Did Jesus Exist?

[CodeX 0]

I grew up a christian, but lately I have been losing my faith so to speak, and in that process have been doing a lot of research about the bible and the stories it contains. I have found some surprising things, and this thread is to discuss one of them, the fact that there are no literary accounts of Jesus outside of the gospels and the fact that the books of the bible were written between 50-150 years after jesus was crucified.Philo of Alexandria is probably the most famous ancient author who spent much time in Jerusalem during the early first century, and it is surprising that he mentions nothing about Jesus nor any of the other figures of the early Christian movement. There are about 50 other such authors with no such mention. The earliest mention of "Jesus of Nazareth" is in the genuine Pauline epistles, but to this Paul, Jesus is an entirely heavenly figure, with no mention of the Gospel biography and no time assigned to His earthly life. The Gospel stories themselves, of course, date from much later. The earliest "mention" (if it can be called that) is a third or fourth century interpolation by an unknown but plainly Christian hand into the text of Josephus. If it were genuine it would date from about a century after Jesus, but the interpolation makes it impossible to know for sure if Jesus was really mentioned there. There are, dating from the second century, a few other non-Christian mentions, but none of such a nature that they need be taken as anything more than authors repeating the then-current Christian claims. The Pauline epistles are excellent sources for the understanding of the nature of the Christian movement in the middle of the first century. If read critically and without the encrustation of later developed notions. What they show us is a Christian movement largely limited to Hellenes of Asia Minor, a few scattered churches, actively expecting an upcoming upheaval where Jesus "returns" and sets up his kingdom. These Christians seem to have no notion of the "Jesus" of today as described in the Bible. He was considered, instead, a pre-historic figure who lived in mythic time. This is standard Greek mystery cultism, with a Jewish veneer, just as other Greek mystery cults took an Egyptian or a Thracian or a Persian veneer.One may surmise that, since this Heavenly Jesus never appears, that these churches evolved over time into the Christianity with the Gospels and the earthly Jesus story as later developments, which were then compiled into the modern day bible in 325 AD at the first council of Nicea.How is it that there are no writings about jesus during his lifetime, or even within one generation AFTER his lifetime (people lived much shorter lifes back then, 50 years was close to the life expectancy of the time)

[truefusion 3]

I am not sure of your sources, but it would be better for you if you directed yourself to more reliable sources. I won't touch on any writings of Philo of Alexandria, as i have not read any of his works (though i may have some of his works lying around here somewhere). The part following your mention of Philo of Alexandria is about Paul's writings, one of the NT writers. You mention that he only spoke of a heavenly Jesus, one that implies a Jesus that never came down to earth. Can you tell me what form Paul describes Jesus in Philippians 2, verses 5 through 9? Paul knew Luke and Mark, they were friends of Paul.^[*] Their deaths were before 90 AD. It follows therefore that Luke's and Mark's Gospels were written sometime before their deaths. And because of their relationship with Paul, it also follows that they had connection with the disciples of Jesus.

 

Paul was sent many places in the East, both in Asia and many parts of Europe, and i have read all of his writings and it does not show a Christian movement that closely resembles Hellenes, it doesn't even come near it. At this point i'm not even sure if you have started making things up. You don't even specify any text of Josephus. But, ironically, you claim that many of the writings within the 2nd century through the 4th century mention things from Christian authors before the 2nd century. And then you state that there isn't even one writing within at least one generation after Jesus's life, though you have just so previously mentioned the Gospels. I am uncertain of how many contradictions you hold, but do note that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the Bible. I know the internet has done a great job in spreading that lie, but all the writings they had during the Council of Nicea were already known and widely accepted by the surrounding churches for quite some time. The Council of Nicea was held to formulate a concise representation of the Christian faith; it did not alter any of the works. Even if we were to entertain the thought that they did alter it, the many surrounding churches had the original copies and would never allow such alterations.

[CodeX 0]

I am not sure of your sources, but it would be better for you if you directed yourself to more reliable sources. I won't touch on any writings of Philo of Alexandria, as i have not read any of his works (though i may have some of his works lying around here somewhere). The part following your mention of Philo of Alexandria is about Paul's writings, one of the NT writers. You mention that he only spoke of a heavenly Jesus, one that implies a Jesus that never came down to earth. Can you tell me what form Paul describes Jesus in Philippians 2, verses 5 through 9? Paul knew Luke and Mark, they were friends of Paul.^/su Their deaths were before 90 AD. It follows therefore that Luke's and Mark's Gospels were written sometime before their deaths. And because of their relationship with Paul, it also follows that they had connection with the disciples of Jesus.

 

Paul was sent many places in the East, both in Asia and many parts of Europe, and i have read all of his writings and it does not show a Christian movement that closely resembles Hellenes, it doesn't even come near it. At this point i'm not even sure if you have started making things up. You don't even specify any text of Josephus. But, ironically, you claim that many of the writings within the 2nd century through the 4th century mention things from Christian authors i][/i] the 2nd century. And then you state that there isn't even one writing within at least one generation after Jesus's life, though you have just so previously mentioned the Gospels. I am uncertain of how many contradictions you hold, but do note that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the Bible. I know the internet has done a great job in spreading that lie, but all the writings they had during the Council of Nicea were already known and widely accepted by the surrounding churches for quite some time. The Council of Nicea was held to formulate a concise representation of the Christian faith; it did not alter any of the works. Even if we were to entertain the thought that they did alter it, the many surrounding churches had the original copies and would never allow such alterations.

 

All you are doing is making the assumption that he bible is an accurate source of information... unfortunately to do that you have to dismiss almost all other writings from the time period, which is what my original post was demonstrating.

 

So, my argument in the first post was basically that the bible is the only reference to these events from that time period, despite many well known works being written at the same time in the same part of the world with NO mention of jesus or any of the events surrounding him.

 

In other words, in response to my criticism of biblical accuracy you present a counterargument that utterly depends on biblical accuracy

 

Way to go, here is a hint: in order to discuss biblical accuracy you MUST look at sources outside the bible, which is what is in question. Maybe some courses on formal logic are in order...

 

P.S. What is wrong with this forum? Each time I hit post I see some of the words in my post had been removed, I have to keep editing it until it is posted correctly

 

Oh, you can't use bold... if you try to use bold on a block of words it erases the first couple of characters and adds the tags at the end... nice

 

Seriously though, you cannot reference the bible as an accurate source of information when the accuracy of the bible is the question at hand... I mean come on.

 

But, ironically, you claim that many of the writings within the 2nd century through the 4th century mention things from Christian authors before the 2nd century. And then you state that there isn't even one writing within at least one generation after Jesus's life, though you have just so previously mentioned the Gospels.

Try a little reading comprehension, I am talking about non-biblical sources, obviously.

 

but do note that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the Bible. I know the internet has done a great job in spreading that lie, but all the writings they had during the Council of Nicea were already known and widely accepted by the surrounding churches for quite some time.

I didn't say they wrote them... again... reading comprehension!

 

The Council of Nicea was held to formulate a concise representation of the Christian faith; it did not alter any of the works. Even if we were to entertain the thought that they did alter it, the many surrounding churches had the original copies and would never allow such alterations.

 

You spin a nice tale here, but let me tell you another one. The council of nicea met to formulate a concise representation of the christian faith, that part you have correct. However what you fail to mention is that the first council actually formed the beginning of the new testament (not the entire thing, the current version formed over nearly a century in various places and times) by cherry picking stories from the newly developed church, a church which did not exist until many years after the supposed death of jesus, whos holly book was concocted by selecting the most exaggerated and unbelievable folklore about the main character while discarding the stories that presented jesus as a normal guy, no miracles, no resurrection. Some of these discarded gospels exist to this day, I urge you to read them.

 

Out of 182 works accepted for centuries as the genuine writings of Christians during the first 180 years of the present era, only twelve are now contended by theologians to be genuine; 170 forged writings permitted by the alleged 'Guider into all truth' to have existed for centuries, and believed in by poor, feeble man. [Julian, "Old and New Testament Examined."] The manufacture of some of these manuscripts probably took place at the great monastery at Mount Athos, in Salonica, where about "60,000 monks were employed" [investigator, "Origin of the Christ Church."] in that occupation. The first that we know of the four Christian gospels is in the time of Irenaeus, who, in the second century, intimates that he has "received four gospels as authentic scriptures." "This pious forger was probably the adapter of the John Gospel." [investigator, "Origin of the Christian Church."]

 

Three accounts are given of how the books which now appear in the New Testament were chosen: (1) That by Popius, in his "Synodicon" to the Council of Nicaea, says that 200 "versions of the gospel were placed under a Communion table, and, while the Council prayed, the inspired books jumped on the slab, but the rest remained under it." (2) That by Irenmus says "the Church selected the four most popular of the gospels." (3) That by the Council of Laodicea (366) says that "each book was decided by ballot. The Gospel of Luke escaped by one vote, while the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse were rejected as forgeries."

Edited June 9, 2010 by truefusion
[anwiii: do NOT quadruple post. come on....] [truefusion: adding bbcode for copied material.] (see edit history)

[web_designer 7]

i promised myself for not contributing in such discussions, but your title of the topic was really interesting, so..and i won't debate with you as truefusion trying to do but i really want to answer your question about "did jesus exist?"now, what i really think is that we all should live on a belief in life. if we don't have beliefs to trust or something to believe inside us then we are really lost people in heart. if you don't believe in your family, then you won't trust them. if you won't believe in your friends, then you won't consider them as friends and you won't have any in your life. if you don't believe in yourself , you can't success in life. same thing for the religion. if we don't have a true belief inside us we can't believe it is exist even if there are ?thousand of books to prove that to us. what i want to say now is your true belief in jesus must come from inside you first, when you are sure that there's someone is taking care of you and i mean here the GOD, someone you can pray for him and ask him what you want when you are in troubles, someone who you can talk to when nobody in life understand you. this is the true belief i am talking about here, and if you don't have it then naturally you will be suspicious and start finding reasons to everything in life that related to the GOD. the holy books only another proof of what we are already believe in, nowadays, there are people who believe that the fire is their GOD, the animals, the devil, they don't have a book that convince them but they are believing in their god in their souls.but i still say that being a suspicious and trying to search to finding answers is better than give up your believes, we are human and we are still learning new things about life everyday, so keep on searching and finally or someday you will find the answer.

[truefusion 3]

All you are doing is making the assumption that he bible is an accurate source of information... unfortunately to do that you have to dismiss almost all other writings from the time period, which is what my original post was demonstrating.

 

So, my argument in the first post was basically that the bible is the only reference to these events from that time period, despite many well known works being written at the same time in the same part of the world with NO mention of jesus or any of the events surrounding him.

 

In other words, in response to my criticism of biblical accuracy you present a counterargument that utterly depends on biblical accuracy

 

Way to go, here is a hint: in order to discuss biblical accuracy you MUST look at sources outside the bible, which is what is in question. Maybe some courses on formal logic are in order...

The only difference between my assumption and your assumption is that my assumption bears more weight, if it can be said that yours even bears any weight. The Bible is merely a collection of writings from trusted sources. These writings being in the Bible does not in any way ruin the integrity of the writings. The very authors attributed to these writings, as we are talking about the New Testament here (though that is not to say that the Old Testament does not have equal or greater integrity), are authors who existed during the time where the very disciples of Jesus were still alive. You have not in anyway shown anything that causes the writings found in the Bible to lose integrity, nor have you shown that the writings you imply (note, you do not even point them out explicitly) should be considered over the writings found in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it does not count? That is absurd and completely unscholarly. And in what way does other people not mentioning something mean it didn't happen? Why should the others you mention be taken highly, or more highly, than any author of the writings in the Bible? That is a fallacy known as begging the question. It is not surprising to note that while you state that Biblical accuracy can only come from outside sources, that you do not even apply the same standard to these outside sources. Note the paradox that cannot be avoided if outside sources required to verify every work in existence. Therefore a different method is required.

 

P.S. What is wrong with this forum? Each time I hit post I see some of the words in my post had been removed, I have to keep editing it until it is posted correctly

Read my location to the left of my posts.

 

Seriously though, you cannot reference the bible as an accurate source of information when the accuracy of the bible is the question at hand... I mean come on.

Questioning the accuracy of something doesn't make that thing lose integrity.

 

Try a little reading comprehension, I am talking about non-biblical sources, obviously.

 

I didn't say they wrote them... again... reading comprehension!

 

Do you think the 2nd century and later sources i was talking about were writings from the Bible? There is no writing found in the Bible that dates to the 2nd century A.D. or later. And i never said that you said that they wrote them. The word "formation" does not mean to write, it means to put together. Even you made the assertion that they cherry picked the books. Nevertheless, the word "interpolation," one that you have used a few times, implies making an insertion, hence alteration.

 

You spin a nice tale here, but let me tell you another one. The council of nicea met to formulate a concise representation of the christian faith, that part you have correct. However what you fail to mention is that the first council actually formed the beginning of the new testament (not the entire thing, the current version formed over nearly a century in various places and times) by cherry picking stories from the newly developed church, a church which did not exist until many years after the supposed death of jesus, whos holly book was concocted by selecting the most exaggerated and unbelievable folklore about the main character while discarding the stories that presented jesus as a normal guy, no miracles, no resurrection. Some of these discarded gospels exist to this day, I urge you to read them.

Not mentioning these ''gospels'' does no good to the discussion, and only leaves me to make an assumption which you may or may not be capable of refuting. Nevertheless, i have read every known writing out there that has been labeled with the word ''Gospel'' and what is said to have Christian origin. Be it the Gospel of Barnabas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and what have you, i have read it. The Gospel of Barnabas makes heavy reference to Mohammed, but does not fail to contradict the Qur'an. The Gospel of Mary speaks about the many gods in existence, which they call Jehovah and Yahweh, which they say battled for the love of Eden (which they claim was not a garden but a goddess). They also mention about how Mary can become a man, of which such a parralel can be found in the Gospel of Thomas. This make the Gospel of Thomas share Gnostic heritage. The Gospel of Judas, though not much could be resurrected of such a writing, did not fail to mention that there are multiple gods in existence. In fact, the very ''secret'' which Jesus is said to tell Judas ran along similar lines to the ''secrets'' that Jesus is said to have mention to Mary in the Gospel of Mary. The majority of writings outside the Bible which have the word ''Gospel'' on their titles are merely Gnostic texts. Even the Apoclypse of Peter (there are two Apoclypse of Peter, but i reference the one that speaks about what goes on in hell) uses terms that are common in Gnostic writings. I have read probably more than you can mention concerning the ''writings that were tossed out,'' and i can safely say that these other writings contradict monotheism and Christianity, and so i can vouch for the New Testament. The exaggerated text is not the ones found in the Bible, i can safely tell you so. In fact, i suggest you take your own advice and read these writings yourself. You too will see what i see.

 

Having said that, as mentioned before, the churches before, present and after that time knew about the books you can find today in the Bible. They had their own copies. If there were only one copy, or the original work, then we would most likely not have it today. Some churches were persecuted by the land, where many were killed for their faith and their copies were burned by the persecutors.

 

Out of 182 works accepted for centuries as the genuine writings of Christians during the first 180 years of the present era, only twelve are now contended by theologians to be genuine; 170 forged writings permitted by the alleged 'Guider into all truth' to have existed for centuries, and believed in by poor, feeble man. [Julian, "Old and New Testament Examined."] The manufacture of some of these manuscripts probably took place at the great monastery at Mount Athos, in Salonica, where about "60,000 monks were employed" [investigator, "Origin of the Christ Church."] in that occupation. The first that we know of the four Christian gospels is in the time of Irenaeus, who, in the second century, intimates that he has "received four gospels as authentic scriptures." "This pious forger was probably the adapter of the John Gospel." [investigator, "Origin of the Christian Church."]

 

Three accounts are given of how the books which now appear in the New Testament were chosen: (1) That by Popius, in his "Synodicon" to the Council of Nicaea, says that 200 "versions of the gospel were placed under a Communion table, and, while the Council prayed, the inspired books jumped on the slab, but the rest remained under it." (2) That by Irenmus says "the Church selected the four most popular of the gospels." (3) That by the Council of Laodicea (366) says that "each book was decided by ballot. The Gospel of Luke escaped by one vote, while the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse were rejected as forgeries."

 

A word on the rules of these forums: Loosely copying and pasting articles (or parts of an article) is against the rules, as declared the by Terms of Service. All copied material must be placed between quote bbcode. Failure to do so will result in a warning. If you are caught doing so again after this verbal warning, you will be assigned an actual warning for such an action.

 

I can see that your source is infidels.org; i've been there before. The article you take from is very, very long; did you read it all? I don't have the time to both respond to you and read the article. But for the section you take from it, i cannot verify the accuracy of their statement when they start to quote the so-called ballots. I can't tell if they are quoting their source or any members of the Council. If the former, that proves nothing; if the latter, then i would like the transcript of the Council of Laodicea. Already, the Gospel of the Egyptians and any similar writings mentioned give hint of what the so-called ''170 forged'' are, which i have already addressed.

[CodeX 0]

The only difference between my assumption and your assumption is that my assumption bears more weight, if it can be said that yours even bears any weight. The Bible is merely a collection of writings from trusted sources.

It also represents an absence of writings that were rejected by the church because their accounts of jesus were more... down to earth, without all of the miracles and magic. The church determined what books the new testament would contain, in the churches best interest.

 

These writings being in the Bible does not in any way ruin the integrity of the writings.

Agreed. But the new testament is what is at question here, you cannot use it as evidence for itself, that is fallacious.

 

The very authors attributed to these writings, as we are talking about the New Testament here (though that is not to say that the Old Testament does not have equal or greater integrity), are authors who existed during the time where the very disciples of Jesus were still alive.

The books of the new testament were written between AD 45 to AD 200. Scholars agree that the Jesus of these stories would have had to have been executed between 26 AD and 36 AD as this is the span of the reign of Pontius Pilate. So you see, even the earliest book of the the new testament was written at least 10 and up to 20 years after his death. Given the average life span of about 45 years its plain to see that either the authors of even the earliest books would have to have been no older than children when the witnessed the events the eventually wrote, while the vast remainder of the books would have been impossible to have been written by someone who actually observed these supposed events.

 

You have not in anyway shown anything that causes the writings found in the Bible to lose integrity

I just did. The authors of most of the books of the new testament COULD NOT have witnessed the events they wrote of first hand, depending on the book in question they could not have been alive during the time of Jesus, or were no older than toddlers at the time.

 

Read my location to the left of my posts.

Thank you. That is what I was having trouble with, yes.

 

Questioning the accuracy of something doesn't make that thing lose integrity.

Agreed.

 

Do you think the 2nd century and later sources i was talking about were writings from the Bible? There is no writing found in the Bible that dates to the 2nd century A.D. or later. And i never said they wrote them. The word "formation" does not mean to write, it means to put together. Even you made the assertion that they cherry picked the books. Nevertheless, the word "interpolation," one that you have used a few times, implies making an insertion, hence alteration.

Even if they did not DIRECTLY choose the content of the new testament they DID determine what would and would not be believed as tenants of the church during the council of nicaea, which would have later determined what books would be included in the canon and which would be excluded from it.

 

A word on the rules of these forums: Loosely copying and pasting articles (or parts of an article) is against the rules, as declared the by Terms of Service. All copied material must be placed between quote bbcode. Failure to do so will result in a warning. If you are caught doing so again after this verbal warning, you will be assigned an actual warning for such an action.

I left the source references in the text... I figured that was good enough.

 

I can see that your source is infidels.org; i've been there before. The article you take from is very, very long; did you read it all? I don't have the time to both respond to you and read the article. But for the section you take from it, i cannot verify the accuracy of their statement when they start to quote the so-called ballots. I can't tell if they are quoting their source or any members of the Council. If the former, that proves nothing; if the latter, then i would like the transcript of the Council of Laodicea. Already, the Gospel of the Egyptians and any similar writings mentioned give hint of what the so-called ''170 forged'' are, which i have already addressed.

That website is one of the sources I have been reading from a lot lately, yes. I never intended to obscure that fact, which is evident by leaving the source reference in the text I quoted from there.

[sukhi 2]

From archaelogical point of view , Jesus doesnt exist. This is the logic applied to all so called Mythologies. Jesus is no exception.Ashoka the great was considered to be a mythical figure till the british found the iron pillar and many other edicts with his name and charateristics and hence he is now a historical figure.Jesus Doesnt have any archaelogical evidence to prove that he existed. Most of the so called reliable sources of Jesus are the Gospels or the Bible wbut which have been written by belivers. With belivers , things can become nastyas they tend not to see logic but are based on faith on Jesus. The Gospels too were composed 300 yrs later than Jesus died. And that too Jesus is so recent in history and still no proof of him makes one think why are the archaelogical remains associated with him buried or did he really not exist. As for me , I think he existed but unless archaeolgical evidence is found , i dont think any society /humanshould accept the Historical Jesus. One cant have separate laws for Western mythology and eastern ones.

[truefusion 3]

It also represents an absence of writings that were rejected by the church because their accounts of jesus were more... down to earth, without all of the miracles and magic. The church determined what books the new testament would contain, in the churches best interest.

 

Tell me, why would they exclude those works merely because it doesn't talk about ''all the miracles''? In what way does not mentioning that Jesus performed miracles contradict any writings that mention Jesus performing miracles? Indeed, it is more than that; it is not because they don't mention Jesus performing miracles that these works were excluded, but for something reasonable. Again, you do not mention the titles of these works, and all the excluded ''Gospels'' i have read talk about a very wise Jesus who uses his widsom for redeeming people. This is the very essence of Gnosticism, to free one self of the flesh via wisdom, and to perhaps later be spiritually united, once again, with the gods, never to be separated again. And here you are saying we should consider these above what is Biblical? All i see here is circular reasoning. ''The Bible is false, the rejected works contradict monotheism and Christianity, therefore these rejected works are true.''

 

But the new testament is what is at question here, you cannot use it as evidence for itself, that is fallacious.

Again, if that is fallacious, then there is no point to this discussion, for you would only run into the paradox i have previously alluded to. All history is written, and unless you were there yourself, your ways of verification are limited.

 

The books of the new testament were written between AD 45 to AD 200. Scholars agree that the Jesus of these stories would have had to have been executed between 26 AD and 36 AD as this is the span of the reign of Pontius Pilate. So you see, even the earliest book of the the new testament was written at least 10 and up to 20 years after his death. Given the average life span of about 45 years its plain to see that either the authors of even the earliest books would have to have been no older than children when the witnessed the events the eventually wrote, while the vast remainder of the books would have been impossible to have been written by someone who actually observed these supposed events.

Only a few books of the NT do some scholars claim may have been written in the first quarter of the 2nd century. No book of the NT have ever been suggested to have been written beyond the first quarter of the 2nd century. These writings tend to be the writings of John and the Epistle of Jude. However, more scholars agree that these writings were written before the 2nd century, even if the latest being 95 A.D.. The research done to determine the dates of these writings includes analyzing the textual style and form (typography), reading the text to find clues of the events of the time and why they were written, third party sources that mention some history about the author of the writings in question, et cetera.

 

Some of the writers would have been in their twenties or nearing their twenties if it were the case that Jesus was crucified somewhere between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.. But it is interesting to note that you would use this information, for are you not then using the NT to help dictate history? The NT Gospels mention Pontius Pilate and you are using it as a basis to mention when Jesus could have been crucified. This implies a double standard on your part, but at least then you should realize how scholars do research. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, even if it be so that the authors of the writings of the NT were not there to witness the crucification, they still had the means of coming in contact with those who were. Likewise, why would the Jews at the time spread lies about Jesus if Jesus did not exist? (Matthew 28:11-15)

 

I just did. The authors of most of the books of the new testament COULD NOT have witnessed the events they wrote of first hand, depending on the book in question they could not have been alive during the time of Jesus, or were no older than toddlers at the time.

That doesn't ruin the integrity of those works. If anything, simply mentioning the possibility of them being toddlers gives weight towards the works.

 

Even if they did not DIRECTLY choose the content of the new testament they DID determine what would and would not be believed as tenants of the church during the council of nicaea, which would have later determined what books would be included in the canon and which would be excluded from it.

If there is ever any doubt of their decision, we have the text they used, so you can judge for yourself whether the verses for their arguments imply what they are arguing. If their arguments follow from the verses, then there is no point in doubting. Even if later works came into existence after all the Councils, that is not a reason to include them in the Bible; in fact, i would expect that to be a valid reason to keep them out of the Bible, because they would have been written by someone with unknown and questionable authority.

 

From archaelogical point of view , Jesus doesnt exist. This is the logic

applied to all so called Mythologies. Jesus is no exception.

Ashoka the great was considered to be a mythical figure till the british found the iron pillar

and many other edicts with his name and charateristics and hence he is now a historical figure.

 

Jesus Doesnt have any archaelogical evidence to prove that he existed. Most of the so called reliable sources of

Jesus are the Gospels or the Bible wbut which have been written by belivers. With belivers , things can become nasty

as they tend not to see logic but are based on faith on Jesus. The Gospels too were composed 300 yrs later

than Jesus died. And that too Jesus is so recent in history and still no proof of him makes one think why are the

archaelogical remains associated with him buried or did he really not exist.

 

We both know that taking on a purely archaeological point of view is not only illogical but impratical. For if the very objects mentioned in any writing required archaeological verification, then the majority of what is written today would be labeled as myths; history class could then be mythology, the study of myths.

 

Not being able to see logic does not depend on whether your are a believe in Jesus or not. And you need to do your homework concerning when the Gospels were written (composed).

[sukhi 2]

We both know that taking on a purely archaeological point of view is not only illogical but impratical.

Why is it illogical.Infact archaelogical proof is taken as a measuring stick to prove by the Church to prove that Lord Rama existed or not. Oh so you mean such a yardstick is for non -christian entities ?
Clearly then you must admit that Lord Rama existed because his records are much more in depth than that of Jesus but still the western
biased christians like to say oh your diety is just a myth and ours is true. I have more proof of Krishna who existed in3100 BC than Jesus. Entire cities have been found under water at Dwarka.
The Entire astronomical data in mahabharata has been correlated to the times mentioned in Mahabharatha. Works of Krishna himself i.e. the Bhagavat Gita have existed which
is the best divine book one can get. SO then why is that such other non - christian people are put into the strict scrutiny of Archaelogy and Jesus is exists even though not a single shred
of evidence has been found if he existed ? Do you agree based on your logic that books are historically written are proof enough of a person then do you belive that Lord Krishna existed ?

For if the very objects mentioned in any writing required archaeological verification, then the majority of what is written today would be labeled as myths; history class could then be mythology, the study of myths.

It is about which side you are . Since you dont have a good argument for Jesus to have existed you say that majority of what are myths are history. Clearly you dont provide evidence for his existence other than Christian
sources which are as reliable as trusting a jungle shaman for his claims to be 5000yrs old.

Not being able to see logic does not depend on whether your are a believe in Jesus or not. And you need to do your homework concerning when the Gospels were written (composed).

believing in what Jesus said is different than logic. I have said i believe in what Jesus said as i also belive in what
bahais have sid or Muhammad has said. Jesus did not say anything new it was already said by Buddha in much more logical and truthful manner. I dont need to do any homework for gospels
as i go for logic not for reading infinite views on gospels. Gospels written 100yrs later or at the time of Jesus doesnt prove Jesus existed archaelogically or logically.

[sukhi 2]

@CodeX : You are losing faith in Christianity because it doesnt provide the final answers to questions based on logic. We live in an age of reason and want to have all our questions have answered so that we can live a life of truth and bliss. Clearly monotheism defined by the Abrahmic religions is not monotheism but I would call it cult Worship. Monothesim is for the ultimate reality which we call in Hinduism Brahman. It is has no attributes no description and of course it has no voice that comes through a light etc Brahman is IT IS. An Example would be : when you are sitting on a park bench and seeing a ant crawl and you get engrossed in it's activities and forget time etc .. that is the sort of Brahman. Just there. There is no going in or going out of Brahman it is always existed and yet never existed also. Manifestations of BRahman are seen everywhere but Brahman has no attributes. The God of Abrahamic religions is a demi God because it hasnt talked about Karma and many other higher points of this universe which a final God would be expected to say. Instead these Gods are talking about tribes and them and You.. ahaha what frivolus thing to talk about for God who is the highest authority.

[longtimeago 0]

I wouldnt argue on this topic, all i do is that i believe in Jesus Christ. It is all about Belief and Faith through which one can establish a relationship with him and its all about relationship and not about religion. I often fail in this relationship. But it is His unfailing love that picks me up again and i move one Thanks to the Almighty Lord God.Jesus Christ .

[OpaQue 15]

@CodeX : You are losing faith in Christianity because it doesnt provide the final answers to questions based on logic.

We live in an age of reason and want to have all our questions have answered so that we can live a life of truth and bliss.

Clearly monotheism defined by the Abrahmic religions is not monotheism but I would call it cult Worship.

Monothesim is for the ultimate reality which we call in Hinduism Brahman. It is has no attributes no description and of

course it has no voice that comes through a light etc Brahman is IT IS.

 

I do not think anyone is LOSING faith. Faith upon any subject rises with having good company who believe in the same subject. Before you talk about TRUTH and BLISS, Please xplain what exactly is TRUTH according to SELF. And BLISS is an EMOTIONAL state. Truth needs to be understood, thought, realized and then applied which leads to elimination of ignorance. This all sounds MENTAL stuff. And your mind is one of the biggest factors for producing emotions. So how can you ATTAIN bliss and Truth together.... Let me think, you are saying, to attain BLISS through "any" subject, I have to REACH the pinnacle of concrete knowledge in "that" subject till a point where no human has reached to finally give myself the ego of being the complete know-er in that subject and thereby experiencing BLISS ?

 

if this makes no sense to you, please...please explain me in simple words... how can I experience bliss?

[sukhi 2]

I do not think anyone is LOSING faith. Faith upon any subject rises with having good company who believe in the same subject. Before you talk about TRUTH and BLISS, Please xplain what exactly is TRUTH according to SELF. And BLISS is an EMOTIONAL state. Truth needs to be understood, thought, realized and then applied which leads to elimination of ignorance. This all sounds MENTAL stuff. And your mind is one of the biggest factors for producing emotions. So how can you ATTAIN bliss and Truth together.... Let me think, you are saying, to attain BLISS through "any" subject, I have to REACH the pinnacle of concrete knowledge in "that" subject till a point where no human has reached to finally give myself the ego of being the complete know-er in that subject and thereby experiencing BLISS ? (if this makes no sense to you, please...please explain me... how can I experience bliss first)

Yes there is ego in being a Buddha too maybe or knowing all but who shall decide what is Bliss only that person.
Here the discussion is about Jesus exist or Not so where we have to apply logic to know if he existed historically.
Clearly we have to see whether the logic that is applied in proving other people existed will apply to Jesus too ?
Simple question is Did Jesus exist historically . He exists as faith , his teachings are good but is there any archaelogical
evidence to prove his existence.

As far bliss and truth are concerned they have been experinces and not history and can be of a different subject matter of
theology or philosphy.

[anwiii 17]

So how can you ATTAIN bliss and Truth together.... Let me think, you are saying, to attain BLISS through "any" subject, I have to REACH the pinnacle of concrete knowledge in "that" subject till a point where no human has reached to finally give myself the ego of being the complete know-er in that subject and thereby experiencing BLISS ?

 

if this makes no sense to you, please...please explain me in simple words... how can I experience bliss?

 

you bring up a good point. bliss is a made up word for the ignorant. at the same time, i feel bliss is part of a bigger picture to know enough about the truth that there is no such thing as bliss. it could be taken as contradictory, but it's not. bliss to me is an emotion that you carry with you every day of your life. that's why i feel it's a made up word for the ignorant. people who tend to create their own realities to ingnore life's hurdles and teachings. to experience bliss is not to experience the hard choices and sacrifices we sometimes have to make in life. i agree. to combine both truth and bliss is impossible. you can only have one or the other and in truth, bliss is only an illusion.

[OpaQue 15]

you bring up a good point. bliss is a made up word for the ignorant. at the same time, i feel bliss is part of a bigger picture to know enough about the truth that there is no such thing as bliss. it could be taken as contradictory, but it's not. bliss to me is an emotion that you carry with you every day of your life. that's why i feel it's a made up word for the ignorant. people who tend to create their own realities to ingnore life's hurdles and teachings. to experience bliss is not to experience the hard choices and sacrifices we sometimes have to make in life. i agree. to combine both truth and bliss is impossible. you can only have one or the other and in truth, bliss is only an illusion.

 

No Wonder the saying,

 

Ignorance is BLISS.

 

I made my decision and choose to discover TRUTH, hence I took SCIENCE stream in high school.

Then for Bliss, I dropped out of College while I was doing my Graduation.