wife and names their son... it is public domain... check out the family tree as published during the time of the census. It's still online.
https://www.myheritage.com/names/joseph_gamala
@ManwithaConran There were hundreds of Jesus', it was the most popular name of the time...
If there were hundreds wouldn't that increase, not decrease, the odds of a historical Jesus?
Oh yeah. There was most certainly many Jesus' in that time. I think it was stated that if the group started out with 30 fellows it was likely that 5 of them were named Jesus. I'm talking specifically about the Jesus that started the religion, the one that was supposedly martyred, etc.
Then what about the criminal records of Rome?
You'd have to share specifically what you're referencing. As I've said, I don't accept the evidence thus far posited, if you're aware of some I missed then I'm more than happy to look into it.
I'd be wary of any purported evidence on this tangent though as Pliny didn't even know of the beliefs of Christians in 110AD and he was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. He was also a justice, praetor and governor.
My only problem is that I'm not aware of what you've never seen. I'm assuming you've not presented everything here. And thus I suppose it doesn't do either of us any good; I don't want to guess at what you know.
Wait, are you just making things up as you go? I certainly haven't heard of things that don't exist if that's what you're asking me...
I've watched a dozen debates on the subject and read several apologetics websites and these are the evidences the historicists offer.
No.
In order to introduce a new idea to you I need to know what you know. That's all. Otherwise I'm using the common conjectures and working towards the more complex ones as one normally would in progression.
Oh, sure that makes sense.
To clarify then, the arguments for Jesus' historicity that I know of are as I listed above. I didn't leave any out that I could think of except the gospels for the reasons listed there.
If you're aware of more that I can check out then by all means, I want my beliefs to correspond to reality and if I'm missing something I'd change them 👍
*that I could think of or find
Not with the same birth dates, surnames and parents names and living in a specific village. The Vatican and real scholars know which one it is as there were public records which are still available to peruse, with the Vatican's permission of course. They probably still have his arrest warrant too...
@ManwithaConran There's been none posited, and none of the historians of the time mentioned them... Again, I can't be convinced by evidence that doesn't exist.
I take it you've not seen Sanhedrin reports? 40... Something. Basically that's where it would be.
Lol and Jesus was not white too...
Zactly, stay woke
I never said Jesus never existed,
but Jesus was Prophet of the GoD and the Bible was given to Jesus (one book) but all the Crucification thing and the free ticket to Heaven for everyone is Man made. Its pretty clear with greediness attached to it.