Did Jesus Exist?

[jackknife 0]

Perhaps you should reread my statement for sake of clarification, for i have not mentioned the words you claim i have said. I did not say i don't believe in radioactive carbon dating; i did not say drawings prove the existence of anything that has been written about. But i would like to hold you to your assertion that Ashoka's life is more logical than Jesus's life, for i do not know of any part of Jesus's life that is illogical, nor have i ever heard of the life of Ashoka, let alone Ashoka himself (assuming it is a he). But also, tell me, what is the difference between something written in stone and something written on paper, that is, concerning one's existence? If the very writings on paper are not enough to prove someone's existence, why would writings on a stone prove someone's existence? I do not see how anything i have said does not involve logic.

 

It is rather unfortunate for you to have not heard about King Ashoka who ruled one of the largest kingdoms ever in our recent history, he is probably one among the best evangelists buddhism and a very knowledgeable leader who contributed significantly to science, culture and arts. It is strongly debated that the scientists of King Ashoka discovered Jet Propulsion way before the nazis (oops americans).... the point here is that his name was inscribed on the works as the authority and emperor and the works are proof enough of his existence.... if thats not enough there are several hundreds of his mentions in the logs of Travelers and explorers..... But when it comes to Jesus Christ is there any other text, or reference except the HOLY BIBLE , No!! absolutely traceless.... I mean cmon even the Tomb is empty... Obviously they found archeological evidence and proof for King Ashoka (much to the dismay of the western scholars) but yeah in case of Christ is still awaited. So yes, as they say in the west... On paper Ashoka's life for all practical purposes is more logical than Christs, which is still fictional....

 

Simply stating that Jesus doesn't exist doesn't prove that he doesn't. According to Scripture, the authority which Jesus has to do and say things comes from God. He does not have to say whatever he said to be accepted.

This implies that Allah, Rama, Buddha, Krishna, Zues, Osiris and the likes all existed coz the same conditions apply on them too... which means there are no myths... this is going to rattle the western community... coz for them this is uber mythology..... if u are a southerner then better watchout for those conservatives... so even simply stating that Christ existed doesnt prove his existence.... so yes under current social norms he is a MYTH, and the Bible a MYTHOLOGY.

No enlightened soul asks you to accept his sayings or teachings, it is our acceptance that gives them the GOD status.

 

It is indeed possible to state that Jesus or the God of the Abrahamic religions do not exist.

But i find the Abrahamic religions more ''down to earth'' than any other.

That's a joke!!! there are only 3 of them and look wat they have done.... it is global, never-ending and ever-intensifying catastrophe... I do not remember the last time they actually lived in peace. The three can only think of wiping each other off... if this is how it is to be "down to earth" i surely prefer something "up there"

 

Why would one claim that there is only one God? The universe can only imply one God; there is no reason to assume that there is more than one God. Multiple gods also seem counter-intuitive, perhaps for that very reason.

I totally disagree..... the universe can imply more than one GOD... if the there exists a GOD of righteousness and imbalance the laws of nature imply the existence of a GOD of unrighteousness and imbalance... that is only when equilibrium is established.... the yin and the yang.... that makes 2 already..... everything in the universe exists due to multiple factors... life on earth (scientifically) is coz of millions of factors like the sun, the distance from the sun, the moon, the gravity of Jupiter, ozone layer, elements, polymers, proteins acids etc.... so y not when so many factors govern our existence, y cant multiple GODs work together to keep the cosmos the way it is.... every thing has a higher order governing it .... wat if the almighty GOD was to be deriving his power from a SUPERGOD an even higher consciousness and Power.... y not???

[truefusion 3]

I do not think you are worth debating. All your statements are counter - contradicting. One one hand you say before that i woulkd not take radio carbon dating as evidence and now you say you know all this. Knowing all this doesnt make the point .. The point is whether Jesus existed or not and you have no proof still to give to me other than lofty talks which are based on blind faith. You find Abrahamic more down to earth ??? what is the meaning of that ? Born of Virgin , miracles , coming back after death etc are down to earth things ??? The only down to earth story is of Buddha. No Miracles only plain logic and psychology has been applied. Have you read anything from him ? Also your talk that Jesus had authority from God is not convincing. There are many God Men who claim around the world that they have authority from God even today and they are doing great work too and they have millions of followers too. So the chosen one can be anyone. Also you have not read Krishna's work and hence please dont comment on something that you have not read.

We are not here to discuss religion which you keep bringing in. We are here to discuss whether Jesus existed historically and all here agree that he did not exist histroically. We are not here discussing the bible. We can do that in another thread and trust me Bible has good and bad .. lies and truths like most of the other religious books. Bible infact I dont even consider to be a highest moral book because it is so childish to read in front of Buddha's work or Krishna's Bhagvat Gita. I will start a thread for the same in sometime. Also one last question i Like Jesus can you publicly admit that you have same feelings for Buddha ?

 

Okay, i now definitely recommend that you reread my previous posts that you have responded to. Putting words in my mouth and then refuting that is called ''building a straw man.'' It is not surprising that my words would be contradicting in your eyes after you have mixed them up in a way that does not accurately represent what i have said. Perhaps if i could speak in your native tongue you would understand me.

 

Yes, i do find the Abrahamic religions more down to earth, but that is not the only reason why i choose to believe in them. Miracles are not illogical and they do not contradict reality. I do not understand why people believe that they do, for they do not. Having these things does not make it childish. A book need not contain only logic and psychology for it to be mature or not childish. If every book that doesn't contain those things are childish, then do you know just how many books you are calling childish?

 

You asked what authority Jesus had to say what he said. I did not need to prove anything for me to answer your question; i merely told you what Jesus said, what you have asked for. If you do not want me to answer your questions concerning Scripture, then do not ask any questions concerning Scripture. If you do not want to discuss religion, then don't ask any questions concerning it. But we are here to discuss the Bible, because it concerns Jesus.

 

If you say that i have not read the words of Krishna, then you did not say anything that Krishna has said. Why then did you say that Krishna said those things?

 

I do not have anything against the Buddha, nor Krishna; i just don't necessarily agree with them. I have read some of the things the Buddha has said. It was not easy finding some of his words in English, at least for free. But that was a long time ago, back when i was studying karma, dharma and that third word that sounds like the first two but i cannot remember.

 

It is rather unfortunate for you to have not heard about King Ashoka who ruled one of the largest kingdoms ever in our recent history, he is probably one among the best evangelists buddhism and a very knowledgeable leader who contributed significantly to science, culture and arts. It is strongly debated that the scientists of King Ashoka discovered Jet Propulsion way before the nazis (oops americans).... the point here is that his name was inscribed on the works as the authority and emperor and the works are proof enough of his existence.... if thats not enough there are several hundreds of his mentions in the logs of Travelers and explorers..... But when it comes to Jesus Christ is there any other text, or reference except the HOLY BIBLE , No!! absolutely traceless.... I mean cmon even the Tomb is empty... Obviously they found archeological evidence and proof for King Ashoka (much to the dismay of the western scholars) but yeah in case of Christ is still awaited. So yes, as they say in the west... On paper Ashoka's life for all practical purposes is more logical than Christs, which is still fictional....

 

 

This implies that Allah, Rama, Buddha, Krishna, Zues, Osiris and the likes all existed coz the same conditions apply on them too... which means there are no myths... this is going to rattle the western community... coz for them this is uber mythology..... if u are a southerner then better watchout for those conservatives... so even simply stating that Christ existed doesnt prove his existence.... so yes under current social norms he is a MYTH, and the Bible a MYTHOLOGY.

No enlightened soul asks you to accept his sayings or teachings, it is our acceptance that gives them the GOD status.

 

It is indeed possible to state that Jesus or the God of the Abrahamic religions do not exist.

That's a joke!!! there are only 3 of them and look wat they have done.... it is global, never-ending and ever-intensifying catastrophe... I do not remember the last time they actually lived in peace. The three can only think of wiping each other off... if this is how it is to be "down to earth" i surely prefer something "up there"

 

 

 

I totally disagree..... the universe can imply more than one GOD... if the there exists a GOD of righteousness and imbalance the laws of nature imply the existence of a GOD of unrighteousness and imbalance... that is only when equilibrium is established.... the yin and the yang.... that makes 2 already..... everything in the universe exists due to multiple factors... life on earth (scientifically) is coz of millions of factors like the sun, the distance from the sun, the moon, the gravity of Jupiter, ozone layer, elements, polymers, proteins acids etc.... so y not when so many factors govern our existence, y cant multiple GODs work together to keep the cosmos the way it is.... every thing has a higher order governing it .... wat if the almighty GOD was to be deriving his power from a SUPERGOD an even higher consciousness and Power.... y not???

 

It may very well be a shame that this topic is the first time i've heard of Ashoka. But there are plenty of writings outside of the Bible that talk about Jesus and the Gospels and about the Jews, both from trusted and untrusted sources (e.g. Gnostic texts). Even till this day are people talking about Jesus. But can you tell me why the very books of the Bible are not enough? And according to Scripture, Jesus ascended into Heaven, so if anyone is trying to find his skeleton in some random tomb, they would be working in vain. Even so, no one can prove who the skeleton is without prior knowledge. This prior knowledge is almost always written.

 

It is true that all the people you have mentioned (though you should note that ''Allah'' is merely Arabic for ''God'') could have at one point in time existed. However, their historical descriptions help determine whether or not they really did. I won't deny that Rama, Buddha, Krishna, Zues or Osiris have existed, i will just assert that they could only have been either mere men or fictional characters (even though i do believe there is clear evidence showing that the Greek gods were fictional). It does not matter to me what the Western or Eastern societies think of what i say. Also note that the term ''myth'' does not imply falsehood; that is a misconception. For if myth implied falsehood, then you would not be able to prove any myths and the show Mythbusters would be pointless. It just so happens that most myths are false, but not all.

 

Of course it is possible to make statements and assertions; i never denied that. And the three have lived together in peace before and can live together in peace; it is not impossible for them to do so. If you do not remember the last time, you may visit the countries that they inhabit.

 

What do you mean that makes 2 already? You have only mentioned one god. Yin and yang? Those aren't gods, those are two parts of one symbol; a drawing; a creaton of man. Life on earth and the stability of the universe can very well be due to many factors, but that does not mean there is more than one God. Nothing of the universe can imply more than one God. And, no, it is not possible for there to be a God that created God. As mentioned before, anything created is not God. Likewise, a chain of creators forms a paradox, therefore it is illogical for there to be an infinte line of creators that created the one after it. It may be the case that there exists multiple gods, but the universe can only imply one God.

[sukhi 2]

Okay, i now definitely recommend that you reread my previous posts that you have responded to. Putting words in my mouth and then refuting that is called ''building a straw man.'' It is not surprising that my words would be contradicting in your eyes after you have mixed them up in a way that does not accurately represent what i have said. Perhaps if i could speak in your native tongue you would understand me.

 

Yes, i do find the Abrahamic religions more down to earth, but that is not the only reason why i choose to believe in them. Miracles are not illogical and they do not contradict reality. I do not understand why people believe that they do, for they do not. Having these things does not make it childish. A book need not contain only logic and psychology for it to be mature or not childish. If every book that doesn't contain those things are childish, then do you know just how many books you are calling childish?

 

You asked what authority Jesus had to say what he said. I did not need to prove anything for me to answer your question; i merely told you what Jesus said, what you have asked for. If you do not want me to answer your questions concerning Scripture, then do not ask any questions concerning Scripture. If you do not want to discuss religion, then don't ask any questions concerning it. But we are here to discuss the Bible, because it concerns Jesus.

 

If you say that i have not read the words of Krishna, then you did not say anything that Krishna has said. Why then did you say that Krishna said those things?

 

I do not have anything against the Buddha, nor Krishna; i just don't necessarily agree with them. I have read some of the things the Buddha has said. It was not easy finding some of his words in English, at least for free. But that was a long time ago, back when i was studying karma, dharma and that third word that sounds like the first two but i cannot remember.

 

 

It may very well be a shame that this topic is the first time i've heard of Ashoka. But there are plenty of writings outside of the Bible that talk about Jesus and the Gospels and about the Jews, both from trusted and untrusted sources (e.g. Gnostic texts). Even till this day are people talking about Jesus. But can you tell me why the very books of the Bible are not enough? And according to Scripture, Jesus ascended into Heaven, so if anyone is trying to find his skeleton in some random tomb, they would be working in vain. Even so, no one can prove who the skeleton is without prior knowledge. This prior knowledge is almost always written.

 

It is true that all the people you have mentioned (though you should note that ''Allah'' is merely Arabic for ''God'') could have at one point in time existed. However, their historical descriptions help determine whether or not they really did. I won't deny that Rama, Buddha, Krishna, Zues or Osiris have existed, i will just assert that they could only have been either mere men or fictional characters (even though i do believe there is clear evidence showing that the Greek gods were fictional). It does not matter to me what the Western or Eastern societies think of what i say. Also note that the term ''myth'' does not imply falsehood; that is a misconception. For if myth implied falsehood, then you would not be able to prove any myths and the show Mythbusters would be pointless. It just so happens that most myths are false, but not all.

 

Of course it is possible to make statements and assertions; i never denied that. And the three have lived together in peace before and can live together in peace; it is not impossible for them to do so. If you do not remember the last time, you may visit the countries that they inhabit.

 

What do you mean that makes 2 already? You have only mentioned one god. Yin and yang? Those aren't gods, those are two parts of one symbol; a drawing; a creaton of man. Life on earth and the stability of the universe can very well be due to many factors, but that does not mean there is more than one God. Nothing of the universe can imply more than one God. And, no, it is not possible for there to be a God that created God. As mentioned before, anything created is not God. Likewise, a chain of creators forms a paradox, therefore it is illogical for there to be an infinte line of creators that created the one after it. It may be the case that there exists multiple gods, but the universe can only imply one God.

 

Do you want me to psot when you said that radio carbon dating doesnt prove existence of Ashoka ??. you have clearly said that. So I am not putting words in your mouth.

Infact you are going what we say is tangential with all that you are saying. If you want to debate then debate statement by statement and not just saying a lot of words that confuse the reader. look at what you are saying :

Life on earth and the stability of the universe can very well be due to many factors, but that does not mean there is more than one God. Nothing of the universe can imply more than one God. And, no, it is not possible for there to be a God that created God. As mentioned before, anything created is not God. Likewise, a chain of creators forms a paradox, therefore it is

 

Clearly if the Christian God is the ULTIMATE GOD ( which is easy to prove he is not ) ..then why doesnt he come down to earth in human form or any Form ( as he can do anything ) and make the world a better place. Why does he has to send a son who doesnt achive anything that is peaceful after his death and performs small time miracles which a lot of Saints all over the world have done Like sai baba. Infact if Jesus was god's son then why didnt it happen that peace and honesty came down on human beings. You would surely agree

that after 2000yrs of Jesus existence , man has only degraded much and there is more corruption and wars eveywhere. Clearly you are missing the point. According to me Jesus was a good saint and that many like Jesus come and go. Only when God descends himself which he has done in the form of Krishna , Rama would things be set right for a a long time and then again the same set of events will occur. That is more logical than a unseen HE God who claims he is the final God but doesnt have the guts or mind or will to come down in any form and set an example of how life should be lead.

 

Also we are going away from the discussion. So all of us agree now that Jesus 's existence isnt proven historically till now ?

[Sheffield 0]

This thread is about JESUS.

[sukhi 2]

This thread is about JESUS.

It is not about Jesus It is about whether Jesus existed Historically. It has been proven by comparative studies ( as the persons who belive Jesus existed and do not belive that other great people from other societies existed) , archaelogical evidence ( none ) : It is proven that Jesus did not exist at all. Because if you base the existence of Jesus on books or gospels or christian sources then the same logic is applied to Rama ( Ramayan is a book that talks about his life and actions and places ). We have to apply logic and prove things when people say our diety existed becoz it is listed in our books and yours not because there is no archaelogical evidence and we dont trust your books .. hence by this logic and this is the only logic that can be applied for such cases ..then Jesus doesnt exist. Maybe we find a edict or a paper written by him then his historical authencity will be proven .. till then he is mythological for me like any other mythological figure.

[Sheffield 0]

It is not about Jesus It is about whether Jesus existed Historically. It has been proven by comparative studies ( as the persons who belive Jesus existed and do not belive that other great people from other societies existed) , archaelogical evidence ( none ) : It is proven that Jesus did not exist at all. Because if you base the existence of Jesus on books or gospels or christian sources then the same logic is applied to Rama ( Ramayan is a book that talks about his life and actions and places ). We have to apply logic and prove things when people say our diety existed becoz it is listed in our books and yours not because there is no archaelogical evidence and we dont trust your books .. hence by this logic and this is the only logic that can be applied for such cases ..then Jesus doesnt exist. Maybe we find a edict or a paper written by him then his historical authencity will be proven .. till then he is mythological for me like any other mythological figure.

Whatever you think about Jesus this thread is still about Him.
Edited June 13, 2010 by Sheffield (see edit history)

[sukhi 2]

Whatever you think about Jesus this thread is still about Him.

yo seem to be a freind of Truefusion and have come to pressurise people by repeating the lie again and again and then people will think that a lie is a true.
There is no proof of Christ existing historically. Period. Do you agree to this or not ? I have given enough arguments for it and all know it is true. We are living in the age of reason and your methods of trying to say Christ existed is laughable. So do you agree that if Jesus existed then Krishna existed by the same yardstick of logic that you say : literary sources ? Yes or No i want . I dont want you to do the typical christian way of finding corners and never speaking logic and giving correct answers.

btw your statement of addressing him as Him made your cover open. You are a blind christian cult guy. Sorry to say this but that is true.

Jesus is a good saint i still agree and from the start i have said the same .. but unless archaelogical proof is found ... he is as good as a legend as Krishna or Greek Gods !
Edited June 13, 2010 by sukhi (see edit history)

[Sheffield 0]

yo seem to be a freind of Truefusion and have come to pressurise people by repeating the lie again and again and then people will think that a lie is a true.There is no proof of Christ existing historically. Period. Do you agree to this or not ? I have given enough arguments for it and all know it is true. We are living in the age of reason and your methods of trying to say Christ existed is laughable. So do you agree that if Jesus existed then Krishna existed by the same yardstick of logic that you say : literary sources ? Yes or No i want . I dont want you to do the typical christian way of finding corners and never speaking logic and giving correct answers.

btw your statement of addressing him as Him made your cover open. You are a blind christian cult guy. Sorry to say this but that is true.

Jesus is a good saint i still agree and from the start i have said the same .. but unless archaelogical proof is found ... he is as good as a legend as Krishna or Greek Gods !

You want archaeological proof!

Christianity is the teaching of Jesus. No Jesus, no Christianity. You want proof of Him, what can't speak can't lie

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-catacombs

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Edited June 13, 2010 by Sheffield (see edit history)

[sukhi 2]

You want archaeological proof!
Christianity is the teaching of Jesus. No Jesus, no Christianity. You want proof of Him, what can't speak can't lie

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

I dont want to read all the crap that you have posted. It is just to confuse people.
My question is simple : Do you agree that Krishna Existed if Jesus exists only in the domain of Literature of the believers ?

Please dont quote me sites ..I can quote you more that he doesnt exist .. so answer my question first Did Krishna exist .. If your answer is No then Jesus also did not exist.

[Sheffield 0]

I dont want to read all the crap that you have posted. It is just to confuse people.My question is simple : Do you agree that Krishna Existed if Jesus exists only in the domain of Literature of the believers ?

Please dont quote me sites ..I can quote you more that he doesnt exist .. so answer my question first Did Krishna exist .. If your answer is No then Jesus also did not exist.

You cannot be serious, unless you are telling me Krishna is the Hindu name for Jesus. In which case you need to worship Jesus who was real.
Edited June 13, 2010 by Sheffield (see edit history)

[sukhi 2]

You cannot be serious, unless you are telling me Krishna is the Hindu name for Jesus. In which case you need to worship Jesus who was real.

No I am not saying Krishna is Jesus. I am saying do you agree that Krishna Existed ?

[Sheffield 0]

No I am not saying Krishna is Jesus. I am saying do you agree that Krishna Existed ?

Not a chance. Krishna no more existed that the man in the Moon.

[sukhi 2]

Not a chance. Krishna no more existed that the man in the Moon.

Thanks Sheffield. I wanted you to post this. My argument rests there . Jesus Doesnt exist. Figure out how

[Sheffield 0]

Thanks Sheffield. I wanted you to post this. My argument rests there . Jesus Doesnt exist. Figure out how

Will you please attempt to figure out what B.C .and A.D. ("Before Christ" and "After Christ") mean in relation to the calendar.

Thank you.

[sukhi 2]

Will you please attempt to figure out what B.C .and A.D. (''Before Christ'' and ''After Christ'') mean in relation to the calendar.

 

Thank you.

 

From Wiki :

 

Anno Domini (abbreviated as AD or A.D., sometimes found in the irregular form Anno Domine) and Before Christ (abbreviated as BC or B.C.) are designations used to label years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

 

they are used in Julian and Gregorian calendars. Christian Sources again. Same is with Krishna who has existed around 5100 BP acording to Hindu Calender so still we are on same plank : Both exists but no archealogical proof from this argument that you gave of B.C and A.D.

 

Sorry they found out that BC and AD are not reliable in the scientific and historical community and hence read below :

 

From Wiki :

 

Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the ''present'' time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the arbitrary origin of the age scale. For example, 1500 BP means 1500 years before 1950, that is, in the year 450 AD.

 

We use this scale now as it is more scientific. Doesnt prove Jesus Existed historically in fact your arguments are further weaking the existence of Jesus.

 

So do you accept that Krishna Existed ?

Edited June 13, 2010 by truefusion (see edit history)